Palestine: Seeking the Enemy Within

Malcolm X's views on separation from his oppressor's race are well known among those who study him, and poorly understood by others who have merely heard of them in relation to Reverend Martin Luther King's penchant for integration with the White Man. The views expressed in the article 'Jewish Voice for Peace? Really??' by Nahida the Exiled Palestinian, echo a poignantly similar theme to the motivations for separation espoused by Malcolm X.

Malcolm X's opinion was of course rooted in his strong sense of tribalism which he feared existed among the White Man and whom he perceived were collectively the oppressors of the black man. He noted in one of his speeches that: “We must have separation in order to be equal, we must have separation in order to have freedom, we must have separation in order to have justice.” He observed elsewhere in an interview, of the integration efforts through non-violence by Dr. Martin Luther King: “The white man pays Rev. Martin Luther King. Subsidizes Rev. Martin Luther King. So that Rev. Martin Luther King can continue to teach the negroes, to be defenseless. That's what you mean by non-violence. Be Defenseless. Be Defenseless in the face of one of the most cruel beast that has ever taken a people into captivity. That is this American white man.” If one studies the Autobiography of Malcolm X, it is plain that his thoughts were very tribal. He moved from one tribal scheme to another as his metanoia progressed, until he performed the Hajj, when his own clinging tribe advanced from the black man to the one billion plus Muslims.

In their article on “The Role of Jews in the Palestinian Solidarity Movement” in Counterpunch of April 26, 2011, Herskovitz and Kinnucan examined the impact of Malcolm X's tribalism upon the issue of Palestine resistance. They observed in their article that after Malcolm X returned from his “epiphanic trip to Mecca”, he was asked if White people could join his Organization of Afro-American Unity, and he replied:

“They can't join us. I have these very deep feelings that white people who want to join black organizations are really just taking the escapist way to salve their consciences. By visibly hovering near us, they are 'proving' that they are 'with us'. But the hard truth is this isn't helping to solve America's racist problem. The Negroes aren't the racists. Where the really sincere white people have got to do their 'proving' of themselves is not among the black victims, but out there on the battle lines of where America's racism really is – and that's in their own home communities.” (The Autobiography of Malcolm X, pp 383-384).

Herskovitz and Kinnucan further observed of Malcolm X:

'He added that by working separately, Whites and Blacks would form a successful collective. "Working separately, the sincere white people and the sincere black people actually will be working together."

The words of this fighter for justice are valid 46 years later in another context: Defining the role of Jews in the Palestine solidarity movement. The lesson is that sincere Jews should not play leading roles in the Palestinian solidarity movement, but should instead expose and challenge the racism that exists in their own Jewish communities. So what are Jewish-led and Jewish-identified groups and leaders doing? Certainly, they criticize atrocities committed by Israel in the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem, but are they clearly defining their positions? Do they oppose Jewish supremacism, as some opposed White supremacism in South Africa during the 1980s? Which of the higher profile Jewish-led and Jewish-identified groups are demanding an end to a Jewish state and full and immediate return for displaced Palestinians and their descendents?' --- counterpunch.org/herskovitz04262011.html

The sub-text of the Exiled Palestinian's article is based on the same principles of racial tribalism. The Exiled Palestinian evidently fears the same of the Jews as Herskovitz and Kinnucan, just like Malcolm X feared of the White Man.

My response article presents a counterpoint by openly stating the obvious. That unfortunately, empiricism indicates that Palestinians, both Muslim and Christian, can be no less tribal than the Jews.

Even further, that the Palestinians in Diaspora living a safe and often bountiful existence can be no less contemptuous (perhaps that's too strong a word – use your euphemism to taste) of their brethren on ground zero and in refugee camps than the Ashkenazi are of Sephardim.

To what degree to effect a separation when self-interests can diverge on almost any boundary? Let's take an empirical look – rather than merely a theoretical or rhetorical one.

The Palestinian Diasporans want Right of Return primarily. The ones on the ground floor in Gaza and in the West Bank don't care for that being the most important thing on their mind.

Those Palestinians living in palatial and/or comfortable homes in the West don't much care for those living in the refugee camps. This is true regardless of race, religion, caste, creed, and whether it is Palestinians or Pakistanis or Bengalis or Afghanis. This is a factual statement.

Shall we separate on that boundary as well?

