Marxist-Leninist Writes His Judeophobic Drivel by the Grace of a Superrich Arab Amir

UPDATING at bottom

Prof Richard Landes at The Augean Stables blog has a long, mad quote from James Petras published on Al-Jazeera. Here is the link to the Augean Stables post. Prof Petras is an obsessive Judeophobe who has found solace in the warm bosom of Qatar's al-Jazeera website. For many years he published "anti-imperialist" articles [against US policy in South America, not always good policy, to be sure], particularly in the "Marxist-Leninist" Monthly Review. But there are a number of bizarre positions and inner contradictions in Petras' stance and arguments.

Petras uses the phrase: "On the key issue of a compromise on the key issue of Jerusalem..." This is the same language used by State Dept officials and anti-Israel MSM commentators about Jerusalem, as if the Arabs would make peace if Jerusalem were redivided as it was for 19 years, between 1948 and 1967, and only for those 19 years.

It is noteworthy that Petras published "anti-US imperialism" screeds in the "Marxist-Leninist" Monthly Review [which has disavowed part --only part-- of what Petras said in his favorable review of the walt-mearsheimer tract] for many years. Now, al-Jazeera operates out of Qatar, not exactly a socialist or revolutionary state, nor a poor state. The per capita yearly income in Qatar is rather high on a world scale. Al-Jazeera operates there by the grace of the Shaykh or Amir or whatever title the local potentate holds. He is not exactly a democrat [small D]. Qatar also hosts, by the grace of the Shaykh or Amir, the Middle Eastern HQ of Centcom, the high command of US forces in Iraq. So Petras is being published --indirectly to be sure-- by the grace of the Amir of Qatar who also shows his grace to CENTCOM. Further, the journalists who actually set up al-Jazeera were mainly veterans of BBC and Voice of America, which Petras' old Marxist-Leninist friends might call "imperialist" press services. If I'm not mistaken, the potentate of Qatar also holds a share of ownership in al-Jazeera [maybe a majority share] which is also a commercial TV operator, if I am not mistaken, thus a profitmaker. Curiously, the corporate headquarters of Al-Jazeera are in London, although it operates out of Qatar. Figure that one out.

Be that as it may, Qatar and the other Persian Gulf emirates and sheikdoms, etc., plus Saudi Arabia, own a great deal of capital and real estate in Western countries, including the United States. So by allowing his pen to be rented out by al-Jazeera, Petras seems to be --collaborating-- with imperialists, at least according to Lenin's definition. Lenin said that big capital or finance capital was imperialist by definition.

So Petras' role as a pristine pure Marxist-Leninist anti-imperialist would seem to be very tarnished by his association with or employment by Qatar's al-Jazeera.

UPDATING:
Here is a web article with documentation on the al-Jazeera link to the Qatar government and ruling family, as well as on the career history of most of its original journalists and editors as employes of BBC or VOA. George Bush, visiting Qatar, referred to the ruler as an "amir." However, shaykhs abound in the ruling al-Thani family. According to a book on Al-Jazeera by Hugh Miles (London 2005), the Amir and/or government of Qatar have invested hundreds of millions of dollars in Al-Jazeera which is a commercial enterprise but apparently not yet profit-making [correct error above]. Hence, members of the al-Thani family and/or the Qatar govt have given al-Jazeera additional capital inputs or loans over the years [see Miles book, p 346, quoted in the web article linked to from this paragraph].
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
Coming: More lies of the "peace process" and Annapolis, more on Jews in Jerusalem, Hebron, elsewhere in the Land of Israel, etc.

False Premises of Annapolis & of the "peace process"

It is characteristic of decaying
societies and ruling groups that
they are incapable of adjusting to
the evolution of reality. They repeat
discussions and arguments and behaviors
that have failed, but which they cannot
renounce because they have been as if
hypnotized by their own beliefs.
The myth of the "peace process"
in the Middle East is one of these. ******
Le propre des sociétés et des pouvoirs
finissants est leur incapacité à s'ajuster
à l'évolution de la réalité. Ils réitèrent
des discours et des comportements qui
ont echoué mais auxquels ils ne peuvent
renoncer parce qu'ils sont comme
hypnotisés par leurs propres croyances.
Le mythe du «processus de paix» au
Moyen Orient est de ceux-là.
[Shmuel Trigano, "Le Besoin d'un nouveau
paradigme pour le Moyen Orient,"
France-Israel Information,
juillet-aout-septembre 2007, p 5]

