Israel Shamir to Nigel Perry
- Response to Nigel Perry
By Israel Shamir
Mr Perry has worries. He is not worried about Palestinian refugees
or about dried up rivers of Palestine. He is worried that a
newspaper I quoted had a link with Holocaust deniers. "We are only
one click away from common or garden variety Holocaust denial».
Well, it is his worry. I am not worried at all by the `deniers'
or `revisionists'. My opinion on this subject was expressed in the
Vampire Killers. But for Perry, as for every employee of the Jewish
lobby, holocaust cult is the quintessence of holiness. You can deny
Deir Yassin or Immaculate Conception, they would not move a eyelid.
Only Holocaust is of interest for them.
Perry pushes it even further, `Shamir trying to sell apparently
stolen Nazi memorabilia to David Irving, who is arguably the most
famous Holocaust denier of our times'. In this sentence only names
are spelt correct, all the rest is a lie, but let us, for the sake
of argument, disregard it. After all, a lie speaks more than truth
about its inventor.
What is wrong, in Perry's mind, with David Irving? For me, a mass
murder is a mass murder. Mass murder of Auschwitz is not better
neither worse than mass murder of Dresden or Hiroshima. Both are
irrelevant to the Palestinian conflict. As for denial, Shimon Peres
denied the mass murder of Armenians, and somehow nobody is horrified.
On Wednesday, the 21st of June, a Paris court condemned Bernard
Lewis, professor of Middle Eastern History at Princeton University
for having denied the Armenian Genocide in an interview with "Le
Monde", one of France's most renowned dailies. On Friday, 23
June, "Le Monde" reported about the sentence, as it was ordered to
do by the court, on page 11.
It made absolutely no harm to Bernard Lewis. A leading figure of Not
In My Name, Jewish pro-Palestinian organization, did not deny but
justified the mass murder of Palestinian Christians in AD 614 (they
were bad to Jews and deserved their death, he wrote), and he
remained a best friend of Abu Nimah and Perry. Irving has his ideas
on the scope of the mass murder of Jews during WWII. These ideas
were recently voiced by the well known columnist of the Nation,
Christopher Hitchens, and the mass murderer of Cambodians, Henry
Kissinger, attacked him for `holocaust denial'.
Norman Finkelstein criticized the idea of the Jewish holocaust
having no precedents, and mentioned that proposed signs of the
Jewish holocaust's uniqueness are just specific signs of this
holocaust. All holocausts are dissimilar, as unhappy families in the
opening of Tolstoy's Anna Karenina. I would add, the idea of the
Jewish holocaust's uniqueness is based on a single premise: that of
Jewish uniqueness. `Denial' or `holocaust' wasn't ever a dispute
about the events of the WWII. It is about power, about present
powerful position of the American Jewish establishment and its
Israeli offshoot. It is a frightener: whatever you say, you are not
allowed to discuss, nay, mention the question of the Jewish power in
Maxim Rodinson, a noted French Marxist and biographer of the
Prophet, defined Israel as `a settler state', a colony. But every
settler state has its mother country, the source of external power.
French Algerie was manned and supported by France. What is the
external power supporting Israel? What is its mother country? It is
not the US, it is the network of Jewish communities around the world
led by the American Jewish community, the World Jewry. The US was a
settler state, whose mother country was England. Later, the tables
were turned, and the US became more prominent. Similar development
took place in Brazil, that became more prominent than Portugal.
Maybe Israel will become more prominent than its `mother country',
the overseas Jewish communities, but it did not happen yet.
The Algerian comparison helps to understand things. Imagine you are
an Algerian visiting pre-Evian France. In these days French army
killed and tortured thousands of Algerians. In France you would meet
many French supporters of Algerian Arab people, and probably you
will come to a conclusion: it is not France fights us, it is the
French settlers in Algerie. But it would be a wrong conclusion: the
war was carried out by the might of France. France not the French
settlers in Algerie was criticized in the UN and demanded to put
end to the war. French supporters of Algerian Arab cause knew they
fight against France. They thought that there are things more
important than consanguinity.