At every boundary, whether it be between Jews and Palestinians, or between Muslims of one ethnicity or another, or between one Muslim sect or another, platitudes of the Holy Qur'an such as verse 4:135 quoted by the Exiled Palestinian aside – for if platitudes could govern behavior, the 3000 year old 'Golden Rule' and the Ten Commandments might have been sufficient obviating the need for the Qur'an altogether – we always see narrow vested interests governing one's primary motivations.

These vested interests are sometimes along tribal and racial lines, as Jews evidently always seem to be for obvious reasons of formerly being treated as the trash of history in 2000 years of living in Christendom. And other times along socioeconomic, ethnic, sectarian, and political lines.

- The most pertinent and basic form of this us vs. them tribal division, despite the undeniable sympathy and common bond of religion, is between 100 million Arabs vs. the 2 billion rest of the Muslim world. I don't see the Arabs much care for the rest of the Muslims.

- And 8-10 million Palestinians vs. the 100 million Arabs. I also don't see the Arabs terribly concerned with the plight of Palestinians judging from the squalor they force the poor refugees on their soil to live in.

- And 4-5 million Palestinians suffering on the ground floor in the Holy Lands and in surrounding refugee camps vs. an equal number in Diaspora. I also don't see them having many common concerns. One is facing life and death on a daily basis while the other is a comfortable tax-payer living in relative security elsewhere.

- And 1 to 2 million Palestinians who are citizens of the Jewish state of Israel - even if third class – vs. all the rest of the Palestinians on ground zero and in the rest of Diaspora. They each have their own vested interests and pressing concerns. No citizen of Israel, Jew or Gentile or Palestinian, can afford to really care very pragmatically about the general issues of the Palestinians even in the West Bank or Gaza, never mind those in Diaspora. Shall we separate on all those boundaries?

Treachery in leadership, and in movements, and forcing narrow vested interests to decide issues, are a general fact of life. These inevitably transcend all such tribal boundaries. One's worst enemy is often one's own leaders.

In her article, the Exiled Palestinian picked on one such demarcation, the Jews vs. the Palestinian tribal boundary. It appears to be the most convenient for the opportunities for vitriolicism and scape-goating that it naturally affords. And, while her arguments are quite convincing at some level, and dare I say also appear empirical at times, the conclusion it has arrived at, for a global struggle, is patently false.

I can show this in very specifics, even beyond what I have done above, that almost any such demarcation one picks, along almost any arbitrary axis, one can make equally compelling arguments for separation as numerous fracture lines will always exist among every people. The most significant are among the Palestinians themselves as a people. The only thing they universally share among themselves which loosely unites them in their loss of statehood, apart from memory, is victimhood. Not political goals. And not processes to achieve those non-existent common political goals. Do I tell a lie?

If one began blanketly separating on the au natural racial rift, one would be compelled by the force of its logic to eventually move along all the other dividing rifts inherent in tribalism as self-interests continued to split, almost all of them au natural, and one would be left pretty darn alone in practical and political terms. Lip-services to platitudes not withstanding.

I submit that pretty soon one would not be able to have any common struggles which transcended myopic tribalisms! That usage of the word “tribalisms” in its plural form adequately captures all au natural rifts for our purpose here, even though these are no longer strictly tribal in the usual racial sense, but intra and intra-intra tribal subsuming sects, ethnicities, religions, and reduced to almost familial resolution if narrow vested interests continue to diverge significantly. Is that an exaggeration?

But, if one can identify a real common enemy which can unite all such tribalisms in common cause, recursively forcing each lower order “tribal unit” to put the overarching enemy first in the best interest of furthering their own overall local self-interests, we have a movement which can transcend narrow individual self-interests!

Otherwise, au natural tribalisms will naturally prevail at every level always lending substance to specious (superficially appealing) arguments of separation.

This observation is not only commonsense, but also entirely empirical. It is also the first principle of divide et impera practiced by all superior colonizing forces from time immemorial.

In other words, separation is the tool of the colonizers themselves.

This is how they successfully colonized the Indo sub-continent. Inter alia, by separating Hindus and Muslims who had lived peaceably for centuries prior to the British conquest of India. The blood-drenched partition of the indo-subcontinent was the fruit of that harvest of well argued separation.

This was the purpose behind the Sykes–Picot Agreement which divided up the Arab peoples and lands into arbitrary nations and spheres of imperialist influence.

