What is History? And the party pooper gets serious again

Now, it is difficult to imagine that anyone who lists Andrew J. Bacevich's, 'Washington Rules: America's Path to Permanent War', Richard McGregor's, 'The Party: The Secret World of China's Communist Rulers', Slavoj Žižek's, 'Living in the End Times', Andrew Feinstein's, 'The Shadow World: Inside the Global Arms Trade' and Illan Pappe's, 'The Forgotten Palestinians: A History of the Palestinians in Israel', as their last five reads, can be the life and soul of the party.

Therefore, actually being quite a sociable chap, the author of this post turned to Julian Barnes's 'The Sense of an Ending' for a light hearted, not so cognitively challenging, read; a something to talk about when a little bit more than the state of English football was required, but, more importantly, a something that might be just a wee bit more fun to read than any of the above.

However, it is not always that easy and there on pages 16, 17 and 18 of Barnes's book, the ever so serious ego was distracted by one particular answer that the history teacher, Joe Hunt, elicited when he asked the question, "What is History"? "History is that certainty produced at the point where the imperfections of memory meet the inadequacies of documentation," Adrian Finn answers. A good answer but with obvious limitations and the temptation is to advise any budding historian to read the dialogue that ensues between Hunt and Finn rather than the 158 pages in E.H.Carr's 'What is History?'

Almost everything we need is in these three pages and when Hunt explains that, "historians need to treat a participant's own explanation of events with a certain scepticism", isn't he only echoing E.H. Carr who wrote, "the facts speak only when the historian calls on them: it is he who decides to which facts to give the floor, and in what order or context"?  Nevertheless, while almost everything we need is in these three pages there is another factor that both Barnes's "Joe Hunt" and Edward Hallet Carr appear to have missed. What if, the historian calls on the facts but presents the facts in a context that we can only find morally reprehensible? What if, someone were not to deny the holocaust, but rather to argue that it was necessary? Would this not upset our sensibilities to such an extent that we had no choice but to put the book down?

And so it is with the Zionist historian, Benny Morris who correctly concludes that there was indeed an ethnic cleansing of Palestine. What a genuis! Unfortunately, he then argues that this was necessary in 1948 and that  David Ben-Gurion's failure to expel all Arab Israelis might mean that it might be necessary to finish the job in the future. Yes, Barnes's "Hunt" is correct whe he says, "historians need to treat a participant's own explanation of events with a certain scepticism", and Carr is, of course, correct when he says, the facts speak only when the historian calls on them: it is he who decides to which facts to give the floor, and in what order or context." However, what do we have when the historian puts ethnic cleansing into a context where it is morally justifiable?

Finally, if this has developed into another party pooper post, my apologies. However, if you are an undergrad who wants to get to that disco at the student's union on friday you might want to thank me. You may just have been saved the torture of reading not only the 158 pages of party pooping E.H. Carr, but also, and more importantly, you might just have added Benny Morris to your list of "historians to avoid. Anyway, I will now read Mr Barnes's novel as it is meant to be read, you can confine yourselves to pages 16, 17 and 18 of the book and enjoy the party.

Is the two state solution dead and is a one state solution possible?

On looking at the map, the reason for the Palastinian/Arab rejection of the partition plan proposed by the UN general assembly in 1947 needs no further explanation. Again, we might want to revisit King, Victor Emmanuel III's "Ma è ancora casa di alltri". However, less understandable would appear to be the rejection of the British White Paper of 17 May 1939, which Gilbert Achcar quite rightly referes to as "the major historical error of the Palestinian national movement."

This document rejected the idea of creating a Jewish state on Palestinian soil and just as importantly, it not only declared itself in favour of limiting Jewish immigration for the next five years to 75,000 annually, but it also promised an independent Palestinian state, which would be ruled proportionally, within ten years. Therefore, even if we are to look at the map of Palestine at the time of the UN partition plan some nine years later, we would quickly conclude that that White Paper would appear to form the basis for  the best scenario that Palestinians could ever have hoped for. However, we might want to go further and in light the events since, there is enough evidence to suggest that any two-state solution has never been a viable alternative for Palestinians. Especially when we consider the aims of Zionism and the record of the Zionists

Indeed, the ongoing ethnic cleansing which began in 1948 and which continues to this day was always there to ensure that the Palestinians could never have a state of their own. Therefore, it should come as no surprise when we read in yesterday's 'Guardian' that Israel has decided to go ahead and build 1,100 homes in an East Jerusalem settlement. Of course, it comes as no surprise, this has been an ongoing pattern since 1948 and surely, surely, even the most myopic among us must realise that, as far as Israel is concerned, there is to be no two-state solution. That is why we might want to give a one-state solution as suggested by Ali Abunimah and others our consideration.

Unfortunately, while the 'Guardian' reports on a decision to expand the settlements as if it were real news, the real news is contained elsewhere in the article:
"An Israeli police investigation concluded that a settler and his infant son, who were killed when their car overturned last Friday, had been struck by a rock thrown by Palestinians. At their funeral on Sunday night, a rabbi called for "collective punishment" of Palestinians, saying "there are no innocents in a war".

In 1939 it was not only the Palestinians who rejected the British White Paper, but it was also vehemently opposed by the Zionist movement. With 500,000 settlers living in the Occupied Territories - in 1939 the total Jewish population of all of Palestine was less than 500,000 - and with not only individual Zionists calling for the collective punishment of Palestinians, but with it also being practiced by the Zionist state itself, the one state solution, like the two state solution, is at present a  chimera.  For either to be otherwise, it will require condemning Zionism, like other forms of colonialism, to the dustbin of history and that is where the real political struggle lies.

