Joh Domingo deconstructs Avnery's Eggs
My favorite Zionist, Uri Avnery is at it again. This time he writes
about the danger facing the Jewish Community because of the
activities of Jews in the Diaspora. He could easily have said, "I
wish those big-mouth Jews would pull their heads in, they are giving
people an excuse to be anti-Semitic." But that would not be enough
for an article, and he wanted to write an article, even if he felt
particularly uninspired at the time. So he uses canards as filler,
and what a mess of innuendo, falsehoods, and scuttlebutt it is. It is
called `Eggs in One Basket' and dearly poses a challenge to my
fondness for him.
First off he introduces the `Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion'
which he characterizes as a document that the Russian Czar Secret
Police "cobbled together", in the same way, I suppose, that he
`cobbles together' his piece. It is an intriguing document, this
`Protocols' and invariably it is characterized as being a `forged'
and a plagiarized version of Maurice Joly's book `Dialogues in Hell
between Machiavelli and Montesquieu'. Of course most people have not
read `The Protocols', let alone Joly's `Dialogues'. But that is why
there exist scholars - inquisitive people that have a habit of
spoiling the fun. Australia's Peter Myers has taken the trouble to
examine the definitive texts regarding the theory that `The
Protocols' are directly derived from Joly's "Dialogues'; Norman
Cohn's `Warrant for Genocide', and Herman Bernstein's `The Truth
about the Protocols of Zion: A Complete Exposure'
We will not indulge ourselves in a long synopsis of Peters Myers
lengthy and multi-part essay on the `Protocols', but sufficed to say
that there are numerous differences between the `Dialogues', and the
`Protocols' which Avnery attempts to suggest it is a direct copy of.
Firstly, the `Dialogues' is one-sixteenth the size of the
`Protocols'. They are different in plot and theme as well; in the
`Dialogues', the conspirator is the Monarch (Napoleon III),
preventing the people from installing a People's Democracy. It is
localized, with Napoleon resisting the revolutionaries. The Narrative
is written after the event and the Monarch's plot avoids violence and
he is for religion.
Compare this to the Protocols, which is a conspiracy that anticipates
a regime to come. It is a revolutionary regime that is manipulated by
a shadowy group that makes the masses believe that they are for them.
The plot is International in scope and envisions violence as an
integral tool of the conspiracy in which the revolution is
manipulated to introduce a regime that is previously unknown in
Whatever the merits of the `Protocols', it cannot be dismissed so
easily, as Avnery attempts to do here. But it is clear why he tries
to do so anyway, the insight contained in the `Protocols' has been
irritatingly prescient; "In a way, the lies of the Protocols have
fulfilled themselves. `America controls the world,' the anti-Semites
now say, `and the Jews control America.'"
Who are you going to believe, Avnery or your lying eyes?
Poor old Uri is in a bind, "the lies of the Protocols have fullfilled
"According to the anti-Semites, these Jews sold the war to the United
States with mendacious arguments, in order to eliminate Israel's most
dangerous enemy in the Middle East, Iraq. Now they are conspiring
against Israel's two remaining enemies, Syria and Iran."
How inconvenient! But there is still spin; the neo-cons (I suppose we
might as well face it, they are Jews) could not have done
this "without the influence of another group in Washington, much more
powerful, and much less visible: the oil people." Naturally Avnery
would not just make such a statement without providing some
justification as to why these "oil People" would apply their
influence. He informs that "Their aim was not only to take over the
huge oil reserves of Iraq itself, but also to locate a permanent
American military and political base between the immense oil
resources of the Caspian Sea in the North and the Persian/Arabian
gulf in the South. This, they argue, is necessary in order to assure
American dominance in a world in which oil is a dwindling resource of
fundamental importance to all industrialized economies."
I won't delve into the theory that the war on Iraq was all about
controlling oil, it seems too far-fetched. Oil is a commodity,
controlled by the commodities market. It is a relatively easy process
to control the commodities market, if one is so inclined and have the
financial resources to do it. No need to spend 200 Billion dollars
and countless lives to do so. But Avnery is arguing that one would
want to control it because it is a dwindling resource. I don't
suppose he would by now be aware of the raging (non)debate
surrounding the notion of `Peak Oil' that was so artfully skewered by
"As anyone who stayed awake during elementary school science class
knows, oil comes from dinosaurs. I remember as a kid (calm down,
folks; there will be no Brady Bunch references this week) seeing some
kind of 'public service' spot explaining how dinosaurs "gave their
all" so that we could one day have oil. It seemed a reasonable enough
idea at the time -- from the perspective of an eight-year-old. But
if, as an adult, you really stop to give it some thought, doesn't the
idea seem a little, uhmm ... what's the word I'm looking for
here? ... oh yeah, I remember now ... preposterous."
