Attacking Will Smith, Tony Judt

Zionism Rots the Brain

by Joachim Martillo (ThorsProvoni@aol.com)

 

On December 22, 2007, actor Will Smith made the perfectly reasonable statement about Hitler, "I think he woke up in the morning and, using a twisted, backwards logic, he set out to do what he thought was 'good.'"

 

Throughout the media and blogosphere reports turned the statement into something of the order "Will Smith believes Hitler was basically a good person," and Jewish groups demanded apologies.

 

ADL national director Abraham Foxman summarized the situation, "Unfortunately, in citing Hitler in what appears to be a positive context, Smith stirred up a hornet's nest on the Internet, where hate groups and anti-Semites latched on to the remark and praised it."

 

What positive context?

 

This stupidity of this controversy topped the recent nonsense in Bremen.

 

According to "Lob und Tadel" by Frank König in «Jüdische Zeitung», Dezember 2007:

Judt, the Hannah Arendt Prize Committee, the Heinrich Böll Institute and well the Bremen Senate were sharply criticized in an "open letter" from the Executive Committee of the Jewish Committee of Bremen. That Judt injected an outspoken "anti-Israel" tendency in his essays in the last year speaks according to the opinion of the said executive committee in no way in favor of conferring such a prize upon him. Expecially an article, that Judt published in 2003 in the New York Review of Books, as well as Judt's following opinion are "intolerable" for the Jewish Community of Bremen. Judt accuses Israel of propagating a form of state-nationalism, that is in fact not commensurate with bringing about a rational solution in the Middle East conflict between Israelis and Palestinians. Judt argues for a one-state and binational solution to the conflict. In conformance with this stance, Judt acts on behalf of "the official Palestinian, propaganda view of the history, along with invented and twisted facts as well as anti-Israel vocabulary" as it is described in the "open letter."

 

Kritisiert werden Judt, die Hannah-Arendt-Preis-Jury, die Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung sowie der Bremer Senat besonders scharf in einem «offenen Brief» vom Präsidium der Jüdischen Gemeinde Bremen. Dass Judt in Aufsätzen der letzten Jahre eine ausgesprochen «antisraelische Haltung» lanciere, spreche nach Auffassung besagten Präsidiums keinesfalls dafür, einen solchen Preis zu erhalten. Speziell ein Aufsatz, den Judt 2003 in der «New York Review of Books» publiziert hatte, sowie eine Auffassung Judts seien für die Jüdische Gemeinde Bremen «unerträglich». Judt werfe Israel vor, eine Art von staatlichem Nationalismus zu propagieren, der überhaupt nicht angemessen sei, um eine sinnvolle Lösung im Nahost-Konflikt zwischen Israelis und Palästinensern herbeizuführen. Judt spricht sich für eine einstaatliche und binationale Lösung dieses Konflikts aus. Damit vertrete Judt «die offizielle palästinensische, propagandistische Sicht auf die Geschichte, samt der erfundenen und verdrehten Fakten sowie des antiisraelischen Vokabulars», wie es in dem «offenen Brief» heißt.

In other words the Bremen Jewish community attacked Judt just the way the American Jewish community attacked Arendt for skepticism about Zionism and for proposing a one-state federated solution to the Middle East conflict. Finding a more appropriate recipient for the Hannah Arendt Prize would have been difficult.

 

I used to think the sort of Jewish behavior that characterized the Smith and Judt insanity resulted from Zionist/Holocaust brain-rot in combination with the arrogant belief that Jews are the moral arbitrators of everything, but the irrationalization of all discussion of Hitler, the Holocaust, Zionism and the State of Israel effectively prevents sensible debate over US and EU foreign policy in the Middle East.

 

I have even found evidence of the coordination between the Boston Jewish community and the German Jewish community over the last three years in ongoing projects to attack deviations from Zionist and Holocaust orthodoxy.

 

BTW, I am extremely skeptical of binationality as Zionists have historically used the term. In the Zionist völkisch organic nationalist conceptualization, the binational state does not belong to its citizens but to two separate nations (Völker). Political issues are not decided democratically but via negotiation between the two nations. Because binationalist Zionists never discuss the mechanism of arbitration between the nations, either they are dishonest in their commitment to binationalism or they always expect the stronger party (the Zionists) to make the final decision on all matters of state.
Sphere: Related Content