The misuse of history

The 880 page report on the German Foreign Office and its collaboration with National Socialism, which will be published as a book this week, does not seem to offer anything new. The Berfusdiplomaten in the 'Wilhelmstrasse' defended themselves at Nürnberg by saying that they remained in office "um Schlimmeres zu Verhüten" (in order to prevent worse happening). "Das Schlimmste" epitomised by the death camps and the sytematic murdering of European Jewry, gypsies, homosexuals and "Andersdenkenden" was not prevented. Moreover, many of those diplomats followed the path of State Secretary, Ernst von Weizsäcker, and not only didn't prevent worse happening but indeed signed documents which incriminate them of actively participating in war crimes.

This is not news and to be honest it is hardly unexpected for while, twelve Berufsdiplomaten were executed for their resistance to the Nazis, to the best of my knowledge Karl Maximilian Friedrich-Wilhelm von Prittwitz und Gaffron, the German ambassador to Washington was the only ambassador to resign when Hitler came to power. After the 30th January 1933, it was more or less business as usual at the 'Wilhelmstrasse'. Moreover, this is not some sort of a revelation. Therefore, the question that has to be asked is why this report and why do we have the likes of  Guido Westerwelle hailing it as "an important work"?

Guido and the rest of the Berlin political establishment are not Historians. Or, if they have that appendage somewhere in their curriculum vitae, they have certainly never done any serious research in that field.  Nevertheless, it is not ignorance that is being demonstrated here but rather Berlin showing its allies how it is capable of an ongoing "Vergangenheitsbewältigung" while being a modern, tolerant and reliable friend. It is a case of the German political establishment patting itself on the back at no particular cost to itself. That is why, we would do well to look further afield at who benefits from this piece of no news.

When we do this we soon realise that we are, once again, confronted with a piece of "news", which is in fact common knowledge not only among Historians, but indeed, to large sections of the general public and that this latest "revelation" informs us once again of the need for a Jewish State where all Jews can be safe in a hostile world. Nevertheless, the more sensible among us realise that  that völkisch state was an ultimate expression, no perversion, of a nation state based on ethnicity and that, while a safe haven for European Jewry, and for many others, was necessary so long as it existed, it should not be copied. Or is Nazi Germany a model for a modern state.

Under the guise of history, history is being repeated and the real news is not the fact that so few German diplomats resigned after Hitler's Machtergreifung or even that many of them subsequently committed war crimes. Rather it is the fact that the civil servants sitting in government offices in occupied Jerusalem and soldiers in the occupied territories continue to do their jobs and, indeed, many are actively involved in war crimes and crimes against humanity. Moreover, while there are the "refuseniks" and many others in Israeli society who have to be admired, one can only  suppose that come the day of reckoning it will be those civil servants and soldiers who have at least abeted an illegal occupation who will be rushing to tell all and sundry that they only stayed in office to prevent worse happening.

A history lesson for Avigdor Lieberman

The last two paragraphs in a 'Haaretz' article entitled, "Lieberman: Israel will not be the Czechoslovakia of 2010", quote Lieberman as saying to the French and Spanish foreign ministers, "In 1938 Europe placated Hitler, sacrificing Czechoslovakia instead of supporting it, and gained nothing from it," Lieberman said. "We will not be the Czechoslovakia of 2010, we will stand up for Israel's vital interests."  For the most part, the article in fact is just a report of Lieberman's nonsense verbatim, while obviously being written for effect rather than any news value.

No, we are not about to take Israel's best, "most liberal", newspaper too seriously and it should come as no surprise when the journalist writing the article comes to the following conclusion: "Twenty years later, Hitler demanded that the region be returned to Germany, and Britain and France agreed. A year later in 1939, Germany conquered the rest of Czechoslovakia proper by force." Gobbledegook and journalists are not only not required to investigate, research and write news, they are also no longer required to write.  Nevertheless, while it is almost as difficult to find real news in this standard 'Haaretz' fare, as it would be in the 'PyongYang Times', the discerning reader might read between the lines, interpret and deduce and in doing so might even come to the conclusion that the Mr Lieberman is not all wrong, even if he is not all wrong for reasons he might not wish to hear. 

The "swissification" of Czechoslovakia never took place and the republic that was to find itself under the auspices of Tomáš Masaryk and then Eduard Benes, both Czech nationalists, was one in which the political elite not only didn't allow political autonomy for minority ethnic groups but, indeed, a country where the Czechs, who, when the first republic was founded in 1918, constituted about 48% of the total population of 6.6 million, were not even a majority. Furthermore, not only were non-Czechs under-represented in the government and army, but government contracts also invariably went to Czech companies. If Lieberman wants to draw parallels between Czechoslovakia and Israel, then it is those facts that should represent the basis of any comparison. Even although, it would still be absurd to suggest that Slovaks, Germans, Hungarians, Ruthanians, Poles and Jews were deprived, excluded or persecuted in the way that Palestinians are today.

Which, of course, brings me to the final point and Lieberman's implication that Israel's existence is threatened in much the same way as Czechoslovakia's was in 1938. The reasons for the failure of a state in which all power was centralised have been touched upon. Therefore, while the agreement signed on the 30th of September 1938, most certainly sealed the downfall of Central Europe's only democracy, albeit one which we can hardly call a "democracy par excellence", the seeds of that downfall were already sown much earlier. Indeed, this was emphasised later on when Gustáv Husák, who was actually a Slovak, broke up the country's federal structure after the crushing of the "Prague Spring", and returned control to Prague. The final dissolution of Czechoslovakia on the 1st of January 1993 almost became inevitable and it at least gives us some indication as to how fragile that union of Czechs and Slovaks in particular always was.  Nevertheless, be that as it may, it is this peaceful divorce, which has culminated with both countries being members of the European Union, that Lieberman should be looking to for guidance. The alternative is, indeed, a scenario that will have more in common with the events of 1938 and the catastrophe that followed. 

