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