One of the big lies of the "peace process" [and of the Annapolis Conference] is that a "peace process" necessarily ends up in a state of peace. This is idiotically viewing a "peace process" as something like a scientific or industrial process that always produces the same results. As if it were like heating water to 100 degrees celsius which --we know from experience-- will cause it to boil and evaporate as steam. Or the process may be like kindling a fuse that leads to well-packed dynamite. Which --we know from experience and reputation-- will bring about an explosion. Of course a "peace process" may very well end up in an explosion but that's not what the promoters of the process would have us believe. They speak of a "peace process" as if it were scientifically sure to result in peace. They might prefer an analogy to putting out a fire. The rage of the "palestinians" over "unfair treatment" might be likened to a fire which Israel could put out by giving them territory which would have the effect on "palestinian" or Arab rage of the chemicals in a fire extinguisher which put out fires.

Of course that may work in a natural science like physics or chemistry but not in political science. The diplomatic peacemongers disregard or pretend to be unaware of the fact that human beings in all their variety, with their virtues and vices [more of the latter than the former], are involved.

Shmuel Trigano writes that the Oslo "peace process" has "proven itself over the years to be, above all, a war process" [processus de guerre]. That seems obvious to many people, probably to the overwhelmingly majority of Israelis. But it still has to be said. And repeated over and over. Because, as Trigano points out, "'the peace process' still continues today. . . and some push the impudence or the farce" so far as to "announce to us a soon to come final --'historic'-- peace agreement."
So much for "peace processes" in general and the Oslo "peace process" in particular.

Another big lie is that there is a people called a "palestinian people." Actually, those people now fashionably called "palestinians" consider themselves merely a section of the Arab nation [see Article One of the PLO charter, among other documents]. There never was a "palestinian people" in history and indeed the Arabs did not traditionally call the country "palestine" nor did they see it as a separate, distinct country. Rather for Arabs and other Muslims it was an undefined, indistinct area of bilad ash-Sham [translated as Greater Syria or Syria]. But the "palestinian people" notion is necessary for creating a body of public opinion in the West in favor of taking territory away from Israel, territory vital for Israel's defense against the Arab states in general or against Arab and other Islamic states. Shmuel Trigano points out that:

After 15 years of illusions, two facts force themselves to be noticed:
1) The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is an Israel-Arab conflict, or Israel-Islamic conflict (indeed, Pakistanis and Indonesians, even Muslim Europeans who have become Islamists, are not Arabs).
2) The Palestinians don't want a Palestinian state but the disappearance of the state of Israel.

Hence, Israel is not fighting merely "palestinians" but Arabs generally and other Muslims. Thus Trigano refutes two more lies of the "peace process," that is, that Israel is fighting "palestinians" alone, that there is an "Israel-palestinian" conflict, and that the palestinian Arabs or other Arabs want a separate "palestinian state," much less a state alongside Israel living at peace with Israel.
Of course, President Bush Junior claims that that's what he wants. But if he thinks that that's what the Arabs want, then he's a fool or ignoramus or liar or all of those.

Bush also now says that setting up a "palestinian state" is a "national interest" of the USA. That could be true but it is a matter of interpretation at best or a matter of definition. Bush and the State Department want people to believe that it is within their competence to decide what is the American national interest. But should Americans rely on Bush or the State Department? Jimmy carter and his power behind the throne, Zbig Brzezinski, helped bring the Islamic fanatic Khomeini to power in Iran. The current ranting, bomb-brandishing leader of Iran, Ahmadinejad, was a follower of Khomeini. So carter-zbig's policy helped bring Ahmadinejad to power years later and now the world faces the threat of the atomic bomb in the hands of maniacs. In 1990, james baker, Daddy Bush's secretary of state, helped fascist Syria take over most of Lebanon. This kind of policy is sometimes called "realism." Yes, it's real, real kooky. No doubt walt-mearsheimer agree that a "palestinian state" is a national interest of the United States, one of those national interests that they often talk about as a general category but don't specify when they complain that Israel thwarts US "national interests." If so, then Bush Junior and walt-mearsheimer are on the same team.

That is, walt-mearsheimer aid Bush and Condi Rice [signorina riso amaro] in promoting a "palestinian state." But it is seldom argued any more or even questioned whether there is a "palestinian people," for if there were no "palestinian people," then people throughout the world might ask: If there is no "palestinian people," then why is a "palestinian state" necessary?
- - - - - - - - -
Coming: more lies of Annapolis and the "peace process," peace follies, propaganda, Jews in Jerusalem, Hebron, and the Land of Israel, etc.