Oh – one is talking of separating from that palpable other, not one's own? What other when our own can be our biggest enemy as the surrogate of the other?

But let's continue with the common enemy bit first and take on the enemy within shortly. Can one identity a common enemy that will force unity of purpose regardless of tribe, race, caste, sex, religion, national affiliation?

Unfortunately, I have yet to meet a Palestinian who has answered in the affirmative. This is a very strange phenomenon. The Palestinians, like the Jews before them, evidently believe their struggle against oppression is unique, unparalleled, and therefore it deserves a special status. While Palestinians may not say this out loud, they often act to that unarticulated belief as will be made apparent shortly.

The Palestinians, despite their obvious protestations to the contrary, evidently are made no more brilliant or insightful about their plight just because they have been victimized anymore than the Jews are made holy and pious just because their killers in the previous holocaust were immoral and murderous. Both victims religiously cling to their respective virtues of victimhood as an impervious body-armor only particular to them, and through which all insights and criticisms fail to penetrate as if such honor was divined upon them.

For the record, the Jews are made no more moral today as a people because their killers were immoral yesterday as a people. This is already in evidence and is amply obvious to the world, but unfortunately not to the Jews. And the Palestinians have no more comprehension of the “Iron Wall” that besieges them today any more than they did yesterday, their eloquently quoting Jabotinsky notwithstanding. This is also obvious – but unfortunately not to the Palestinians. Do I misperceive this uncanny parallel?

Individually of course, like everyone else, I have encountered many moral Jews who put me to shame as a Muslim just as I have met many brilliant Palestinians whom I lookup to as beacons of knowledge and virtue in many matters. And yet, no Palestinian I have ever met has drawn the connection between World government and Zionism. Nor has any Palestinian I have ever met, or read, or interlocuted with, or written endless one-way letters to, recognized that the struggle for Jerusalem, the Holy Lands, the land of Canaan, is merely just one element of that global linkage, as the "Zion that will light up all the world".

But some non Palestinians have done both. Jerusalem, as the effective judicial capital of the world of the new ruling state of the world tomorrow (just as today the City is the effective financial capital and Washington the effective military capital and the Vatican the West's effective religious capital), is intimately linked with the overarching agendas of the common harbingers of both Zionism and World Government. That new judicial capital, to be located in Jerusalem, I only speculate of course based on the amazing and strange new Israeli Supreme Court building in Jerusalem overlooking the historic Solomon's temple, is intended to dispense judgments of Secular Humanism to the rest of the world.

It is all connected and Palestinians have not recognized it.

And it is connected through the House of Rothschild – the pious name to which the Balfour Declaration was issued. That pious name, more like a criminal syndicate than a family, owns the Jewish state of Israel, and all the world's private central banks, gold bullion, gold mines, and other earthly assets to make them worth more than the combined national debt of the United States of America and the rest of G-7 nations.

When I meet a Palestinian who knows that fact on his own without my informing him, that Balfour Declaration is in the Rothschild name, that day, I dearly suspect, will be the first day of the real waging of an efficacious common struggle for the recovery of both Palestine for all its indigenous peoples and the recovery of earth and its privatized resources for all its inhabitants.

On that first day of common struggle of all who are human beings first against mankind's common oppressors, the specious distinction between us vs. them on narrow tribal boundaries will look insignificant and idiotic. Am I being a hopeless idealist? Or a rational pragmatist as that being the only effective method to take on a common enemy without separation – to recognize it as such?

I have come to realize that the golem wrecking its overt holocaust upon the Palestinians with its Zionist military apparatuses as its henchmen, is not Jewish.

This golem devilishly harnesses the world Jewry using their staid old books no differently than the purveyors and conveyors of Islamofascism harness Muslim patsies as suicide bombers using their staid old books. The golem accomplishes the former overtly, with much finesse, sophistication, and openly with the blessings of the West. That's because the golem controls the West. But interestingly, the golem also accomplishes the latter, covertly, and gets the West to successfully attribute the blame upon Militant Islam. That is also because the golem owns the Mighty Wurlitzer and can synthesize any tune for any myth construction.

So wait a minute – am I saying to the beleaguered Palestinians that the War on Terror against Ali Baba, the quest for world government, and the conquest of Palestine are all related. Duh!

But I have not met a single Palestinian, nor read a single Palestine scholar, author, and touted intellectual, poet or academic, who has betrayed their knowledge of such intimate linkage by their revised advocacy of the Palestinian struggle in the light of what I am suggesting in this response article. Have you? Perhaps I may have missed it.

