Yesterday I posted an opinion on the Israeli-Palestinian crisis where I suggested that there is a racial component that may a more important part of the equation in the formation of our American official position than is generally considered. I viewed a morning newsette program a few minutes ago where the all-white panel reiterated the legitimate “self-defense” actions of the party which is by another once legitimate standard the invader and occupier of the land on which their presence has caused to be engulfed in bloodshed. Protests around the world where the hypocritical reversal of the David and Goliath scenario, in favor of Goliath, were characterized as “despicable anti-Semitism”. Considering that both parties engaged in the hostilities are ‘Semitic’, we are intellectually directed to differentiate between the good Semite and the bad. And I contend again that the hierarchy of needs of the white Semites, regardless of history, international law, or common decency, were given such overwhelming priority that I believe it is reasonable to question the organic racial origins of the thought processes of the panel rendering the opinion.
The Holocaust, often cited as the justification for the confiscation of Palestine from the Palestinians, was a European phenomena perpetrated by one set of Europeans on another set of Europeans. And it would seem a reasonable and legitimate query from the Palestinians seeking to discover why they must pay the bill for a debt generated in Europe. This is an especially appropriate question when the map of region they live in, and the entire African continent, is a testament to arbitrary lines drawn on maps by Europeans in total insensitivity to the cultures, history, ethnicity, or languages of the various peoples inhabiting the regions and summarily forced into artificial constructs that Europeans invented as nations. Why, a Palestinian might ask, wasn’t a portion of Germany, which was responsible for the Holocaust and the destruction of Europe, set aside for its victims. And why couldn’t the dominant U.S. recognize, within minutes, the establishment of a Jewish state there, and support and protect it similarly as it has done in appropriated Palestine? European guilt may have been a better assurance of the safety of a Jewish state than could or should be expected from Middle Eastern resentment.
Considering actual history, just about half of the history of the Jewish people occurred in the Middle East before any sort of Jewish political state came into being and/or accounting for brief and intermittent times when the Jewish people were sovereign in any part of the region, and the second half was primarily in Europe, it might be, from the Palestinian perspective appropriate for a Jewish state to be most correctly accommodated by Europe. But no, against reason, international law, or common decency, it was suddenly considered appropriate to politically legitimize a thousands of years old religious myth, much of which was de-legitimized by the Christian mythology of Europeans, and solve a white people’s problem by calculated disregard of the basic humanity of brown people. Apparently brown people have no rights white people are required to respect.
Am I obsessed with race? I would say no. But I am cognizant that the mentality of Europe and America, to the subconscious level, has been so deformed and mutated by racism, that even it the face of documented history they can’t accept or acknowledge the perversions of thought it has engendered - and continues to engender.
As a thought experiment, consider what might be the policy and position of the American government if the Palestinians were white and Mr. Netanyahu was brown. Who would be the terrorist then?
Monday, August 4, 2014
Sunday, August 3, 2014
Race? Of Course Not
The events in the Middle East are generating much discussion at present. As a matter of history, academic history, there can be no question that the Jews have no superior or un-debatable eternal exclusive claim of right to possess that geography. There can be no debate that the European holocaust, as horrific as it was, does not change the fact that the State of Israel began and continues as an act of pure conquest and usurpation. And in fact, as uncomfortable as it is, represents the continued historic trend of the last millennia, of white people taking stuff from brown people justified by their own self-serving, self-invented mythology.
Many will want to deny or discount the racial aspect embedded in the calculus of justifications, because to exclude this allows the other so-called “complexities” to render the debate “insoluble” via reason, or law, or common decency, and as always will resolve to the benefit of the party with the greatest military strength. Kareem Abdul Jabaar has recently and correctly observed that, “More white believe in the existence of ghosts than in the existence of racism”.
Still, why is it relevant to insert the “fabled” bogeyman of racism into a conflict that many would prefer to characterize as solely a political tussle, the conflicting prerogatives of political entities? It is relevant because the DNA of consciousness of European and Western powers have so mutated in the past several hundred years that there is an intractable subconscious belief that “white is right”. And that begs the question, have you ever seen an Israeli Prime Minister, Foreign Minister, Defense Minister, General or Ambassador who wasn’t bright white? It is a subtle convenience for the racist agenda to classify Europeans situated in Israel as Jews rather than white when the wrestle for wealth, power, or land is extramural rather than intramural. If the opponent or victims are brown, it is preferable not to have it thought of as a “white thing”.
