Gilad Atzmon

Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stands in front of
a portrait of Theodore Herzl, the father of Zionism. (Reuters)

In a recent Haaretz article, leading Israeli columnist Gideon Levy affirms that Zionism is pretty irrelevant as far as Israelis are concerned. Similar to the line I myself develop in The Wandering Who?, Levy contends that Israelis do not understand what Zionism stands for. For them it is an archaic notion.

The meaning of it is simple. That which seems as a vivid ‘Zionist’ / ‘anti Zionist’ debate is in practice an internal Jewish Diaspora quarrel with no significant practical meaning.

Levy writes, “In 2012, the 64th year of the (Jewish) state, no one even knows for certain what remains of it (Zionism), what the role of Zionism is and how it is defined.”

“Who is a Zionist?” asks Levy. “The truth is that there is no answer. Not because Zionism was not a just cause – it was, even if it was tainted by unnecessary injustices, and not because it didn’t succeed. It was the greatest national success story of the 20th century. But that century is over and its greatest success story has been established. The national home arose, and now it is a regional power. Anyone who wanted to – about one-third of the Jewish people have – join it, and the door remains open to the rest.”

Zionism was clearly a Judeo-centric revolutionary idea, but as it seems, it achieved its goal in 1948. Hence, it isn’t surprising that contemporary Israelis fail to grasp the meaning of Zionism. If early Zionists promised to transform the Diaspora Jew into an civilised being, the Israelis, for some reason, see themselves as ‘civilised subjects’. They at least in their eyes, are the post revolutionary products.

Hence, Levy argues that “Zionism is no longer relevant, and its place is in the history books alone.” He suggests that “Zionism’s way has been lost to us (the Israelis). That was inevitable, because it has completed its task.”

More »

Bill Van Auken

The Pentagon has dispatched F-22 Raptors, the most advanced American warplanes, to the United Arab Emirates in a provocative escalation of US war threats against Iran.

The deployment of the stealth fighter-bombers to the UAE’s Al-Dhafra air base was first reported by the journal Aviation Week. The Pentagon’s official announcement mentioned only that the “United States Air Force has deployed F-22s to Southwest Asia” and that the action was intended to “strengthen military-to-military relationships, promote sovereign and regional security, improve combined tactical air operations, and enhance interoperability of forces ….”

On Monday, however, US military officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, confirmed to the French news agency AFP that the deployment was to the air base in the UAE.

The dispatch of these advanced weapons systems to the UAE marks a further buildup toward war against Iran under conditions in which Washington has already dispatched two aircraft carrier battle groups to the region.

It takes place in the midst of a ratcheting up of tensions between the UAE and Iran, egged on by Washington, over three small islands located at the mouth of the Strait of Hormuz—Abu Musa and the Greater and Lesser Tunb. The islands, often described in the Iranian press as “Iran’s aircraft carriers” are of strategic importance in the preparations for war with Iran. One of the major concerns in Washington is that Iran would respond to attack by blocking the Strait of Hormuz, through which some 40 percent of world’s sea-borne oil passes, with devastating effects on the global economy.

The deployment of the stealth fighter jets to the UAE drew an angry response from Iranian officials. Iran’s defense minister, Gen. Ahmad Vahidi, called it “a harmful action that damages regional security.” Vahidi described the US action as a form of “psychological warfare” that “will bear no fruit except insecurity and complications.”

More »

Stephen Lendman

After 12 years in office, Chavez remains overwhelmingly favored for reelection in October. Given the alternative, most Venezuelans have a clear choice.

Poll numbers predict a sweep. IVAD has United Socialist Party of Venezuela's (PSUV) Chavez leading the opposition umbrella group Democratic Unity Table's (MUD) Henrique Capriles Radonski by a 57.6% to 26.6% margin.

Venezuela's 21st Century Group of Social Investigation, a progressive think tank, predicts a similar result.

MUD officials supported the aborted 2002 two-day coup. Closely linked to Washington, democracy's abhorred. It won't be tolerated under a regime they control. Nor will Bolivarian populism.

The Washington Post called Capriles "a charismatic campaigner with a loyal following." It said he promises to "rebuild democratic institutions." Maybe April 2002 is his template.

The New York Times said he's "the fresh-faced governor of Miranda, one of the country's most populous states, which includes" much of Caracas.

Ignoring his fascist agenda, The Times also claimed he's "a political moderate." It suggested a "bruising and tight election campaign." It quoted him saying Chavez "believes he is God. He thinks he can't lose, and that's very good for us."

Primary results showed he won handily by 33 percentage points over Zulia state governor Pablo Perez.

Calling himself a social democrat, The Economist said he takes "a gradualist approach to restoring confiscated property, undoing currency controls and abolishing unconstitutional laws."

In 2002, he was Baruta mayor. He defended the coup. He joined fascist gangs attacking the Cuban embassy. It's was located in his former district. He violated international and Venezuelan law helping seize power. He never faced charges. How he wants to be president. Imagine law, order, and justice if he's elected.

He and other MUD officials represent wealth and power. Venezuelans want populism. Under Chavez, they've gotten it since 1999. They're not likely to give it back.

More »

Brit Dee

The trial of Norwegian mass-murderer Anders Behring Breivik has today entered its second week, with many interesting but chilling details having been revealed about the bombing in Oslo and subsequent shootings on the island of Utøya.

Perhaps most interesting of all, Breivik has provided a clear explanation of exactly what he hoped to achieve through his acts of terrorism. Immediately after the attack, some commentators speculated that the tragedy would be exploited by the political elite, to demonise moderate nationalists - "patriots" who reject mass immigration and the erosion of national culture - and to stifle debates on such issues.

This, it seems, is exactly what Breivik hoped for. During the third day of his trial, The Guardian reported how Breivik

insisted that his goal (in the short to medium term) was to make pariahs of Europe's nationalists – the very people with whom you might expect him to feel kinship. 'I thought I had to provoke a witchhunt of modern moderately conservative nationalists,' he said. Then he claimed that this curious strategy had already borne fruit, citing the example of Norway's prime minister, Jens Stoltenberg, who he said had given a speech since the attacks saying that critics of immigration were wrong. The effect of this 'witchhunt', said Breivik, would be to increase 'censorship' of moderately nationalist views, which would 'increase polarisation'. The effect of this, he said, would eventually lead to 'more radicalisation as more will lose hope and lose faith in democracy'. Ultimately, he said, these new radicals would join the war he has started to protect the 'indigenous people' of Norway and western Europe.

More »