The "Hitler State", and other confected controversies. posted by Richard Seymour

Just by way of introduction: Rachel Corrie - even so harmless, so blonde, so white, so American and therefore pure a figure as she - is controversial in death. Having had her spinal chord severed and the life crushed out of her by an Israeli military bulldozer that was intent on destroying the home of a Palestinian family, her story is perhaps the only one that could persuade a large number of Americans that Israel is capable of serious wrong-doing. Her story is hardly more controversial than that, and yet quite predictably the knives were out from day one. She was a dopy, pampered, upper class, irresponsible liberal at best, a member of Hamas, a terrorist-lover, someone who actually burned America's flag. Israel turned on its own fog machine: the ISM were terrorists, or criminals, or protecting terrorists, and it was all an accident anyway, or it was actually a concrete slab that killed her, or they weren't really trying to plough the house down anyway, and so on. Partly because of this pack of lies, and partly because of cowardice and a blizzard of lobbying and hysteria and contrived outrage, the would-be New York stagers of a play about Rachel Corrie's life pulled it.

Such is the state of debate about the issue that even a film about the moral torment of some Israelis by Steven Spielberg sets the neoconservative op-ed writers into a flutter. These pillocks have always been assisted, of course, by charlatan left-Zionists like David Hirsh of Goldsmith's College, Norman Geras of the University of Manchester, Linda Grant of The Guardian and the idiots at Engage. I dealt previously with some of the bullshit that these slanderers are liable to put about, usually in the context of claims about rising antisemitism in Europe and allegations that anti-Zionism is antisemitism, either in theory or in practise or both. One thing that some of these creeps accused George Galloway of was describing Israel as a "Hitler State". Jaws yammered at that one for some time, although Hirsh resentfully admitted that he hadn't in fact said it.

Still, it occurs to me - what right would the defenders of a racist, murderous state founded on ethnic cleansing, and which preserves itself on the very principle of that ethnic cleansing, have to moralise about such a statement even if it had been made? Obviously, this line of complaint dovetails with the standard left-Zionist contention that criticism of Israel is unduly vigorous, excessive, and at the expense of attention to more compelling matters, which is no more impressive than the kind of special pleading that some made for Afrikaaner white supremacy during the 1980s. Aside from having ethnically cleansed the Palestinians, stolen their land and property, butchered them, oppressed them, waged aggressive wars against surrounding states and partaken of the spoils of others, stolen more land, exploited Palestinians where it has not simply driven them into militarised ghettos, usurped their water, bulldozed their houses, raided their refugee camps, bombed their towns and villages, committed repeated massacres with ongoing complicity, support, diplomatic cover, military and economic assistance from the West - aside from all of that and much more besides, Israel now stands poised to ethnically cleanse the Palestinians from the West Bank by stealth, appropriation and expropriation, to segregate and/or drive out those Palestinian Arabs who reside within Israel and to subject those who remain in the smaller and smaller pockets of space left for them to starvation and immiseration. Meanwhile, child-killers are rewarded, torture centres are maintained, Israel threatens the use of its nuclear weapons on neo-Biblical pretexts, and open threats of ethnic cleansing are made with widespread support. Look at this:

A poll of attitudes among Israel's Jews towards their country's Arab citizens has exposed widespread racism, with large numbers favouring segregation and policies to encourage Arabs to leave the country.

The poll found that more than two-thirds of Jews would refuse to live in the same building as an Arab. Nearly half would not allow an Arab in their home and 41% want segregation of entertainment facilities.

The survey also found 40% of Israel's Jews believe "the state needs to support the emigration of Arab citizens", a policy advocated by some far-right parties in the run-up to next week's general election.

...

Among the poll's other findings was that 63% of Jewish Israelis consider their country's Arab citizens a "security and demographic threat to the state". Some 18% said they felt hatred when they heard someone speaking Arabic, and 34% agreed with the statement that "Arab culture is inferior to Israeli culture".

This disastrous neo-colonial project with its ideology of blood and soil has almost finished off the Palestinians, is becoming more and more religiously and racially extreme, poses a mortal and enduring threat to surrounding countries, and even ultimately to itself (so the Christian fundamentalists hope, and so the purveyors of the Samson Option must believe). And we're supposed to worry about exactly what to call such a state? What would you prefer: The Volkish State? The State of Racial Purity and Blood Honour? Apocalypse Now? The Land of the Dead? You want to waste time claiming that Messrs Mearsheimer and Walt are antisemitic because of their slightly exaggerated estimation of the Israel lobby? That Finkelstein is "self-hating"? You really think it's important that opponents of Israel sometimes use intemperate language? Could you possibly be more puerile, and purblind? Could your idle sanctimony be more misplaced, more ridiculous, more thoughtless and parasitic on common complacency and racism? Could your casuistry and divagations in support of this repellent polity be more idiotic and transparent? Why be so obtuse? Why not just be honest: for you, Israel's morally upright supporters, the situation is no more urgent than your morning paper review. So, you have the luxury of fantasising about Israel's moral probity, its genesis in progressive idealism, its corruption because of those pesky Palestinians. You have the advantage of being able to wring your hands and pompously asseverate on the vices of Israel's opponents while the racist fanatics of the IDF do your dirty work for you. You can extemporise on Israel's victimhood, knowing that the media discourse will genuflect to this perfect absurdity almost without fail. You can attend rallies against the 'threat' posed by various Muslims, and not a hair on your head will worry. It's sick and stupid and racist, but because of the immense resources of your more reactionary allies, few will call you on it. Seriously, stop the waffling and just come out and say it.