THE NEW AMERICAN CENTURY is a compelling factual history of neoconservatism and its influence on US Foreign Policy in the Middle East during the first decade of the twenty-first century. Click on image above for details.

Saturday, November 15, 2008


The ultra right-wing neoconservative Israeli Zionist, Daniel Pipes, famously wrote in 2005 an article which has become the standard cry of Zionist propagandists who attempt to argue that being anti-Islam is not being racist. His article, entitled ‘Anti-Muslim Racism?’, appeared in the 22 November 2005 edition of the ‘New York Sun’. Pipes simplistically argues that being anti-Muslim or anti-Islam is not racist because Islam is a religion and not a race.

For Pipes the notion of ‘racism’ is limited to the blood and biological differences of defined races of mankind and the negative interactions that can result from the perceptions of superiority that one group may develop over another. He rejects entirely the notion that racism may extend beyond blood and biology into what has become referred to as the ‘New Racism’ which is the racism of culture and religion.

Other extreme right-wing Zionists and their supporters argue that being anti-Zionist is racism. Indeed, one extremist Zionist activist, Judea Pearl, argues in an article titled ‘Anti-Zionism is Racism’ that to be ‘anti-Zionist’ is an “even worse form of racism than anti-Semitism”.

Inasmuch that Zionism is not a race by Pipes definition then Pearls argument is invalidated by Pipes’. Pearl’s argument is also invalidated even when one accepts the ‘New Racism’ of ‘religion and culture’ since Zionism, as well as not being a race, is hardly a religion and is actually a political construct rather than a cultural entity. Zionism, therefore, doesn’t fit within any definition of ‘racism’. It’s as much a political ideology as Nazism, Stalinism or any other political ‘ism’ and to claim that ‘anti-Zionism is racism’ while not accepting the concept of the ‘New Racism’ is pure deceit.

Pipes argument also falls by the wayside from the point of view that only a very small percentage of the worlds Jewry are actually racially Jewish. There have, of course, been for millennium varying degrees of anti-Semitism aimed specifically but often inappropriately at racial Jews; a racism that culminated in the Nazis attempted destruction of European Jewry. Zionists all over the world have ever since successfully managed to claim that the resulting Holocaust was an exclusively anti-Semitic event, a claim that disregards the hundreds of thousands of non-Jews that were also murdered in the Holocaust and the millions of Slavic, Polish and Russian peoples that perished during that horrific period, not to mention the fate Hitler had planned for the teeming millions of other Russians and Central Asians that also would have perished had Hitler prevailed entirely over the Soviet Union.

The reality is that most of the world now accepts that the racism of religion and culture is as much an evil as the racism of blood and biology. For the Zionists of this world, together with their supporters and propagandists, the rhetoric of ‘anti-Zionism is Racism’ and ‘anti-Islam is not’ is increasingly becoming seen as a label that displays an ignorance and arrogance that exposes the Zionist extremists and their supporters to be the real racists of the twenty-first century.


Anonymous said...

Zionism, as a political construct, is the national liberation movement of the Jewish people. It is their method by which the Jewish people seek to gain self-determination.

To oppose the right of self-determinaton of the Jewish people, while failing to apply this to any other people, (including the 2 dozen odd Islamic or Arab countries of the Arab League) is racist.

To demand that the national self-determination of the Jewish nation be dissolved, while not advocating similar for others, is discriminatory and bigoted.

Hence many anti-Zionists are racists, due to the injustice of their selective outrage.

Damian Lataan said...

The problem is the Zionists want to gain their ‘self determination’ at the expense of the Palestinian people. The Zionists are on land that does not belong to them. The other problem with your argument is that the vast majority of the world’s Jewish people aren’t in the slightest bit interested in ‘self-determination’; they’re quite happy living where they are throughout the Diaspora. It’s only a handful of extreme rightwing Zionists who want to have an exclusively Jewish state that are interested in what you call ‘self determination’. There’s nothing more racist than demanding land that doesn’t belong to you for the purposes of creating an exclusively Jewish state to the exclusion of those others that originally lived there.

Anonymous said...

Both peoples should be able to have a state.

It is highly inaccurate to say that "the vast majority of the world’s Jewish people aren’t in the slightest bit interested in 'self-determination'; they’re quite happy living where they are throughout the Diaspora"

In fact the world Jewish population currently exists at approx 13 million.

The Jewish population of Israel stands at about 6 million.

In other words, almost half of the world's Jews live in Israel.

No "vast majority" there.

As for the second counter-point. Science says it's erroneous to state that "The Zionists are on land that does not belong to them"

Who said that? What proof exists of this? Science (archaeology) has shown ample evidence of the Jewish existence on their traditional land. Moreover, science has also confirmed the existence of both former Jewish states, the former Kingdoms of Judea and Israel.

It's not to say that just because they existsed prior means they should exist again, but rather it goes to prove that the land has in fact been theirs prior, and this debunks the "land is not theirs" theory. Anyway, Palestinian Arabs migrated to the area in the 7th Century AD, millenia after trhe advent of Judaism.

And there is no reason to apply discriminatory standards to deny the right to self-determination of 6 million Jews on a land that both archaeology and culture reveal to be their traditional home.

In order to attempt to apply such standard, one would need to apply it comprehensively throughout the world, and not just selectively target the Jews for such racist treatment.