Let me help Uri out here; Oil is not a dwindling resource. In fact,
Russia has recently surpassed Saudi Arabia as the largest producer of
Oil after basing their oil research on the notion that oil is
produced abiotically, ie it is produced by a combination of non-
organic gasses transformed by enormous pressure deep underground.
This is an ongoing process, and research into this phenomenon has
caused the Russians to drill deep wells in order to find oil, with
great success. It is unlikely that the `oil people' would be unaware
of this, making the assumption that they would engage in war to
control `dwindling' supplies unlikely.
But Avnery has a few more `anti-Semitic canard' arrows in his quiver,
and he aims to make use of them.
"Somebody once said that if AIPAC, the pro-Israeli Jewish lobby,
submitted a resolution to Congress abolishing the Ten Commandments,
80 senators and 400 congressmen would sign on the first day...
The anti-Semitic publications stress these facts - which are true in
themselves - in order to prove that the Jews control the world. But
reality is more complex by far."
Ugh! Those anti-Semites, always exploiting the....facts. Avnery uses
hyperbole of course in order to make his non-argument. Nobody is
suggesting that Jews control the World. What they are suggesting is
that some Jews, manipulate some non-Jews, who happen to control the
apparatus of State, of the Country with the most powerful military on
Earth, in an attempt to bring some of it to bear on the enemies of
Jews. A wee bit more `complex' tha "Jews control the World". In order
to highlight this flapdoodle, he balances the influence of Jews with
the influence of other groups that want to bomb Arabs: "the American
Rifle Association, the lobbies of physicians and trial lawyers and
Perhaps conscious that he is being more than a little ridiculous,
Avnery tacks on "the even more powerful Christian Evangelists." Anti-
Semites, we are told, are peeved that Christian Zionism provides a
foil for their notion that `Jews rule the World." Of course, it is
true, no Christian Zionist has been evicted from Congress by the
Jewish lobby, so they must be powerful. And no Christian Zionist has
given a Jew an airplane, to help them further the cause of Christian
Zionism, as when Jerry Farwell was given one by the Israeli
government, in order to further the cause of Zionism. So, it is clear
who holds the whip here. But is this really a foil for the argument
that `Jews rule the World', or a foil for an argument that `only Jews
rule the World'. Avnery neglects to state clearly that Christian
Zionist are a considered ally of the Jewish elite, in their efforts
to bring American firepower to bear against Israel's enemies.
Equally misleading is Avnery's argument that Christian Evangelist
invented Christian Zionism long before Hertzl invented Zionism.
Charles Carlson provides some pertinent information regarding
Christian Zionism is his long essay entitled `The Source of the
Problem in the Mid East - Part II Why Judeo-Christians Support War'
in which he details the work of several Christian Scholars including
the redoubtable Stephen Sizer.
"We Hold These Truths is grateful to these dedicated researchers. Our
own examination of the Oxford Bible has gone in another direction,
focusing not on what Scofield wrote, but on some of the many
additions and deletions The Oxford University Press has continued to
make to Scofield Reference Bible since his death in 1921. These
alterations have further radicalized the Scofield Bible into a manual
for the Christian worship of the State of Israel beyond what
Schofield would have dreamed of. This un-Christian anti-Arab theology
has permitted the theft of Palestine and 54 years of death and
destruction against the Palestinians, with hardly a complaint from
the Judeo-Christian mass media evangelists or most other American
church leaders. We thank God for the exceptions. It is no
exaggeration to say that the 1967 Oxford 4th Edition deifies- -makes
a God of--the State of Israel, a state that did not even exist when
Scofield wrote the original footnotes in 1908. This writer believes
that, had it not been for misguided anti-Arab race hatred promoted by
Christian Zionist leaders in America, neither the Gulf War nor the
Israeli war against the Palestinians would have occurred, and a
million or more people who have perished would be alive today. What
proof does WHTT have to incriminate World Zionism in a scheme to
control Christianity? For proof we offer the words themselves that
were planted in the 1967 Edition, 20 years after the State of Israel
was created in 1947, and 46 years after Scofield's death. The words
tell us that those who control the Oxford Press recreated a bible to
misguide Christians and sell flaming Zionism in the churches of
Although Christian Zionism can be traced to John Nelson Darby,
Scofield was the tool by which World Zionism sought to slowly develop
a Christianity subset that supports Zionism. It is amazing how anti-
Semites manage to find more facts to support their insane theory that
`Jews rule the World' and it is unfortunate that Zionist always
manage to fall into their well-laid traps.
I will not comment about Jews being unable to join all the important
clubs, since I have been singularly unsuccessful in joining any
Despite Avnery's distress at the annoying penchant of anti-Semites to
pick the obvious Jewish hand in current events, he seems to have
developed this disagreeable habit himself and takes it upon himself
to warn his brethren about it, lest the growing anti-Semite army do
First published on Togethernet, the freest egroup in the known
WORLD VIEW NEWS SERVICE
To subscribe to this group, send an email to:
NEWS ARCHIVE IS OPEN TO PUBLIC VIEW