But if a claim is being presented based on heritage and nativity to the region, why aren’t any other people native to the region “white”? How did the brown people ejected during the diaspora, fairly insular, prone to marry and reproduce within the tribe, turn white? For the purposes of this discussion the explanation of that phenomena is less important than the recognition of the phenomena, because I contend, that Europeans and Americans, religious beliefs notwithstanding and more appropriate for affairs in Heaven than on earth, and being largely ignorant of the actual history of the region, tend to reflexively grant superior moral and civil authority to other white people.
Is this an extreme argument? Well then, what rational process allows Americans particularly, supposedly reflected by acts and policies of their elected representatives, to so overwhelmingly concur that the Palestinians can’t and shouldn’t have a State and a homeland in the land where they have continuously resided since history, pre-Biblical, Biblical, and academic, was first writ?
Again, I contend, that if both the Israelis and the Palestinians were brown, the demands of rational fairness and intellectual honesty would mitigate American policy, and even the moral tenor of what is perceived as our strategic interest would reflect more political and philosophic balance than is presently exhibited in our bizarre, immoral and grossly lopsided preference for an entitled Israel.
If the effect of mirrored racism , to the degree it impacts the thoughts and decisions of our leaders, is ignored or ridiculed as fantasy, the ultimate prospects for justice and peace will fall victim to obvious injustice, and the dove of peace will not have a branch to rest upon.
Many will want to deny or discount the racial aspect embedded in the calculus of justifications, because to exclude this allows the other so-called “complexities” to render the debate “insoluble” via reason, or law, or common decency, and as always will resolve to the benefit of the party with the greatest military strength. Kareem Abdul Jabaar has recently and correctly observed that, “More white believe in the existence of ghosts than in the existence of racism”.
Still, why is it relevant to insert the “fabled” bogeyman of racism into a conflict that many would prefer to characterize as solely a political tussle, the conflicting prerogatives of political entities? It is relevant because the DNA of consciousness of European and Western powers have so mutated in the past several hundred years that there is an intractable subconscious belief that “white is right”. And that begs the question, have you ever seen an Israeli Prime Minister, Foreign Minister, Defense Minister, General or Ambassador who wasn’t bright white? It is a subtle convenience for the racist agenda to classify Europeans situated in Israel as Jews rather than white when the wrestle for wealth, power, or land is extramural rather than intramural. If the opponent or victims are brown, it is preferable not to have it thought of as a “white thing”.
But if a claim is being presented based on heritage and nativity to the region, why aren’t any other people native to the region “white”? How did the brown people ejected during the diaspora, fairly insular, prone to marry and reproduce within the tribe, turn white? For the purposes of this discussion the explanation of that phenomena is less important than the recognition of the phenomena, because I contend, that Europeans and Americans, religious beliefs notwithstanding and more appropriate for affairs in Heaven than on earth, and being largely ignorant of the actual history of the region, tend to reflexively grant superior moral and civil authority to other white people.
Is this an extreme argument? Well then, what rational process allows Americans particularly, supposedly reflected by acts and policies of their elected representatives, to so overwhelmingly concur that the Palestinians can’t and shouldn’t have a State and a homeland in the land where they have continuously resided since history, pre-Biblical, Biblical, and academic, was first writ?
Again, I contend, that if both the Israelis and the Palestinians were brown, the demands of rational fairness and intellectual honesty would mitigate American policy, and even the moral tenor of what is perceived as our strategic interest would reflect more political and philosophic balance than is presently exhibited in our bizarre, immoral and grossly lopsided preference for an entitled Israel.
If the effect of mirrored racism , to the degree it impacts the thoughts and decisions of our leaders, is ignored or ridiculed as fantasy, the ultimate prospects for justice and peace will fall victim to obvious injustice, and the dove of peace will not have a branch to rest upon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)