To my limited awareness, it appears that the latest fad in Palestinian intellectualism is the “one-state” automagic solution about to naturally fall out of the fait accompli of Israeli's effective conquest of all Palestinian territories. There is absolutely no recognition, zero, that the construction of Zionistan is intimately linked to the construction of world government and the automagic one-state is a mere figment of the rather fertile poetic imagination of the Palestinians rather than some insightful and accurate analysis of global events on their part. Perhaps I misperceive once again?

I will just leave a link to evidence – refute if one can, or, accept that matters in a global struggle against a common global enemy of all mankind cannot be so clear-cut of us vs. them along segregated racial lines as it might first appear when viewed from the rather tribal lens of a localized struggle.

Once we acquire that baseline understanding that Palestine as Zionistan, and the quest for World Government, are in fact intimately married to each other with Jews being made as much patsies as any Islamofascist suicide bomber, I think it will become a lot easier to discern who is with us in this common struggle for the liberation of earth from its tyrants, and who is against us, regardless of ethnicity, religion, race, caste and whatever else is used for tribally separating peoples.

That discernment must be the only demarcation for separation. It is in fact the only effective one, and the only practicable one.

For, if the focus continues to remain on the au natural tribal boundary as the Exiled Palestinian has spotlighted in her well written article, one ends up brushing under the rug the more significant and unarguable fact that Palestinians' own co-options, their own copious fifth columnists, their own house negroes, their own useful idiots, their own midget minds, have wrought far more harm to the Palestinian struggle and contributed to their ongoing dispossession now into its 63rd year of tribulation, than any largely symbolic Jews for Peace ever possibly can.

When one omits that palpable and grotesque fact from the calculus of liberation, as the Exiled Palestinian has evidently done in her essay, I believe one does oneself and the Palestinian peoples who look up to their intellectuals for guidance and leadership, a great disservice.

The highest order bit of the matter in confronting any external enemy effectively, has always been the enemy within – the weakest link. This is a fact testified to by recorded history.

And the conquest of Palestine in stages is no exception. While every Palestinian recognizes this fact of treachery, their best thinkers continue to harbor the mis-impression that now things are different, that now they are up to the treachery of their oppressors. The evidence of this self-delusion is their continued inability to distinguish friend from foe, higher order bit from lower order bit, and their continually seeing their holocaust in Palestine as a local event of the Holy Lands only specific to the Palestinians.

As victims, the beleaguered Palestinians find sympathy in every beating human heart. Almost every ISM member I have ever met is a Jew.

But let's examine the record of the Palestinians themselves a tad objectively beyond sympathies for victimhood.

How many Palestinians stand up against the tyranny being inflicted upon the rest of the world?

When Palestinians living comfortably in Diaspora, and occasionally going out on their weekend sloganeering junkets before returning to their own diligent pursuits of their 'American Dreams' weekdays, will stand up for anyone else other than their own travails, I will change my opinion of them.

Let me know which Palestinians took out a protest march, or publicly spoke out against the terror being inflicted upon the innocent civilians of Pakistan for instance, and I will update my records. In all anti-war marches, the Palestinians primarily come for their own local war in Palestine. Every Palestinian speaker in every single anti-war protest speech I have ever heard, has focused only on Palestine.

The cover of Pakistan Decapitation Papers has a photograph which was captioned by UK Independent news report of Sunday, 31 May 2009, as: 'In Pakistan, an exodus that is beyond biblical'. At least 2.4 Million were forced out of their homes according to the United Nations. The Al Jazeera report of May 09, 2009 headlined it: 'Pakistan Swat refugees seek help'. That forced eviction and daily slaughter of an innocent people caught as pawns on the Grand Chessboard dwarfs what happened in 1948 during the partition of Palestine on the then grand chessboard. The grandmasters of both are the same.

Yet, I have I never heard a peep of protest from the Palestinians, especially those in Diaspora, who are in the best position to know and feel that pain of eviction the most!

This is qualitatively no different a betrayal through silence, than when one wonders how can Jews in Zionistan inflict a holocaust upon another after supposedly experiencing their own, and the rest of the world Jewry remains silent?

And yet, what many a Jew ISM activist has done for the Palestinians, taken bullets to their head when they didn't need to, Tom Hurndall certainly comes to mind without effort, have the Palestinians done for any other?