Arabs Opposed Zionism on account of Islam -- Condi Rice smears Israel as Apartheid state

Sometimes those who speak in the name of morality in fact degrade morality, decency, and the lofty purposes they pretend to speak in the name of. Condi Rice [riso amaro], US secretary of state, spoke at the Annapolis Conference about her suffering as a black child in the American South in the days of racial segregation [ jimcrow] there. Yet Rice practiced her own form of segregation or apartheid at the Conference. At the behest of the Saudis, she ordered that Israeli delegates to the assembly of the full group, the plenum, of delegates, come in by a separate entrance from the Arabs, who were allowed to come in by the main entrance. This shows of course that the Arabs are not ready for peace. It also shows the Arab-Muslim tradition of practicing humiliation on and imposing an apartheid-like status on non-Muslims, albeit this status is based on religion rather rather than skin color or ethnic descent. It further proved that US policy is biased in favor of the Arabs, as it has almost always been even before Israel became a state in 1948. The Arabs can't impose this status on the Westerners on whom the Saudis and other super rich Arab bigots depend for their fabulous wealth. But they can still impose humiliation on Jews whom some Westerners, the State Department in particular, are only too happy to bring low.

Rice compounded her raging hypocrisy by equating Israel with a racist, segregationist --apartheid-- society, like the American South where she grew up.

. . . as a black child in the South, forbidden to use certain water fountains and shunned from certain restaurants, she [Rice] was also in a good position to understand the feelings of the Palestinians. [Jerusalem Post 11-29-07]

This is dishonest because Arabs in Israel were never forbidden to use water fountains or eat in restaurants with Jews. In fact, one of the early victims of Arab terrorist attacks in Jerusalem back in the 1990s --post-Oslo-- was an Arab who had taken his wife out to dinner at a Jewish restaurant in downtown Jerusalem, on Nahalat haShiv`ah Street. A terrorist came and started shooting at those dining at outdoor cafe tables. And he killed a fellow Arab who was dining there, who was even treating his wife with respect. Of course, one could split hairs and claim that Rice was not imputing to Israel the kind of jimcrow segregation that she and other Blacks had suffered when she was a child. But her words were not precise enough to make a distinction. The next paragraph in the Post's article went:

"I know what it is like to hear to that you cannot go on a road or through a checkpoint because you are Palestinian," she said. "I understand the feeling of humiliation and powerlessness."

So it is unclear whether she was referring only to checkposts and certain roads, or trying to combine the checkposts, roads, water fountains, and restaurants all together, to produce an implicit or insinuated charge of racist humiliations identical to those in the South, along with the justified prohibitions on Arabs using certain roads leading to Jewish settlements where Arabs in the past had murdered Jewish travelers in drive by shootings, especially frequent starting in early 2001. In other words, Arabs had murdered Jews on certain roads leading to Jewish settlements in drive by shootings and this led to forbidding Arab drivers to drive on those roads. In addition, everybody has to go through checkposts here in Israel. I too and my family have to go through checkposts and metal detectors in order to get into shopping malls, supermarkets, and other public places. This too is a result of Arab terrorism. It is a rightful, justified measure to protect everyone who legitimately uses those public places, including Arabs who may come to shop or obtain information at the city hall, etc. Of course, Jews are humiliated when the world's only superpower says that Jews have no right to live in the heart of their historic homeland, and have fewer rights than the Arabs who want to murder them.

As said before, Arabs too have been victims of Arab terrorism. Now, some claim that Jews don't have the right to go to live in Judea-Samaria, the heart of the ancient Jewish homeland. That too is racism, anti-Jewish racism, whether it comes from a Republican secretary of state of the United States, or some raging, foaming at the mouth "leftist" anti-Zionist, or even from a foolishly inconsistent Jewish socialist who perceives the Judeophobia underlying "anti-Zionism," yet takes pride in opposing Jewish settlements in places like Judea-Samaria that he does not approve of Jews living in. Thereby, he too becomes an antisemite or Judeophobe.

