    Last year, a prominent Israeli dissident Ilan Halevi wrote an article
    where he referred to me in less than flattering terms. The article (in
    French) can be seen on:
    http://www.solidarite-palestine.org/rdp-int-030522-2.html Now it was
    re-published in Norwegian Communist paper Klassekampen, and I responded
    to it. My response was also published by the Norwegians. Here is my
    response to Halevi (French follows):

    Response to Halevi.

    Ilan Halevi is one of the best Israelis; a man who made the right
    choice. His essay (Once again concerning Zionism and anti-semitism) is
    also good and rather correct. But there are few points that could be and
    should be debated in a comradely way.

    The most important error of Halevi is that he subscribes to
    well-debunked Chomsky's Thesis that "it is not the tail which wiggles
    the dog". In his words, 'the capacity of the "lobby" on the American
    policy would be nothing without its ally White-Christian, evangelists
    and Reborn Christians, the same republican ultra-right-wing side which
    weakened Clinton through the Lewinsky business and orchestrated the
    fraudulent electoral putsch which put Bush at the capacity'. As a matter
    of fact, Clinton was equally indebted to the Jewish Lobby, and so will
    be John Kerry with his recently discovered Jewish roots and explicit
    support of Israel. It is intellectually dishonest to present the
    Republican Party as the only supporter of Zionism and Israel -- as the
    Democrats, while being enemies to "the same republican ultra-right-wing
    side", are even more devoted to Israel and get the majority of Jewish
    votes and Jewish money. Indeed, according to Israeli sources, over 70%
    of all contributions for the Democratic candidate are provided by Jews;
    Jews also provide meagre 35% of all contributions for the Republican
    candidate.

    No party in the US can hope to rule without support of Jewish money and
    of Jewish positions in media and academia. It is not the tail, but brain
    of the dog; at least, an important part of the brain. It is also a bit
    of sugar that makes the dog crawl. While Israel is an obsession with the
    Jews, there is no chance for a change in the US position on the Middle
    East. Thus an honest enemy of Jewish apartheid in Palestine has a
    choice: or he should try to convince the American Jews to give up or to
    moderate their support for Israel (that is the way of Jewish Left) or he
    should try to undermine the Jewish influence in the US; much more
    formidable task, and it is not strange that many good people shrink from
    it. But there is no place for the 'third position' of Halevi, claiming
    that there is no elephant in this sitting room.

    For sure there is little direct influence of Israel on America; but
    Israel and extremely powerful American Jewry have an intricate and
    intimate relationship that causes the present aberration of American
    Middle Eastern policy. We may remember that Jews are just a small part
    of American population (2%), but they are full 30% of the American
    elites. Consequently we may consider historical precedents of inordinate
    Jewish influence in the past, as it was proposed by Benjamin Ginsberg,
    Professor of Political Science at John Hopkins University, in his book
    The Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State, University of Chicago Pres,
    Chicago 1993) inter alia. This historical analysis can provide us with
    tools for understanding the problem and dealing with it.

    Ilan Halevi may call this approach 'antisemitic', but it is just
    historical materialist treatment free of all emotions, be it hate or
    adulation. Nor do I call to persecute or discriminate against Jews; au
    contraire, I call for equal rights of Jews and non-Jews, including equal
    influence of the government in the countries they live. Equal - not for
    privileges.

    Referring to me, Ilan Halevi writes: "That Israel Shamir, journalist
    Russo-Israeli recently converted with Christianity, and who seems to
    have, by the same occasion, rocked of the most radical antisionism to
    the Christian antijudaïsm most banal, takes again these ineptitudes by
    showing the Jews to have started the second world war, here which should
    not mislead anybody, in particular not our Marseilles comrades". Again,
    Halevi rejects historical analysis. Of course Hitler was willing to set
    the world on fire, as he showed on the 1st September, 1939. But he was
    not the only politician pushing for war. Prominent Jews of that time and
    of present time never concealed, nay, were and are proud of promoting
    the war against Nazi Germany, like the Jewish establishment of today is
    actually proud of its support for the Iraqi war. Naturally they weren't
    the only ones; but since when it is considered to be a defence?

    And lastly, Christian antijudaism is not banal but deep and important.
    In my view, and in the view of vast majority of Jews, the State of
    Israel and its policies and actions represent Judaism; the same Judaism
    that was repudiated by St Paul and the Prophet Muhammad for the same
    good reasons. Again, Ilan Halevi is free to consider Zionism a one-time
    aberration in the Jewish history. But I follow Israel Shahak and others
    and view this movement in historical and ideological continuity with the
    Jewish past.

    Israel Shamir