Clearer heads would hope that such a disaster will not happen. Unfortunately, the gobbledegook spouted out by Avigdor Lieberman and his ilk along with more than sixty years of theft, murder and ethnic cleansing indicate that he might be a bit closer to the truth than he thinks when he draws comparisons with Czechoslovakia in 1938 and not Czechoslovakia in 1993. That is indeed why we can only hope that Zionism will follow Nazism into the dustbin of history, which is the only place for ideologies which places race or religion above humanity. However, the evidence would seem to suggest that before that happens, the Zionists will be making many more of their historical comparisons and in doing so they will be moving closer and closer to those figures who they supposedly hate but resemble so much ........ "The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which."

The myth of remaining decent

There they were showing me their big rusty keys along with pictures and maps of their villages and no need here for Norman Finkelstein, who only requires a modicum of effort to dismiss what is after all the absurd claim of a land without people. Joan Peter's hoax, 'From Time Immemorial', has long since been discredited. Finklestein the "forensic Historian" is, however, required to tackle Benny Morris's' thesis that although there was an ethnic cleansing of Palestine it was not planned and came about because of the war in 1948. Morris's thesis is based on no little evidence but that "no little" is mainly official sources. Moreover, not only are his arguments shown to be contradictory, but his conclusions show that, whatever his merits as a Historian, he is either no Sherlock Holmes or, worse, he is morally corrupt. He is, in fact, morally corrupt as anyone who views ethnic cleansing as a necessary evil inevitably is.

However, it is when I turn to reading the Zionist bullshit, and "bullshit" is the appropriate term here, that the land was settled and not conquered that an unpleasant sensation spreads along my abdomen, that my stomach becomes queasy, my mouth dry and that feelings of disgust make me want to vomit. It is not that the myths of "wilderness", of "self-defence", of "purity of arms" are not sufficiently demolished by Finkelstein, they are! However, we are left aghast not only at the chutzpah, but also, and more importantly, at the extent of that "immoral morality" that has IDF soldiers feeling "lousy" after a killing spree in Gaza. As if feeling "lousy" is sufficient to exonorate them and just as the "rusty keys" mentioned above rendered Dr Finkelstein's dismantling of Peters superflous, so too did any further reading of Finkelstein here as my own mind immediately accessed Himmler's speech at Posen in October 1943, drew parallels and reached its own conclusions.

Yes, to remain "decent" after killing thousands of innocents requires not only a criminal myopia, it also leads us to praise zyklon B, as a "more efficient" and "more moral" alternative to the mad sadists who roamed the streets of Nanjing in 1937 or to those who ran Security Prison 21 at the Chao Ponhea Yat High School in Pnom Pen and to the myth of purity of arms we might, indeed, add another myth; the myth of remaining decent and being decent is what distinguishes "us" from the barbarians, while facilitating us exonorating ourselves of crimes against humanity and the dead babies, children with smashed or no limbs, orphans who have been deprived of their parents, incarcerated innocents, can at least seek solace in the knowledge that "we" are decent.

One state solution

Regarding Israel, Norman Finkelstein puts forward a very pertinent argument when he says in his book 'Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict', "..... the Zionist case for a Jewish state is as valid or invalid as the anti-Semitic case for an ethnic state that marginalizes Jews."1 Implicit in this statement is a link being established between Zionism and that type of nationalism which went to bed as a sleeping beauty and woke up as an ugly demon.

Of course, in retrospect, a nationalism that spawned  "La Grande Nation" in 1789 and accompanied those positive liberal forces for change until the revolutions of 1848, was always going to seek its legitimacy in race, religion and language and, indeed, with the wisdom that hindsight affords us, we might not be surprised that it was to culminate in the excesses of Nazism. Where was there to go once people identified with "their race", "their religion" and "their language"? Furthermore, where could those people who could not identify with the "nation" go?

It is in this context that we should view Zionism and, indeed, it is in this context that it might have some justification. Unfortunately, unlike those Czechs, Poles, Slovaks and Hugarians who felt marginalized not only by the philosophical Pan-Germanism of Fichte and Herder but later also by the very real political consequences of a German state, there was no "Kernland" in Europe which Jews could call their own. That is why the academic caution implicit in the "might" and the quantifier "some" in the first sentence are appropriate, although it should be added that Europe too was plagued by population transfers. Indeed, there are those "Ewiggestrige", who still hold on to their national dream.

Nevertheless, even for those diehards in Europe who prefer to live in the past the Zionist "solution" is not on the cards. No, we might be grateful that this "solution" died in Europe along with the "Endlösung itself and what is that Zionist solution? Well, it was implied by David Ben-Gurion when he said, "Everybody sees a difficulty in the question of relations between Arabs and Jews. But not everybody sees that there is no solution to this question. No solution! There is a gulf, and nothing can bridge it... We, as a nation, want this country to be ours; the Arabs, as a nation, want this country to be theirs." For Zionism, there could be no compromise and just as a nationalism that was based on race, religion and language culminated in the excesses of Nazism, so too was a Zionism that had its roots in European nationalism and romanticism always destined to culminate in the ethnic cleansing of Palestine.

Fortunately, in Europe today, there is enough evidence to suggest that it is those who would marginalize minorities are themselves being increasingly marginalized. The idea of a homogenous state based on race, religion and, yes, even language is becoming anathema to many Europeans and it would appear that we are moving towards a multi-cultural state; in some countries it is already both de jure and de facto a reality. Indeed, is Europe itself not a multi-cultural entity? It is this model that offers hope to the people who live in all of Palestine, or "Israel" if you will. However, it is a model that implies that that "two state solution", which is increasingly utopic considering the realities on the ground, should be at least reconsidered and in doing so we will discover that one state or a bi-national solution is indeed the only solution.

