Tamari Kitossa

The Jewish Holocaust of Gaza continues. Jewish, yes, because Israel, however Zionist, is the only Jewish State in the world. And, yes, while Zionism crosses religious lines, there is something deeply emotive about linking Jews with committing a holocaust and undertaking genocide the past 75-years. Of course, there have been Jews resisting and protesting Israel’s 75-year long genocide, even to the point of questioning the very legitimacy of the State. But now that a larger number of Jews are belatedly protesting – “not in my name” – the holocaust of Gaza, they need to ask themselves where were they the past 75-years. Did they not know that Israel from its inception was a conquistadorial project with the explicit intent of ‘wiping out’ the Palestinians as though they are/were a human stain? Why is this important in view that the State of Israel was formed by incredible acts of terror by those who would go on to establish the leadership and high administration of the State?

If one blames the Jew for not having been ennobled by oppression, one is not indicting the single figure of the Jew but the entire human race, and one is also making a quite breathtaking claim for oneself. I know that my own oppression did not ennoble me, not even when I thought of myself as a practicing Christian. I also know that if today I refuse to hate Jews, or anybody else, it is because I know how it feels to be hated.

I initially planned this blog to be a move in three parts, but now, given the present conditions of the holocaust in Gaza reaching its fork in the road after 75 years since it started, I must submit my conclusion separately in consideration of the facts. In any case, my purpose with these posts is to make the case that the most accurate analogue to apprehend the magnitude of the destruction of Palestinians by the Zionist Nation-State of Israel is not Apartheid, but Nazism. Why? Apartheid qualifies for some, but not all five criteria set forth in the UN’s watered-down appropriation of Raphael Lemkin’s definition of genocide. That the UN has, in its wisdom, determined that Apartheid but Nazism is a crime, should not restrict scholarly analogy. This is after all a matter that exceeds law. My point is that the nature of social dominance implicated in the distinction between Apartheid and Nazism, is fundamentally of an different character.

In Part 1 of this essay I deconstructed the epistemic imperialism and thought control of the International Holocaust Rememberance Alliance’s (IHRA) regarding Israeli’s destruction of Palestinians. The IHRA’s objective is to make the Ashkenazi experience of racio-religious discrimination as the pares inter pares (i.e., the first among equals) of genocides. Now in Part II I move to falsify the analogization of Zionism with Nazism by contrast and comparison with the logic and practice of Apartheid. I aim less to dispel the analogical validity of Apartheid and Zionism, since both are colonialist in theory and practice, and more to assert the limits of Apartheid as a fitting analogue. I suggest that while there is a close kindred between the two, from the installation of the State of Israel in 1948 and the foundation and collaboration between Apartheid South Africa in 1948 until its replacement by neoliberalism in 1994, the two regimes differ. This difference hinges on the Zionist imperative toward the destruction of the Palestinian people.  Committed to lebensraum,[3] Zionism is a colonial project committed to ethnic cleansing. The colonial mentality of ‘purifying the land’ of savages most certainly preceded the Nazi holocaust and Germany’s coalition of German industrialists, US bankers and Hitler’s gang of thugs which formed the Third Reich. But if we follow Zymunt Bauman’s thesis that links bureaucracy with the destruction of European Jewry, it is the bureaucraticization of expungement and the ideology of genocide which harnesses popular support that constitutes the key distinction between the two kindred regimes.

The Jewish state tried to employ the tragic memories [of the holocaust of Ashkenazi Jews] as the certificate of its political legitimacy, a safe-conduct pass for its past and future policies, and above all the advance payment for the injustices it might itself commit.

Without the help of the rising priestly caste, the hunting chieftain could never have achieved the engaged powers and cosmic authority that attended his elevation to kingship and widened his sphere of influence.

A PERSISTENT MYTH throughout history – one that seems to perpetuate itself in society after society, no matter how often proved wrong and no matter at what cost – is that a populace can be forced to behave as rulers see fit.  – Harold E. Pepinsky and Paul Jesilow,

The novel effect of World War II was the creation of formal, official – and lasting! – union between the intellectual and national government…The marriage of university and government took place then…

I once accepted as absolute and incontrovertible, the idea that the one and only true power of government is to create, enable and promote the ideological and material conditions which undergird the human psychology of fear. This is a view articulated by Robert Higgs, Charles Tilly, and, before them, Lewis Mumford in chapter 8, “Kings as Prime Movers”, in his classic The Myth of the Machine, volume 1. How else can the phenomenon of living and interacting in groups, which produces the emergence of human personality in its creative individuality, so that the group may consciously be created by individuals, exist without the fear of isolation from which most recoil, but which yet others regard as a test and confirmation of their individual personality? As David Icke has repeatedly asserted, fascist and tyrannical government in all its forms has only ever been arrested in human history where/when individuals of conscience rise to say “No!”. It may well be that whatever else governments may do to cultivate fear, it may be as I noted in Parts 1 and 2 of my blog post “Coviditarianism” that there may be good evolutionary reasons why the individual personality of some is so strong that no amount of fear-mongering by the group, or later the State and its government, can dissuade such individuals from insisting freedom irrespective of deprivation, isolation and torture. 

Ontario’s Medical Officer of (Ill)Health has exerted pressure on physicians not to write letters of accommodation for medical, religions or conscience. What he is doing is nothing short of an abuse of authority, breach of public trust, a violation of the Hippocratic oath and criminal intervention in the patient-physician relationship. Who will fact check him? Who elected him? Who will discipline and dismiss him? Doug Ford? Hardly! Justin (This-is-the-only-way-out) Trudeau? We know where Trudeau stands on the law and public policy of consent: he has brushed these guaranteed protections aside to satisfy the globalist anti-state sovereignty agenda.