Damian Lataan said...

While more than half the world’s Jewish population lives outside of Israel, there are a lot of Israelis that are not interested in the kind of ‘self determination’ that the Zionists want, i.e., a Greater Israel at the expense of the Palestinians, the Syrians and the Lebanese.

There is much evidence to suggest that many peoples over the millenniums have occupied these lands. That does not give the right to any one of them to claim exclusive rights to the lands. Most Jews who have immigrated to Israel have absolutely no connections to the lands they claim. Most Palestinians, however, do. No one group has any greater claim than another which is why it is essential that the binational one-state solution eventually prevails. That way both peoples, as you suggest, get a state but at the moment the only people applying ‘discriminatory standards’ are the Zionists.

One wonders how the world would be if, say, the Aboriginal peoples of Australia decided to reclaim their country as an exclusively Aboriginal nation. Or how about Native Americans?

An exclusively Jewish state is a racist state.

Anonymous said...

Outgoing Israeli PM Ehud Olmert recently called any Israeli who still believes in the outdated "Greater Israel" plan as "crazies".

It's not just 20th Century politics, it's mid-20th Century politics. No political majority in Israel currently advocates this, and neither have any done so for at least 30 years. It's like you're fighting yesterday's battles today. Where do you get this apparent "Greater Israel" goal from? I'll send you a small fortune if you can point it out on any of the major parties' platforms.

An exclusively Jewish state would be as bad as the religious apartheid that is Saudi Arabia, or the largely Christian USA, and certainly the Libyan state. Of course, Israel is not such, as you have already stated, there are plenty minorities already living there. (And it's far more tolerant than, say, Jordan, where Jews are prohibited from becoming citizens). But not calling for the same treatment to be dished out to these others is clearly applying a selective policy, hence its inherent racism.

In order for us not to be considered racists who implement a policy that denies one people only, we need to apply this denial of self-determination across the board.

We could start with Cuba, for example. It could be merged with the United States to form a sort of "bi-national" state.

And we'd need to keep going.

If you extrapolate to the fullest, we'd end up with an almost borderless world, for good or bad.

Damian Lataan said...

Greater Israel is the lands that Israeli Zionists, including the Likud Party, covet beyond those that they occupy today and have otherwise occupied since 1948. The Likud Charter calls for the annexation of the West Bank which they took in 1967, the Gaza Strip and the Golan Heights, which has already been annexed. Israeli Zionists are also interested in Lebanon up to the Litani River and have twice attempted to take these lands in very recent history. They also wish to annex all of Jerusalem.

The Likud charter in part reads: The Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza are the realization of Zionist values. Settlement of the land is a clear expression of the unassailable right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel.

Please send your small fortune to me at your earliest convenience. My address is Damian Lataan, C/- Post Office, Verdun, SA 5245, Australia.

Borderless World? Great idea!

Anonymous said...

Hold on a second!

That cheque in the mail is worthless at present!

"Greater Israel" has often been referred to as from the Nile to the Sea.

Yasser Arafat himself referred to it as such.

And there's a whole lot of Egypt separating Israel from the Nile, including the entire Sinai Peninsula. And not even the most strident Israel critic today claims that she wants the Sinai, or land up to the Nile, in her Kingdom.

A borderless world, if you think it's a good idea, has to be argued on equal merits for everyone.

Like the "anti-Zionist" cloak, one cannot continually singe out only Israel, and yet lay claim to adopting the idea for the whole world.

Damian Lataan said...

Like Hitler’s dream of a Grosse Deutschland (Greater Germany) stretching from the Atlantic to beyond the Urals, the dream of a Greater Israel stretching from the Nile to the Euphrates also had to be modified due to the peoples of the various lands involved having slightly different ambitions for their destiny. Zionists have since had to modify their dreams somewhat since realising that the ‘Nile to the Euphrates’ meme tended to be a little over ambitious.

Why would anyone want to argue that a borderless world is not a good idea? For centuries moving around South America has never been a real problem. Today most Europeans are free to travel wherever they wish within Europe. Eventually there will inevitably be a borderless world. The irony is that the last nations that are likely tear down their border is the US and Israel; those two countries that shout the loudest about ‘freedom’.

Anonymous said...

I dunno, the Maxist-Leninist inspired gang that run North Korea have a far more stringent border policy.

Like, executing those who leave,

never mind halting those wanting to enter.

You don't get the most-isolated-regime-in-the-world title without some effort!

Give them their due!

And Belarus, amongst other freedom-hating dictatorships, do a pretty good job of it too.

They learnt from the best: The Socialist's Berlin Wall.

Now there's a border!

Damian Lataan said...

Since when was NK inspired by Marx or Lenin? You’ve been reading far too much anti-NK propaganda. And what does the Berlin Wall have to do with anything – especially socialism?

Are you one of those loons that think Stalin, Mao and Kim were all ‘left-wing’ just because they called themselves ‘communists’ and ‘socialists’? These people were more to the right than Hitler! You might recall that Hitler actually called his party the National Socialist German Workers Party. The reality was that there was nothing remotely ‘socialist’ about the Nazis and Hitler’s interest in the welfare of the German workers was about as pitiful as Stalin’s was.

Try another tack sunshine, you’re barking up the wrong tree with this crap.

And change your syntax as well; your identity is transparent. Stick to Webdiary.