1 Norman Finkelstein, 'Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict', p 101

The decision to go to war in 1914 and the decision to go to war in 2003

Perusing David Stevenson's brilliant book on the first world war, '1914-1918: The History of the First World War' , it wasn't long before I found myself looking at one particular synthesis. On page seven Dr Stevenson writes: "France's Third Republic, established in 1870, had probably the most progressive constitution in Europe, but even here parliamentary scrutiny over diplomacy and military planning was feeble. In Austria-Hungary, Germany, and Russia, the ruling Habsburg, Hohenzollern, and Romanov dynasties exercised wide discretionary power over foreign affairs. Moreover, if public opinion did exert an influence it might not be a peaceful one. Most continental countries had socialist parties which (in common with middle-class progressives) opposed war except in self-defence. Centrist and right-wing parties, however, normally called for firmness in asserting national interests, and most newspapers and a plethora of pressure groups supported them. In 1914 most politicians and military chiefs recognised that a major war needed public support, but neither globalisation nor democratisation made hostilities unthinkable."

In the first instance one might wonder what happened to those socialists and middle-classs progressives who opposed the war? Well, as far as their representatives were concerned, in France we had the "union sacrée", in Germany the "Burgfrieden" and in the United Kingdom the Labour Party became part of the coalition war government. Nevertheless, this does not indicate, as Dr Stevenson suggests implicitly in his book, that the democratisation of society was less developed than it is now.

Whatever the nature and extent of the debate in the French, German and British parliaments in 1914, we do know that a number of deputies in those parliaments and ministers in the different governments did resign and the evidence would appear to suggest that it is safe to conclude that the debates and opposition to the war in all three countries were at least as lively as the farcical debate in the House of Commons, on the 18th of March 2003, when the government decision, which had in fact been made months before, to de facto go to war was endorsed with 412 member of parliament voting in favour of the resolution and only 149 against. Moreover, if Dr Stevenson highlights that most newspapers supported the "war parties" in 1914, we can only emphasise that by march 2003 the British press, and indeed, the press in all other so-called "western democracies", had long since been "gleichgeschaltet".

The point that has to be made here is that the process of democratisation that was proceeding apace in 1914 was dealt a crippling blow from which it never really recovered. This meant that those parties which betrayed their ideals and became "Salon Fähig" in 1914 invariably came to power after the war. However, those parties were to increasingly represent business and industry at the expense of the workers. Of course, there was still some effort to pay attention to thesocialist agenda and, there were even times when real promise seemed afoot. For instance, with the coming into existence of social welfare states in Western Europe after World War II. Nevertheless, there is evidence to suggest that the socialist parties compromised themselves out of existence and our so-called "democracies" were to at least develop into the sham that they are now and from today's perspective it would be quite wrong to assert that democratisation in 1914 was less developed than it is now. Indeed, it would not be wrong to contend that it is virtually those same forces and same interests that dictated the decisions of the day in 1914 who do still do so today and to further assert that the challenge to those forces was at least as great prior to 1914 as it is now.

Mordechai Vanunu. Peres, Obama, Hitler and the Nobel Peace Prize

Obama's presidency, began on January 20th and the nomination deadline for the 'Nobel Peace Prize' was the 1st of February. Now, even hypothesising what might have been if, he hadn't have actually received the award on the 9th of October and if, after having received the award, he hadn't then announced that he was going to escalate the war in Afghanistan, the farce that this prize actually is surely all to obvious. Considering that nobody is going to be nominated sponataneously, the evidence would seem to suggest that Obama's presidential election campaign was enough to get him nominated for the 'Nobel Peace Prize'.

Of course, the 'Nobel Peace Prize' has been a joke for a long time with its previous winners including Shimon Peres, who won the prize in 1994 along with fellow zionist Yitzhak Rabin and Palestinian leader  Yasser Arafat. In the meantime, Arafat and Rabin have left the scene, but Peres is still around.

Mordechai Vanunu was freed from prison in 2004 after serving an eighteen year sentence for revealing details of Israel's nuclear weapons programme. Vanunu apparently has now been arrested by Israeli police because they suspect that he is been meeting foreigners, which violates  the conditions of his release. Now, knowing what we know about Israel that should come as no surprise, just as we can hardly be surprised that the man who "blew the whistle" on Israel's nuclear secret has enough good sense to see through the disgusting farce that a winning a 'Noble Peace Prize' actually embodies and it would appear that earlier this year Vanunu wrote a letter to the Nobel Prize committee asking it to take him off of the list of candidates for the prize because President Shimon Peres, who he said was "behind the Israeli atomic policy," was a Nobel laureate. Now, we might criticise Vanunu by arguing that had he remained a candidate, he might have prevented Obama winning the prize. Nevertheless, I would suggest that Vanunu did the right thing and that by remaining on the list he would have only given this farcical charade some credibility and doing so at a time when we can at least suspect that the decision to give the warmonger Obama the award had already been made.

Nice little footnote here; a Member of the Swedish parliament, E.G.C. Brandt, nominated Adolf Hitler for the 1939 prize. No doubt, because of the slightly disturbed Adolf's effort to preserve peace at the Munich Conference in Sepember 1938. Still, despite the Nazi "newspeak" of that period, "peace" still meant "peace" and the good Mr Brandt had at least the good sense to withdraw the nomination in February 1939. Good timing and a month later Germany swallowed up Bohemia and Moravia, or what is known today as the Czech Republic, while Slovakia became nominally independent but de facto a German client state and I am left wondering why, while Vanunu took himself off of the nominations list and Mr Brandt took Adolf off of the list, did nobody have the sense to remove Obama's name from the list? 

It is not as if they don't warn us

Well, if only we had listened to the ravings of the very mad Adolf back in 1924 or thereabouts and he wasn't exactly keeping anything a secret when he was writing "Mein Kampf", was he? No, even if we didn't get the chance to read his other "masterpiece", his "Zweitesbuch" until after the old world order had collapsed along with his new world order, Adolf really meant what he was saying back in 1924 and, after all, he did repeat it quite a few times, didn't he? No, we cannot complain that we weren't given fair warning.