I look far and wide and I don't see Palestinians voluntarily taking any significant pains on any one else's behalf. Perhaps the pain of eviction is greater when it is from Palestine, or, perhaps the pain of suffering of others is automagically made less because it is not in Palestine? Only the Palestinians can inform us what they feel by their acts. And they do. Just as only the Jews can inform us what they feel when they remain silent by their acts. And they also do.

So, given all that, the Exiled Palestinian can only find fault with those few Jews who do dare to speak up?

Obviously they don't speak for the silent spectators of their tribe. It is like indicting them for something that is obviously untrue just because one wants to find some reasons to argue separation.

Separation by tribalism and by victimhood, while evidently au natural, is the banality of evil to be conquered first in order to effectively wage a global struggle against the encroaching global tyranny. The natural end result of us vs. them separation along racial boundaries automatically leads one to separation along all sorts of specious boundaries as noted above. And I will guarantee that these arguments are continually made to the colonized people in political discussions at the massa's round tables.

I wonder what Malcolm X would have argued about it today. His metanoia was evidently progressive. Had that process of self-transformation also terminated with his autobiography? Malcolm X was of course a product of his own time. His data was the data of his time. He was assassinated in 1965 – was he aware of the impetus for world government by the bankster oligarchy which transcends black vs. white myopic distinction? Imagine drawing upon a wisdom for liberation half century later which itself is plagued by myopia! But there it is. We have the same arguments for separation resurfacing.

Malcolm X, as is evident from the quote at the beginning, was very aware that the Negroes in their struggles for liberation where subverted by their own false leaders who looked very much like them far more than by the Jews who had once traded in their flesh, and who set up false leaders among them in the twentieth century. But I wonder if Malcolm X also knew that NAACP, The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, was founded and funded by uber Zionists! The Zionist Jews were funding the liberation of the negro in white America using patsy black leaders while they were assiduously working on conquering the Palestinians . . . . These black leaders were almost always iconic figures for their flock. Control the shepherd, and one gets to control the entire flock.

Did Malcolm X ever realize when he stated, as quoted at the beginning: “most cruel beast that has ever taken a people into captivity. That is this American white man”, that the vast majority of white man in America were not slave owners, nor slave traders, that the rank and file among the white man were treated as “white trash” where negroes were slaves, and that Jews were by far the largest slave traders/owners in the United States?

Did Malcolm X ever realize that the black liberation movement, of which he was a product, was itself a Zionist product serving the narrow self-interests of the Jews in Christian white America? Unfortunately, no one today can accurately answer that question. But one can perhaps make an informed guess from Malcolm X's public utterings that he perhaps wasn't.

There are many convoluted dynamics and hidden forces in the calculus of colonization as well as in the calculus of liberation to which most people, rebels and learned alike, remain incognizant of. Each gravitates to whatever supports their a priori world view without careful dissection of what they accept and reject. Bertrand Russell captured that self-evident truth thusly:

“What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index to his desires – desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts [or worldview], he will scrutinize it closely, and unless [and at times even when] the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance with his instincts [or worldview], he will accept it even on the slenderest evidence.” (Bertrand Russell, Proposed Roads to Freedom, 1919, page 147)

That personal proclivity to be attached to one's world view is exponentially compounded by the fact of being too close in time and space to any issue. Zbigniew Brzezinski captured that aspect so insightfully that I best permit the grandmaster of the grand chessboard to speak in his own pithy diction:

“Time and space shape our perception of reality. The specific moment and the particular setting dictate the way international estimates and priorities are defined. Sometimes, when the moment is historically "ripe," the setting and the time may coalesce to provide a special insight. A perceptive formula is easier to articulate in a moment of special stress. Conditions of war, crisis, tension are in that sense particularly fertile. The situation of crisis permits sharper value judgments, in keeping with man's ancient proclivity for dividing his reality into good and evil. (Marxist dialectic is clearly in this tradition, and it infuses moral dichotomy into every assessment.) But short of that critical condition—which in its most extreme form involves the alternatives of war or peace—global politics do not lend themselves to pat formulations and clearcut predictions, even in a setting of extensive change. As a result—in most times—it is extraordinarily difficult to liberate oneself from the confining influence of the immediate and to perceive—from a detached perspective—the broader sweep of events.” (Zbigniew Brzezinski, Between Two Ages, 1970, page 5)

Let me emphasize that last sentence as containing a universal truth which few scholars will admit in their high-falutin treatise and pat formulations: “As a result—in most times—it is extraordinarily difficult to liberate oneself from the confining influence of the immediate and to perceive—from a detached perspective—the broader sweep of events.”