American Jews, supporters of the Palestinian cause, will do well if
they will consider it. The war in Palestine is carried out by the
offshoot of the American Jewry, and it will be won or lost in the
US. The real power of the Jews is not just money, it is our strong
influence over historical narrative achieved by holding (and
sometimes misusing) important positions in the academy, media, study
of arts. It is a delicate subject, and an American Jewish thinker
Isaac Asimov turned to sci-fi in order to express his feelings. In
his Foundation, he speaks of `guardians of the historical
narrative'. Still, this subject has to be discussed, not necessarily
on a Palestinian mail list, but here too.
The permitted discourse on Palestine is a mainstream Jewish
discourse, between hard Jews of Kahane type and the soft Peace Now.
It always takes for granted necessity of sustaining Jewishness of
Israel. This precondition excludes real solution of our problems.
Nigel Perry is an enforcer of PC, Political Correctness. He proudly
mentions many years of involvement with Palestinian cause. Well,
such guys are one of the reasons why the Palestinian cause looks the
way it does. He writes: `Shamir suggested that the only thing that
would assist the cause of Palestinian liberation is the denigration
and marginalization of the American Jewish community. Needless to
say, both this analysis of the supposed problem and solution is
intellectually and morally bankrupt'.
Perry lies and misleads. To point out the excessive influence of a
group is not `to denigrate'. To pass the power of discourse to
people at large is not `to marginalize'. Yes, the discourse should
be changed and its base democratized, in America, Europe and
elsewhere. That was the great idea of Edward Said, expressed in his
Present positions of the American Jewish `guardians of historical
narrative' are unsustainable, they are also damaging. Democracy in
Palestine, for me, was always a symbol of democracy for all. Removal
of Jewish extra rights in Palestine is connected with removal of
Jewish extra rights in America. People should be equal and have
equal access to discourse, in my opinion.
Maybe I am mistaken. But Perry's argument shows the true interest of
Perry. He takes care of his Jewish American employers and enforces
their line in the Palestinian circles. I worry about you, the
excluded ones, I write for you to help you with the discourse.
Perry wrote: `It is worth noting that Shamir's response to the
Abunimah/Ibish letter contains no actual denial of anti-
Semitism. "Any irrational aversion to Jews should be certainly
eradicated and condemned," is the closest he got. Not "I am not anti-
Semitic" or any formulation so simple'.
For me, the A-s word has no definite meaning. If it means biological
aversion to the descendents of Jews, I think it is bad. If it means
dissatisfaction with the important positions held by the organized
Jewry, it is reasonable. These positions are not sustainable anyway.
Ethnic and religious minorities can dominate the Imperial discourse,
as Greeks did in the Ottoman Empire, but only as long as they
identify themselves with the true imperial interest. Otherwise,
there will be a painful divorce.
The holocaust discussion appears to me a hidden crypto-religious
discourse similar to the `filioque' argument between the Orthodox
and the Catholic churches, or a dispute about Caliph succession
between Sunni and Shiah Islam. The sides say one thing, but mean
something different. It is a crypto-discussion about Jewish power,
as the Islamic discussion was an argument between power groups. I
would say: drop this oblique talk, let Auschwitz rest in peace,
speak about the real problem.
It has nothing to do with `guilt', as French feel no guilt for a
million of killed Algerians, nor Americans care about the murdered
Vietnamese. `The guilt feeling for the Jewish holocaust' is just a
form of submission to the Jewish power. In the same way, confession
of sins in the Catholic Church was a form of submission to the
As long as the participants of the discussion accept guidance of
Nigel Perry and other crypto-supporters of Jewish exclusivity, they
are bound to lose. The Western world is ripe for the real discussion
of the real Jewish power, without fear of anti-Semitic labeling.
After all, we are able to discuss the power of aristocracy, despite
the aristocrats' enormous suffering in the terror of 1793.
Would `the hate laws' apply to a discourse on the vestiges of the
WORLD VIEW NEWS SERVICE
To subscribe to this group, send an email to:
NEWS ARCHIVE IS OPEN TO PUBLIC VIEW