Similary, we should have no illusions when it comes to Israel. There they are sitting in occupied territory, territory that is illegally occupied under international law, as occupied territory invariably is, and we get Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman telling us in no uncertain terms that the freeze on construction of the illegal settlements, that is in fact not a freeze at all, is only a piece of political expediency and that "It is clear to everyone that in 10 months, we will be building again full force; anyone who understands anything knows this."


Of course, what this means is that in ten months time they will be telling all and sundry that they really made a grand effort to accomodate the Palestinians, but that the Palestinians didn't reciprocate and now they have the right to build even more than they have been up until now. Oh, déjà vu,  been there before, and there was Adolf telling us all what he was going to do to Poland back in 1924, and and a few more times after that, and what did we get on the 1st of September 1939:
 "Polen hat heute nacht zum erstenmal auf unserem eigenen Territorium auch mit bereits regulären Soldaten geschossen. Seit 5:45 Uhr wird jetzt zurückgeschossen! Und von jetzt ab wird Bombe mit Bombe vergolten." Or, to put it simply, "it is all their fault, they started it, they are the baddies and we are the goodies."

Of course, by 1939 people were beginning to cotton on to our megalomanic Adolf, although it would take Friedrich Meinecke's  "Deutsche Katastrophe", the Holocaust, the madness of "Operation Barbarossa, hundreds of millions misplaced and dead, Auschwitz, and the old world order being turned upside down to defeat Hitler's "new world order". One wonders when we are going to see through Mr Lieberman and his buddies!

Well, maybe when they have their next "defensive" war, perhaps when they attack Iran "to stop Iran attacking them", or maybe, just maybe, when they have wiped out their next thousand or few thousands, or even maybe when they get round to their first hundreds of thousands, and then tell us all that they were doing it to defend themselves. Maybe, maybe then we are going to get suspicious and all of that is going to be after they have had their own little "Munich" and after they have got their own little "Czechoslovakia", more or less, delivered on a plate in the form of a big chunk of the occupied territories, because, after all, nobody, but nobody, wants to deprive them of what is "rightfully" theirs.

"Pied Noirs" and Zionists

On the 18th of March 1962 a deal was signed at Evian in France that was to lead to Algerian independence. However, that was not to come before a final hurrah by the "Organisation Armée Secrète" and an orgy of killings and bombings that left thousands of innocent Muslims dead; any small chance that there might have been for the "pied noirs",* to reach some sort of accommodation with the indigenous population had been effectively snuffed out. On the 5th of July 1962 Algeria was to declare its independence under a revolutionary government, the FLN ("Front de Libération Nationale") was to exact its revenge on thousands of Muslim "harkis" who had remained loyal to France and more than one million "pied noirs" were to leave their livelihoods behind and flee to 'Metropolitan France'.(1)

If there are lessons to be learned from history, it would appear that our modern day "pied noirs" in their settlements on the West Bank and the IDF bully boys have not learned them. Their racist philosophy is aways going to make a compromise with the indigenous population difficult. However, it is when I read of that final hurrah that saw the OAS "bombing and murdering at random, detroying schools, libraries and hospital facilities. attacking florists' stalls and grocery shops, determined to leave behind nothing more than 'scorched earth'"(2), my mind drifts to the the ethnic cleansing of Palestine that began in 1948, the relentless theft and the orgy of murder that continues to this day, and when I read how the slim hopes at reconciliation between the 'pied noirs' were snuffed out in 1962, I wonder if there remains any hope of reconciliation between Jews and Arabs in the Middle East. The evidence would appear to suggest that there isn't. Nevertheless, it is worth at least appealing to the citizens of the oxymoronic "Jewish Democracy", the racist philosophy of Zionism has to be abandoned, international law has to be respected and, perhaps, you have a future in the region. Otherwise, while there is no historical inevitablility, the evidence would appear to suggest that history will indeed repeat itself and that "our" colonists in the Middle East will suffer the same fate as their spiritual predecessors , the "pied noirs".
* French nationals, including those of European descent, Sephardic Jews and settlers from other European countries, mainly Malta, Spain and Italy, who were born in Algeria
1 Martin Meredith, 'The State of Africa' London 2006, p74
2 ibid

Arthur Scargill

Watched some clips on Scargill this evening and there is a lot of sense in what the man says. Nevertheless, his is not going to be a "broad church" and the evidence would appear to suggest that come the day Arthur's mob would be as willing to put the rest of the left up against a wall and shoot them as his "spiritual" brethern in the PCE were, when they followed Stalin's orders after the 16th of December 1936.(1)
Moreover, his harping on about how the European Union has undemined some of the democratic achievements in the United Kingdom, should be put into a perspective where it has to be said that, the United Kingdom has moved closer to that undemocratic political monoculture that defines America than most of the other members of the European Union have. Furthermore, it might be added that the omnipresence of "Big Brother" is more all prevading in Britain than it is anywhere else in the European Union I have been to.
One thing we cannot accuse Arthur of is wooly thinking. Nevertheless, while his understanding of history is sound he is restricted by that theoretical straightjacket that sees a solution to the world's ills not in Rosa Luxemburg's, ”Die Freiheit ist immer die Freiheit des Andersdenkenden” (freedom is always means the freedom to allow people to think differently),(2) but rather in a system that has already been tried, tested in failed in Eastern Europe and elsewhere. One is almost glad that Thatcher won the battle because at least we are left with other battles to fight. On the other hand, the evidence would seem to suggest that had Scargill won back in 1984 we would indeed have arrived at an Orwellian terminal and that Dictatorship of the Proleteriat that was epitomised by 'Stalinism'. No Arthur, the battle goes on, not for some elusive "ism" but rather towards a fair and just world, which allows all of us to live meaningful lives, and if in the process the "broad church" wishes to enlist your help Arthur, we will let you know and we promise not to put you up against a wall and shoot you when your usefulness has expired.
1 http://www.permanentrevolution.net/entry/508
2 http://deutsche-geschichte.suite101.de/article.cfm/die_freiheit_des_andersdenkenden

Is Israel getting ready to go to war?