To those unfamiliar with the issues which Malcolm X was a product of, take a quick listen to the former Wellesley College professor of black studies, professor Tony Martin, on The Jewish Role In The African Slave Trade. The Nation of Islam organization of the United States from which Malcolm X had split as his metanoia had progressed, produced a seminal research study on this topic in 1991 titled “The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews”. All that, had Malcolm X been cognizant of during his own time, one can only speculate on the further direction of his metanoia. I needlessly won't.

Malcolm X is one of my most admired rebel-scholars. I listen to his speeches constantly for insight and wisdom for understanding my own present epoch. But I don't foolishly copy his recipes verbatim which were largely a product of his own tumultuous epoch, a product of his own tumultuous world view born of the burden of several hundred years of vile bondage to slave trade.

The garbs the White Man's Burden carriers wear to subvert and colonize a people are far more insidious, and pernicious, than what is apparent to the naked eye. If interested, it is fleshed out here.

Divide et impera was the modus operandi then, and evidently it still is today. I reject it as a method of waging a struggle against it. And I reject it along collectivist lines on anything other than shared ideology (see below). Simultaneously, I am vigilant for subversion, 'tous azimuth', 360 degrees, and its worst harbingers are often one's own. While one can recognize the “other over there” rather easily, one can't so easily recognize that “other within”. It is the latter who finally lunges the fatal knife in the back, through treachery, or stupidity, or both. Neither is the enemy of my enemy necessarily my friend, nor, are my own peoples necessarily my friends just because they are from my tribe and nation and might look like me.

The choice between friend and foe, as a bottom line, is always individualistic, just like a rational and fair judge's judgment is always upon individuals and never on collective criminalization and guilt by association.

Therefore, straining such judgments and separation arguments of friend or foe through any sort of collective sieve by race, gender, caste, or nationality, is not only too coarse grained to be productive, but ultimately vile and morally repugnant. It also remains impotent. Straining it by shared ideology however is always conclusive. If you espouse a crime, then, regardless of your race, gender, color, caste and nationality, you are espousing a crime.

Zionism is a crime. Those who espouse it, secretly and overtly, are criminals. It don't matter which flavor of Zionism it is. As noted in this article:

'Be it left-wing Zionism or right-wing Zionism, be it diplomatic Zionism or fighting Zionism, be it political Zionism, synthetic Zionism, military Zionism, friendly Zionism, tough-Zionism, gentle-Zionism, hard Zionism, soft Zionism, nihilist Zionism, spiritual Zionism, Labor Zionism, Likud Zionism, pre-Jewish State Zionism, or post-Jewish State Zionism, all remain expressions of tactics for translating motivational Zionism into empirical Zionism. '

I believe that captures every flavor of Rothschild Zionism known to man since 1828 when it got kick-started to return the Jews to their Holy Land without their Messiah.

Do all Jews espouse some form of this perverted Zionism? If anyone says yes to this, I'd have to wonder about what they would say when the circus clowns of empire assert variations on the theme that 'all Muslims are terrorist'.

Do those ordinary Jews for Peace who come out to protest the crimes of Zionism espouse Zionism, or are its insidious agents assets and sayanim?

Some of them might well be controlled opposition and Trojan Horses. But only a fool or an imbecile would fall for it. Such fools exist everywhere, yes, even among the Palestinians themselves. It is they, the Palestinians, who get dazzled by fancy titles and invite Trojan horses to sit in on their institutions. Look on how many Palestinian institutions and organizations Noam Chomsky's name appears. A timeless favorite of Palestinians, and my own teacher, I have already deconstructed Noam Chomsky's labor-Zionism and ambiguous support of Palestine here. Is it Noam Chomsky's problem that his books and writings find appeal among Palestinians? Does he force himself upon the Palestinians? Does he ask to be put on their institutional boards? Or do the Palestinians themselves, carrying the undeniable burden of victimhood, indiscriminately rush to coddle just about anyone with a Western brand name who will highlight their plight before the white man? Read it here – it's truly pathetic.

