Tuesday, November 12, 2013

648 Cohn-Bendit sided with Israel in 1967, but led May 1968 against the West

Cohn-Bendit sided with Israel  in 1967, but led May 1968 against the West

Newsletter published on 30 January 2014

(1) Cohn-Bendit is a warmonger, but Greens are mostly anti-war
(2) Cohn-Bendit saw no incompatibility between supporting Israel in
1967, and denouncing Western Imperialism in 1968
(3) Cohn-Bendit & Jürgen Habermas supported NATO in the War against
(4) Libya: Chomsky gave "in principle" support for Intervention
(5) Libya: Chomsky helped manufacture consent for intervention
(6) WRONG: "Greens, Trots & Anarchists are anti-War". Most groups
supported Intervention in Yugoslavia, Libya & Syria
(7) "As a former Trotskyist, myself, I wonder. Do you prefer Stalin? Are
you rightist?"
(8) De Gaulle breaks with Israel for launching 1967 War, calls Jews an
“elite people, sure of themselves and domineering”
(9) Even in 1968, despite the "Green" label, Cohn-Bendit was a Marxist
(10) "Václav Klaus is a nasty reactionary"
(11) Shamir eulogizes Danny the Red, but laments his Zionism & support
for "Humanitarian" wars (2003)
(12) Reply to Shamir on Cohn-Bendit & 1968

(1) Cohn-Bendit is a warmonger, but Greens are mostly anti-war

Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 13:30:55 +0000
From: Ian Henshall <crisisnewsletter@pro-net.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Cohn-Bendit's Manifesto for a Green C ommunist EU, inspired
   by Trotsky - Václav Klaus

Hello Peter,

Are you aware that Cohn-Bendit is a warmonger, and as I recall
vociferously supported the invasion of Iraq? I was astonished to see
this on German TV, his tone was pretty similar to other Islamophobes and

I write "as I recall" because it is so bizarre that he should maintain
his position in the Green movement who are mostly anti-war.

I suppose this is another case of French exceptionalism as evidenced by
Sarkozy in Libya and Hollande in Syria.

I see Yugoslavia and now Libya and Syria as evidence that a project I
once sympathised with has just become another embryonic empire. The
writing is on the wall, European imperialism is back.


Reply (Peter M.): see the next item.

(2) Cohn-Bendit saw no incompatibility between supporting Israel in
1967, and denouncing Western Imperialism in 1968

Cohn-Bendit was a Zionist even in 1967; his political activism began
with the Six-Day War.

Mark Kurlansky writes, in A Chosen Few: The Resurrection of European Jewry:

{p. 177}
In Paris many of those who had demonstrated for Israel in 1967 also
demonstrated in May 1968. ...

One of the leaders of the student movement was Daniel Cohn-Bendit, a
German Jew whose parents had returned to Frankfurt in 1949. ... A kind
of folk hero in France, for years afterward French journalists would
look him up in Frankfurt and ask him how he became a student radical. [...]

Finally he had to tell them. It was the Middle East Six-Day War. The
Palestinian cry, "Drive them into the sea" had rallied him too.

Cohn-Bendit saw no incompatibility between supporting Israel in 1967,
and denouncing Western Imperialism in 1968.

(3) Cohn-Bendit & Jürgen Habermas supported NATO in the War against


Against all the doubters, Professor Jürgen Habermas stepped forward to
defend the NATO bombing, under the headline “Bestiality and Humanity—a
war on the borderline between law and morality”.

[...] Daniel Cohn-Bendit calls for the  rapid deployment of NATO ground
troops into Kosovo.

(4) Libya: Chomsky gave "in principle" support for Intervention


On Libya and the Unfolding Crises
Noam Chomsky interviewed by Stephen Shalom and Michael Albert

Q2. Can an anti-interventionist who believes in self determination of
nations and people ever legitimately support an intervention, either by
the UN or particular countries?

Chomsky: There are two cases to consider: (1) UN intervention and (2)
intervention without UN authorization. Unless we believe that states are
sacrosanct in the form that has been established in the modern world
(typically by extreme violence), with rights that override all other
imaginable considerations, then the answer is the same in both cases:
Yes, in principle at least. I see no point in discussing that belief, so
will dismiss it. ...

(5) Libya: Chomsky helped manufacture consent for intervention

Libya and the manufacture of consent

By whitewashing the Libyan rebels and demonising the Gaddafi regime did
the leading US intellectual Noam Chomsky help facilitate an imperialist
invasion? In a wide-ranging interview with Chomsky, Dan Glazebrook asks him

Al-Ahram Weekly
24 - 30 November 2011
Issue No. 1073


(6) WRONG: "Greens, Trots & Anarchists are anti-War". Most groups
supported Intervention in Yugoslavia, Libya & Syria

Nor is it true that most Greens are anti-War. I have been monitoring the
Australian Greens' and the European Greens' positions on the
"Humanitarian" interventions in Libya, Syria etc, and they mostly have
supported the wars.