Furthermore, the lie about Jewish settlements in Judea-Samaria being illegal is one of the false bases of the so-called "peace process" and of the racist event that just took place at Annapolis. In fact, the British Empire forbid Jews to buy real estate in most of Judea-Samaria in the 1939 "Palestine White Paper," a ban implemented in 1940. This policy was found illegal by the League of Nations Permanent Mandates Commission. It was part of Britain's contribution to the Holocaust. Today's British anti-Zionists might take pride in it if they knew about it. In fact, the Jewish National Home principle encouraged Jews to settle in the heart of the ancient Jewish homeland, the Jewish National Home designated by the San Remo Conference and the League of Nations, confirmed by the UN charter [article 80]. Hence, the claim commonly made that Judea-Samaria are "occupied" by Israel is false, as is the claim that Geneva Convention IV forbids Jews to voluntarily go live in Judea-Samaria, even if they are "occupied," which they are not. These are more false premises of the Annapolis war & genocide conference. Again, no real international law forbids Jewish settlement in Judea-Samaria, the heart of the ancient Jewish homeland and the internationally designated Jewish National Home. Only racist, Judeophobic laws enacted by Judeophobes could forbid Jewish settlement, Judeophobes like the EU Commission and EU parliament, the UK, the US State Department, and the Arabs.

Rice in her hypocrisy --or ignorance of Arab-Muslim history-- overlooked the age-old Arab-Muslim oppression of non-Muslims in Arab-Muslim-ruled society, the dhimmis. However, Pierre Rondot conveniently explains that before the Middle Eastern countries of Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq were ruled by Western powers under the mandates given to France and Britain, the non-Muslims suffered an inferior legal status.

The principle of equality of the various communities, affirmed by the mandates, totally contradicted the previous rules. Up till then in fact [up to the start of mandatory government ca. 1920], Muslim primacy had remained unchallenged. [Rondot, p 127]
Le principe de l’égalité des diverses communautés, affirmé par les mandats, contredit entièrement les règles antérieures. Jusqu’alors, en effet, la primauté musulmane était demeurée incontestée. [Pierre Rondot, Les Chretiens de l'Orient (Paris: Peyronnet 1955), p 127]

Rondot goes on to point out that the Muslim Arabs were not pleased with this new dispensation of equality in the several countries under mandate, including Israel, which the Western powers and the League had given the territorial name "palestine," not traditionally used by the Arabs.

But it involved for the Christians [Arabic-speaking Christians] only a secondary role there [in the Arab nationalist and anti-Zionist movement]; Islamic sentiment formed, behind the national idea, the most powerful motive to bring into play against the Zionist invaders. No Christian could nor did claim the role that little by little circumstances let fall as by right upon Haj Amin Husseini, Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. [p 129]

Mais il ne peut s’agir là [dans le mouvement arabe nationaliste et antisioniste] pour les Chrétiens, que d’un rôle secondaire; le sentiment islamique constitue, derrière l’idée nationale, le ressort le plus puissant à faire jouer contre les envahisseurs sionistes; nul Chrétien ne pouvait prétendre et n’a prétendu au rôle que peu à peu les circonstances ont dévolu à Hadj Amine Husseini, grand mufti de Jérusalem. [p 129, voir aussi pp 233-234]

Rondot is saying that the Arab anti-Zionist movement in the Land of Israel and elsewhere in the Arab-dominated countries, was motivated by Muslim bigotry, which also needed to keep Arabic-speaking Christians subordinate in the movement.
Rondot is coy about admitting what "Muslim primacy" meant specifically. He avoids describing the whole dhimmi system [dhimma, dhimmitude] (see here & here too), and notably as applied to Jews. He is also coy about the career of Haj Amin el-Husseini, who was an eager Nazi collaborator and took part in the Holocaust, urging the Germans to kill more Jews.

Getting back to Saudi racist-Judeophobic influence on United States policy, the Saudis forbid Jewish American citizens to come to Saudi Arabia back in the 1950s. At that time, American Jewish organizations complained a great deal about the Judeophobia of this discriminatory Saudi policy which was accepted by the United States. Somehow, walt-mearsheimer do not deal with this issue. They represent the State Department which has always been indulgent toward Arab abuses. In the 1930s, when German Jews were fleeing from Nazi Germany, the State Department made it very difficult for Jewish refugees from Germany to come to the United States. During the Holocaust, the State Department's anti-Jewish policy was continued in regard to both letting in refugees and to destroying the mass murder factories of Nazi Germany, such as Auschwitz. Of course, the British role in the Holocaust was more prominent and more active.

The Annapolis Conference was a move toward war and genocide. It was not legitimate diplomacy. It undermined the legitimate interest of the American people in living in a world of democratic, peace-loving states, rather than war-mongering, jihad-mongering kingdoms and tyrannies like Saudi Arabia. The representatives of Israel at the conference were not legitimate representatives [that is, olmert & livni, etc]. Therefore, the conclusions and agreements made at the conference are not legitimate.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Coming: More on walt-mearsheimer's lies, frauds, & dishonesty; propaganda, peace follies, the false bases of Annapolis and of the "peace process," Jews in Jerusalem and the Land of Israel, etc.