That natural inability of all beleaguered victims to discern friend from foe when they come bearing gifts, is also the Palestinians' biggest Achilles' heal. Bearing treacherous gifts is not the issue – it is to be expected as part of colonization. Fabricated dissent and manufactured consent are two sides of the same coin. Like guns and butter. Accepting the gifts without shrewd discernment is the problem.

For a shortcoming of one, condemning a whole another is not only specious, but ineffective in plugging the much bigger hole in one's own boat.

Just as we are born au natural but we don't go around naked, while we might be born in tribes and nations and not (a single nation, and to which the Author of the Qur'an states in 49:13: 'so that ye may know one another'), going au natural in this instance is also the same.

Animalism, might is right, unbridled greed, lust for power, are also au natural strivings of evolutionary biology, sociopaths, and hectoring hegemons. We don't consciously espouse these natural inclinations either unless we are social Darwinians ourselves out to conquer others.

A natural inclination towards tribalism therefore, rational commonsense tells us, is not what is necessarily the most productive and efficacious method of engineering a social struggle which is principally against global social Darwinianism.

Otherwise, what's the point of that struggle if each tribalist is fundamentally looking for their own narrow self interests? In the limit, one man's vested interests are another's usurpation no differently than one man's freedom fighter is another's terrorist.

Before Palestinians take their ire out upon the Jews who are coming to help them, surely many of them with good consciences, and surely not all are beyond treachery any more than when the white man was when it settled the previous new world in the Americas by distributing small-pox blankets to the natives as gifts, it might be more productive for Palestinians, as indeed all peoples, to look deep and hard at their ownselves. Toward one's own tendency to gullibly accept the white man's gifts in naiveté, to willingly adopt his narratives in return for tangible and intangible favors, and most importantly, the inability to shrewdly discern friend from foe on anything but broad swathes of non-tribal boundaries. All are poisoned apples – as if that needed to be said. But evidently it does need to be said – as no one contemporary seems to be articulating these self-evident matters.

Here is an example. How many Palestinians condemned the acceptance of the 2008 Orwell prize by a Palestinian lawyer for his narrative of his people's sorry plight? Many actually showered the prize winner with congratulation messages as far as I am aware! I just choked in misery at the house niggers mental servitude among the Palestinian intellectuals.

Look at Mustafa Barghouti's maiden appearance on primetime American Television with Anna Baltzer in 2009 as another example. I could surely understand the young Anna's naiveté. A wonderful human being, and a Jew, it was surely a major step of boldly speaking out against her own tribe on mainstream television upon discovering how mistaken she had been all her young life about Israel and the plight of the Palestinians. A very very hard act to follow – to speak out against one's own tribe. Especially when that tribe happens to be in power and can trivially destroy one anywhere in the world.

But Mustafa Barghouti? What a pathetic performance. As a beleaguered Palestinian leader who is already threatened daily with annihilation, he did more harm to the Palestinian cause than Anna Baltzer as a Jew ever could.

By echoing the simplistic narratives of Anna Baltzer instead of having his own to complement the Jew's who had come out to defend him, he endorsed that Jewish narrative. And that narrative was the white man's version of dissent – the two book ends of the discourse spectrum. It was presumably the lure of the young and charismatic Jewess Anna Baltzer who got the duo that slot on primetime American Television. Mustafa Barghouti certainly could not have appeared on his own, no Palestinian ever has as far as I can remember. The Palestinian leader needed a Jewish crutch to get on the airwaves. He got it. And what did he do with it? If the midget minds of the Palestinians cannot wage their own defense, don't blame it upon the Jews trying to help them the best way they they can. Read the deconstruction of that performance here. Mustafa Barghouti surely isn't an ignoramus. But perhaps I am mistaken. I dearly suspect that after that brilliant performance worthy of at least twenty one standing ovations, Mustafa Barghouti was identified by the powers that be as a possible candidate for further cultivation for a Nobel Peace Prize downstream.

Palestinians call that waging a struggle? I call that waging the ass to please the massa.

Given all these real performances, the author of 'Jewish Voice for Peace? Really??' is complaining about the hypothetical subversion of Jews for Peace and Justice in Palestine?

One has to be able to use a very fine-grain tooth-comb in order to catch the lice. Broad brushes leave them safely within.

To capitalize on victimhood, one needs to have power. Unlike the Jews who wrote that script, the Palestinian are powerless. Therefore, as a people, playing victim and begging from the massa using the massa's own narratives does not work for them.