In the early 1960s there was an attempt by the American government to stop Israel acquiring nuclear weapons; it was a very superficial attempt and is best summed up by the Israeli Prime Minister at the time, Levi Eshkol, who reacted to President Kennedy's démarche and demands, that the Israelis let inspectors into the Dimona site, by saying to his colleagues, "What am I frightened of? His (Kennedy's) man will come and he will actually be told that he can visit (the Dimona site) and go anywhere he wishes, but when he wants a door open at some door or another then (Emanuael ) Prat (head of construction at Dimona) will tell him, "Not that".(1) This represented the end of any "serious" effort to stop the Zionist state acquiring weapons of mass destruction and it is generally accepted that today they haves up to 600 nuclear warheads. The "chutzpah", the hypocrisy, the audacity, and today we have the 'Jerusalem Post' reporting that there are "new suspicious findings (by the International Atomic Energy Agency), as well as Syria's attempts to avoid answering the demands of the IAEA's request to inspect (nuclear sites)."(2) Is there evidence to suggest that the Israelis are plotting a "preemptive" strike on Syria as well as Iran?
Still, maybe Netanyahu will listen to the "hype" man, I mean after all Mr Ershkol did set a nice precedent for Israeli Prime Ministers listening to American presidents a long time ago.
1 John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt, 'The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy' p35
2 http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1244035008964&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

History Repeating Itself and Middle East Realities

It is very difficult not to become repetitive when you are writing on the situation in Palestine; when you are writing about each new farce, each new tragedy, each new piece of "chutzpah", each new crime; the reader is bound to experience a sort of "deja vu", a "tell me something new" and it is difficult because all of it, the illegal occupation, Saba and Shatila, Jenin, Gaza, etc.etc. remain a variation of the one theme and incidental to the real crime that began before Gaza, before Qana, before Jenin, before Saba and Shatila, before etc. etc. That is because, in the meantime the origins of the crime are forgotten and those origins do not lie in the Nazi Holocaust, and while everything that has happened and is happening does to some extent have a link to the ethnic cleansing of 1948, the root of the problem precedes both 1948 and the death camps of Auschwitz, Treblinka, Maidenek and Sachsenhausen. It goes back to the Arab uprising of 1936, it goes back further, it goes back to the Balfour Declaration of 1917, and even further still, and it goes back to the first Zionist Congress, which was held at Basle from the 29th of August until the 31st of August 1897. Of course, the Zionists will argue that it goes back even further and that it goes back thousands of years, back to the biblical lands of Israel. Now considering that our "other" zany Zionists, those of the Christian ilk, think that the planet is only some 6,000 years old, that biblical claim on "Israel" is a pretty tall order and one which is quite difficult for a logically thinking person, like me, to swallow. Furthermore, while it might appear that there is at least an argument for a homeland for the "Jewish people" because of the expulsion of Jews from Spain in 1492, because of the progroms in Tsarist Russia and persecution elsewhere, persecution which culminated in the Holocaust, then might not the Muslims whose forfathers were expelled from the Iberian peninsula claim a right of return to sunny Spain and might not the Gypsies who died in the gas chambers also claim a homeland. No, they might not but they should, at least, expect to be Muslims or Gypsies in whichever country they find themselves, without fear of persecution. Moreover, it cannot be said often enough but those who committed crimes against Jews were not Palestinians and no people can simply decide to build their homeland on someone else's land. Yes, that was the decision made in 1897 and that is the original crime and the crimes which followed are a consequence of that decision.
In the meantime, of course, each incident might be a variation of the theme, however, each incident has also created a new "reality" and the Zionists have, indeed, moved the goal posts. Nevertheless, while it is very difficult to ask the Palestinians to be generous, my suggestion is that they might be. 1948 was a crime and it should be recognised as such. Furthermore, this is not only a moral issue, it is a legal one; the Palestinians have, according to international law, a right to return. However, an apology, compensation, a right to visit, these things could all be part of a package that might see the Palestinians waive this right and thereby ensure that there is not another ethnic cleansing and, while this alone might suggest that crime does, indeed, pay, it would be a pragmatic step and one that would ensure that there would be neither another "shoah" for the Jewish people nor another "Nakba" for the Palestinians. That, however, is where the line has to be drawn and, remember, in drawing it here, the Palestinians are compromising on their legal right.
Unfortunately, the goal posts have not only been moved to a point where I find myself asking the Palestinians to, at least to some extent, accept the catastrophe of 1948, they have been moved to the point where the majority of the population in Zionistan have a view of reality that, at best, would be in sync with those "ewige Gestrige" who would love to see Germany back in the borders of 1941. The news is that Obama wants to halt the building of settlements on the territory occupied by Israel after the 1967 war and how does the Israeli public respond? Well, look at the readers letters in the 'Jerusalem Post' and 'Haaretz' today, the views expressed range from a, "well, just don't do it" to an "Obama will exchange the West Bank for peace with the Arabs".(1) Now, the "...., just don't do it" I can understand, because that is what the government in Israel will do, they just won't do it! However, the second letter I quoted there is more interesting and more interesting because, this particular Israeli, like the majority of Israelis, appears to believe that the West Bank is Israel's to exchange and it is believed despite an array of UN resolutions to the contrary. Of course, this too is a result of that decision made back in 1897, a decision for "Eratz Israel". Therfore, can an apology for 1948, compensation, Palestinians being allowed to visit their grandparents homes, a two-state solution that will generally work, be expected? No, because for that to happen Zionism and the Zionists would have to disappear and that won't just happen; the ethnic cleansing of Palestine will continue and the chance for real peace in the Middle East becomes increasingly unlikely. History does not stand still but as Marx said it repeats itself and with every day that goes by the chances of a new "Shoah", a new "Nakba", increases too. A new "reality" has to be established, the goal posts have to be moved in the Palestinians favour and it has to happen quickly.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1088953.html
The picture above shows the medal issued after the first Zionist Congress in Basle in 1897