Let's do a quick reality check for where we are today.

- The Palestinians have either house negroes running their institutions, or have fabricated Hegelian Dialectic composed of patsies, useful idiots, and mercenaries, forcing the beleaguered people to choose between the opposites. What is it now, between secular Fatah and Islamist Hamas? Both are paid for in full by Israel. And they each only serve the interest of Israel in a different way. Fatah as the legal signers of Palestinian rights away to the Jewish State, and Hamas as the agent provocateurs for the Jewish State to take 10 during the times of provocation and give back 1 if the Palestinians behave and sign on the dotted line. That is the sum total of the role of those fifth columnists among the Palestinians. Do I tell a lie? Is it not what has exactly transpired?

- The Palestinians have no towering intellectuals or political leaders on the horizon worth the name. Their best academics work in their massa's institutions and are fed from the massa's largesses. Look at their intellectual output – none have been able to even fill the shoes of even Edward Said. Not one has drawn the obvious linkages as have been drawn in this article. Am I mistaken? I would be delighted to update my records and suitably amend this article if any self-proclaimed legatee of Edward Said can be found to have addressed these matters.

- The Palestinians have no finances, no imperial power-brokers working on their behalf, and no negotiation levers on their side.

- They are rudderless and out-witted, excelling in poetry, laments, narratives for which they win prizes which they gladly accept from their oppressors, and in developing great websites.

- The only thing the Palestinian rebel in Diaspora sees is AIPAC and Chabad! But not their masters. For proof, as was once demanded of me by an old-timer Jewish rebel leader and a favorite of Palestinians to show him that there is indeed some hard evidence of behind the scenes masters who control Palestine, see here.

Jews for Peace are the least of Palestinians' many burdens. Many of these Jews are just simple ordinary people like the Palestinians themselves. They don't particularly know too much either except the moral outrage some of them must surely feel at what has befallen the Palestinians. The idea of separation on racial and tribal lines, rather than along ideological lines is entirely specious. The day a Palestinian stands with a poster denouncing their own traitors and house niggers, the day he and she rises to clean house of their own fifth columnists and useful idiots, that day they will learn to appreciate just how hard it is to bear witness against one's own tribe. What these moral Jews have done, my hats off to them.

It is to be expected that some among these Jews would also be agents, assets, and sayanim of their cause célèbre – and this is true of any struggle which challenges the status quo. Infiltration and subversion are an art as old as hegemony, as old as empire. Its most subversive, rather its ultimate depiction, in the words of the colonizers themselves: “We must at present do our best to form a class who may be interpreters between us and the millions whom we govern, –a class of persons Indian in blood and colour, but English in tastes, in opinions, in morals and in intellect.”, rings just as loud for many Palestinians today as it does for the many denizens of the indo sub-continent.

This most subversive and vile form of cognitive infiltration, the mental colonization of the Arab elite, including the Palestinian elite, is a self-evident empirical fact. And who but the elite ever participate in any political process? Does the common man? Any sore thumbs sticking out are immediately excluded, or encouraged to quit. And they usually do. Oslo comes to mind. Let's not forget that its dissenters at the time were marginalized by the euphoric Palestinians themselves! This subversion pales in comparison to anything the Jewish Voices for Peace and Justice in Palestine can wreck upon the Palestinians.

The field negroes among the Palestinians, first and foremost, need to forcibly exorcise their own house of all house nigger mentality. This is a prerequisite before any peoples can effectively and sensibly ever take on the massa and their chameleon surrogates who will come in all disguises, the most deadly among them wearing the indigenous garb. With just one stroke of pen, they already have, and will continue in the future, to undo the thousand upon thousand valiant struggles and burials on ground zero. See What Can be Done.

That, is the real Palestinian record and dilemma to date. Without any feigned humility, I state that I am no scholar, just an ordinary plebeian whose heart beats in sympathy, and whose eyes bleed tears, with the Palestinians. But if I tell a lie, please refute it If I exaggerate, please feel free to correct my misperception. And if I tell the truth, turn the ire of thine analysis inwards. At least, in this 63rd year of the Nakba, stop mimicking pied pipers and finally begin to look at the world without the jaundiced eyes of victimhood.

I will end with a passage from Sun Tzu on the Art of War which is incredibly pertinent here:

'If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.'

© Scoop Media