Obama and Cheney debate

The "dangerous" debate taking place between the war criminal, now private citizen, "should be in jail" but isn't, Dick Cheney, and the "want to close Guantanamo, but haven't quite managed to, but I have increased preventive detention measures", "and the CIA committed torture but nobody will be prosecuted" "hype" man, reminds one of the type of debate Zwingili and Luther indulged in during the first part of the 16th century on the doctrine of transubstantiation. With the pragmatic Luther adopting a position, which basically implied that if it gave solace to the ignorant masses then let them have their eucharist and Luther and Zwingili only sort of went their own ways as they went in pursuit of the Roman anti-christ. Not, of course, that our Roman anti-christs were angels themselves.
So, here we have this supposedly "dangerous" debate between Obama and Cheney when, in actual fact, if Obama were really eminating any danger for Dick, who is a real terrorist and a bone fide war criminal, then he would have long since arrested him for war crimes. Of course, he cannot do that and with the "increasing preventive measures and getting more Americans involved in illegal wars" man committing crimes all of his own what we have is a debate that is every bit as farcical as the one Luther and Zwingili engaged in centuries ago. No, a little bit more farcical, in fact, and if I remember my history of the Reformation correctly, the German princes stopped supporting Zwingili after the debates with Luther and watched on while he was killed by the Catholic forces at the battle of Kappel in 1531. Now, wouldn't it be nice if Dick was sent off to a marine unit in the Hindikush? Certainly, if he was to be as serous about his faith as the mad axe swinging Zwingili was, he might, even volunteer to go, instead of continuing to spout his disgustingly deceitful drivel, and he could, at least, like Zwingili, believe he was going to his maker having died for his convictions rather than having to confront the big man at the pearly gate knowing that only other people died for them.

May Day

There is certainly some sense in Marx's historical development thesis, which goes something like; from feudalism to capitalism to socialism and that would seem to suggest that for socialism to come into its ascendency society would have had to have moved onto the capitalist stage of development. Yes, it would appear that the brave new world envisaged by Marxists suffered a major setback during the 1919-20 revolutions in Europe. The Soviet Union, which had never had an industrial revolution and, therefore, lacked a conscious, educated industrial proletariat sort of summersaulted the stages in Marx's theory and went onto cultivate that wonderful stalinist concept of "socialism in one country", a model which is better portrayed by George Orwell's '1984' than it is in any of Charlie's writings, and then we had China!
While living in China I was all too aware of being in just about one of the most unsocialist countries that I had personally experienced. Alright, not quite as bad as Oman or Bahrain, admitted. However, there they are, the little men at the gates of your compound saluting the cars of some big fat guy in his car and there are 900 million or so, living in shit, while the mob with the "guanxi" live their lives on the gravy train. China, a country where everyone knows his or her place, and while it has, no doubt, improved a bit since the days of Cíxǐ Tàihòu, the Empress Dowager, it is, to put it mildly, not really what a working class Glaswegian means when he talks about socialism.
Still, even in China they have got their "May Day" and it is that time of the year again when the CCP extols the virtues of the class they are supposed to represent and on browsing the 'China Daily' I can see that they are doing their usual propoganda job. There was one particular picture of migrant workers in Yinchaun, the capital of the Ningxia Hui province in the north of the country and even in, this, what the Chinese officially refer to as,"a second tier city", these workers, deprived of the “hukou” that residential permit which would give them equal rights in the place where they are forced to eek out their living, empitomise a China that reminds me more of Orwell's, "all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others" than of that socialist society that, for me, must still be on the agenda.
The picture shows migrant workers in Yinchaun celebrating their pay rise to 1,000 rmb a month.

Bombing a Country to Democracy

Obama is continuing Bush's policy of deadly air strikes in Pakistan and with Afghanis urging him to send aid and not troops, he has ordered an additional 17,000 US combat troops to Afghanistan, and with a foreign occupation, torture, rendition, bombing civilians, going on in their country, do we really expect the Afghanis to support women's rights and democracy? Napoleon brought French ideas across the Rhine at the end of French bayonets; at the time the ideas were progressive, the reaction and rejection that followed wouldn't be. Indeed, it is not wholly wrong to argue that the manner in which those "progressive" ideas were disseminated at least helped to spawn national socialism. Then there was the British who banned thugee and surpressed the practice of sati. The Indian Mutiny of 1857/58 was to follow.
The French ideas were revolutionary in their day but you don't occupy countries and expect them to accept your ideas with open arms. The British in banning sati and tackling the practice of thuggery were only being "civilised" and now we have the advent of the "hype" man who preaches democracy and human rights but bombs civilians. Of course, it was never about the spreading of French ideas but rather about extending the borders of Imperial France and it was all about expanding the British Empire and not about spreading British "civilisation". Now, we have the "hype" man sending more young American boys to foreign fields to kill and be killed and expecting his sychophants, "blighty" to the fore, to do the same. We should, at least, be aware of why they are killing and being killed.

"Duch" apologises

About seven years ago I visited the Tuol Sleng - S-21 - prison in Pnom Pen and it was the photographs on the walls, the photographs of the young men and women, of the children, of the "normal" faces staring out of their prison garb before the horrors had been inflicted upon them, that left a lasting impression. However, that lasting impression was because I knew of the ordeal that was to accompany their departure from the "normality" that was portrayed in the photographs. Yesterday, the Khmer Rouge's chief torturer, Kaing Guek Eav alias "Duch", who ran the prison admitted murdering thousands of Cambodians and told of his "heartfelt sorrow" for his crimes.(1)
Effectively, the man said "sorry" and what do you think folks? Are the faces peering out of the photographs ready to forgive him.? No, I don't think so. However, it is the rest of "Duch's" statement that should make those of us who are not immediately involved think for, he also said, that while he was responsible for this crime, he was just a scapegoat who never dared challenge the top authorities. and that fearing for his own life and for his family, he was just following orders.(2) Do you know, I actually believe him and in believing him, I am not even sure that he is especially evil and that conclusion has very serious repercussions and those repercussions mean that it is important that we resist before it becomes as "immediate" as it did for Kaing Guek Eav, it is important to resist while it is still possible to do so.
1 http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/31/pol-pot-torturer-says-sorry-kilings
2 ibid
The photo shows photographs taken of the "inmates" when they entered the prison. Duch's indictment reads; "every prisoner who arrived at S-21 was destined for execution".

The Uganda Proposal

It is interesting to note that Israel might not have ended up where it did and that we even had the British planning to give a portion of British East Africa to the Jewish people. Indeed the, British Colonial Secretary, Joseph Chamberlain's proposal in 1903 to give a big chunk of what is now Kenya to the Jewish people was taken so seriously that when Theodore Herzl brought it onto the agenda in 1903 at the sixth meeting of the World Zionist Oranisation's Zionist Congress in Basle, it actually led to a delegation being sent out to look at the land where the new Jewish state might be. Interestingly, when the three man delegation went out to survey the area under discussion, they were a little bit perturbed not only by the presence of lions in the area but also by the Maasai tribes who didn't take too kindly to strangers just moving in on them. Those would appear to be plausible explainations and we shouldn't think too much about the fact that at 15,500 km² (1) the new state would have been substantially smaller than present day Israel, which has 20,770 km² as I am sure that by now our zany Zionists would be telling all and sundry that there is no Maasai, no Acholi, no Hutu, no Tutsi, no Chagga, no Nyika, no Kamba, no Kikuyu, no ..... anyway, get the picture? We would be hearing some unadultarated drivel to the effect that they are are all Africans, and that Africans already have most of the continent so its alright to establish a Jewish homeland, a bastion of western civilisation, from the Zambezi to the Blue Nile.
1 http://lexicorient.com/e.o/zionism.htm

The Dung Heap Theory of History

It has been mentioned in earlier posts, nevertheless, I would like to reiterate that when I was at university it was pointed out to me by a friend that a Historian's brain is like a dung heap in that the longer you leave it the more likely it is that something will grow. With the wisdom that hindsight affords me it is, therefore, probably no accident that I soon discovered a certain penchant for history and in no time at all I had developed into the waffler supreme. Nevertheless, in retrospect it also has to be said that in history's favour there has to be a little bit more and it was, therefore, that I found myself in agreement with Dr Finkelstein when he says that comparing and contrasting has always been an essential ingredient in the study of history. Indeed, I would go a step further than Dr Finkelstein does in the interview I have just watched and argue that by comparing and contrasting history teaches us valuable lessons. Whether those lessons will be followed or not is another matter. They are, however, there to be referenced.
That, therefore, brings me to the "uniqueness" of the holocaust, a "uniqueness" that is exploited by Israel and gives the Zionist state special moral dispensation when it comes to ethnically cleansing Palestine, when it comes to erecting an apartheid state, when it comes to murdering innocent men, women and children. For remember, Israel represents the "Jewish people" and the Jewish people have had suffering inflicted upon them that is beyond comparison by an evil that it is beyond comprehension. This is a people for whom those "normal" moral parameters that we are all expected to reference just do not apply, for they have been visited by an immorality that none of us can understand. The moral extortion takes shape and the drivel holds the high ground and the "dung heap theory" of history lends justification to the sting I talked about in yesterday's post.
Have a look at the Finkelstein interview, which has been posted.

Pax Americana

Apparently Obama has conceded for the first time that the US needs an an exit strategy in Afghanistan. Now, one wonders what shape this exit strategy will take and I am forced to think about the "exit strategy" in Vietnam and the impending, 2011, withdrawal from Iraq. What exactly is the situation there? Will they go, or will they (some of them at least) stay? More importantly, however, I find myself putting the whole thing into a historical perspective and drawing comparisons between the "Pax Americana" and the "Pax Britannica" and what an awful mess the Brits left behind them; straight lines cutting through tribal areas all over Africa, divide and rule not only on the African continent but also on the Indian sub-continent and the cock up that is the 'Durand Line' that places some Pathu in Afghanistan and some in Pakistan. Indeed, the cock up that is Pakistan itself and, of course, let us not forget the Middle East where "Blighty" had nothing better to do than give someone someone else's land, and now we have "Uncle Sam" and bad enough that he has built and prospered on "Blighty's" cock ups, worse still that he is also in the process of making a few of his own. Therefore, what do we have when he has retreated from the scene, when the sun begins to set on his little global empire? No doubt, there will be an Iraq where everyone is at each others throats, there will be an Afghanistan where "moderate" elements of the Taliban reestablish 'Sharia law' and get their brethern on the other side of the 'Durand Line' to further destabilise Pakistan .... and what will happen when our zany Zionists can no longer rely on Washington? Well, the short-sighted arrogance that they are displaying would suggest that their little diaspora won't be that far away.
The assumption is that "Uncle Sam" doesn't really care and I find my mind drifting back to 1912 when the British moved the capital of the 'Raj' from Calcutta to Delhi, built their new purpose built capital in "New Delhi" so that they could be closer to Simla and their retreat to the hills in the summer and so that they could punish the leading lights of the Congress Party, who were based in Bengal, by removing the capital, with the jobs, with the prestige etc.etc. away from that state. With the writing already on the wall that the 'Raj' was coming to an end, the myopia and vidicitiveness were all too blatant and it is also very obvious with "Uncle Sam"; kill a few more innocents, let the zany Zionists run riot, create a few more artificial borders and set up some hopelessly ineffective puppet governments and not to worry, when it comes to scores being settled, the retreat to "splendid isolation" will be well underway and it isn't your problem, you were, after all, only trying to help everyone. Of course, that little lie will be for home consumption only. For the rest of us it will be good riddance to bad rubbish.