The same goes for most Trotskyist / Anarchist groups, eg Red Pepper in
the UK. Here are some newspaper clippings: ==

Libya: German Greens agitate for war

German Greens agitate for war

By Peter Schwarz
23 March 2011

Three days after French, British and American bombs and missiles began
raining down on Libyan cities and villages, Green politician Joschka
Fischer published a virulent call for war. In an article in the
Süddeutsche Zeitung on Tuesday he directed his reproaches at his
successor, Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle, and Chancellor Angela
Merkel. ... Fischer accused the government in Berlin of damaging the
credibility of German foreign policy by abstaining in the Security
Council, weakening Germany's position in Europe and kissing goodbye to
"a permanent seat on the Security Council." ==

Greens back no-fly zone over Libya


The Australian Greens are backing Australia's support of a no-fly zone
over Libya and have given Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd a big tick for his
efforts in rallying international backing. ==

Libya: Spain's "reformed Leninist" Government joins war on Rebel side


Spain takes its place in the imperialist war against Libya

By Alejandro López
30 March 2011

The Spanish parliament voted last week in favour of Spanish military
intervention in Libya with 336 in favour, just 3 against and 1
abstention. ==

Chomsky, Trots, Anarchists & Greens mostly backed the Syrian rebels:

Socialist Worker (Trotskyist, US) condemns Assad
Will the U.S. hijack Syria's revolution?

Socialist Worker (Trotskyist, US): Left must support Syria rebels
Why the left must support Syria's revolution

Socialist Alliance (Trot, Australia) rejects US assault but supports
rebels against Assad "tyranny"
Stop the US-led war on Syria!

Red Pepper (Trotskyist / Anarchist, UK) backs Syrian rebels
Solidarity with Syria

Australian Greens says more Syria sanctions needed (2012)
Greens says more Syria sanctions needed

European Greens motion condemns "violent and indiscriminate attacks by
the Syrian regime"
The situation in Syria Greens/EFA motion for a resolution

(7) "As a former Trotskyist, myself, I wonder. Do you prefer Stalin? Are
you rightist?"

Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 09:36:26 -0500 (GMT-05:00)
From: Dale Younce <dyounce@sprynet.com>
Subject: Re: Cohn-Bendit's Manifesto for a Green Communist EU, inspired
by Trotsky - Václav Klaus

I have been reading your posts off snd on for several years, now.  I am
more a 'lurker' than a debater, especially now that I am very busy with
renovation projects.  However, the question comes up about your
political beliefs.  As a former Trotskyist, myself, I wonder.  Do you
prefer Stalin?  Are you rightist?

I have also come to a new awareness about Zionism and really appreciate
all your exposes about AIPAC etc.


Reply (Peter M.):


The Australia I grew up in had a largely socialist, in the sense of
publicly-owned and managed, economy. This had been instituted by Labor
leaders John Curtin and Ben Chifley, who developed their economic
program in response to the Great Depression.

Even though Chifley's Government was the best we had ever had, it was
brought down in 1949 by a Coal-miners strike, led by Communists and
supported by Trotskyists even to this day:

Chifley called out the army to end the blockade of the coal mines, which
had brought the economy to a halt. This bitter division within Labor
politics caused Chifley's defeat.

The Communists never gave "Democratic Socialist" governments, as we had
then, any credit. They just wanted to destroy everything that was not
Communist. To wipe the slate, then start anew. They subverted, whether
they served Moscow or a deified Trotsky.

Conservative leaders (Robert Menzies, Jack McEwen)  made no move to
dismantle the socialist economy, until Thatcherism arrived in the late
1970s. Then turncoat Labor leaders (Bob Hawke, Paul Keating) did much of
the dirty work for them.

The public ownership was opposed by the "Libertarian Right":

But it was also opposed by the Trots, because it was a nation-based
socialism not an international one, and they helped bring it down:

Please study those two webpages. And note that the Trots supported Free
Trade precisely because it would lead to class war, and poverty, and
give them a chance at leading a Revolution.

The same people lead the Anti-Globalization protests. But I have heard
Rick Kuhn say, more than once, "We SUPPORT Globalization, but oppose the
Inequality that goes with it."

I am ambivalent about Stalin. He was a terrible man, but he looked
better after the fall of Communism produced great misery:

The Bolshevik regime was created by atheistic Jews, but Stalin overthrew

As a result, they created the New Left - which led the 1960s/70s
Cultural Revolution; in both France and the US it had predominantly
Jewish leadership. It was as much directed against the Stalinist regimes
as against the West, so is correctly assessed as part of the
"Convergence" movement, as Václav Klaus argued.

I took part in those 1970s events, not realizing where they would lead.

I believe Trotsky was more dangerous than Stalin, because Western
Marxists and Globalists built (and maintain even now) an iconography
around him, which hides his deeds from scrutiny:

Which Trotskyist group were you part of? Did you just stay in one, or
move around?

And why did you give it up? How do you feel about those years now?

(8) De Gaulle breaks with Israel for launching 1967 War, calls Jews an
“elite people, sure of themselves and domineering”


Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, October/November 1999 , pages

Middle East History: It Happened in November

De Gaulle Calls Jews Domineering, Israel an Expansionist State

By Donald Neff

It was 32 years ago, on Nov. 27, 1967, when President Charles de Gaulle
of France publicly described Jews as an “elite people, sure of
themselves and domineering”, and Israel as an expansionist state.1 De
Gaulle's comment came in the context of his disappointment that Israel
had launched the 1967 war against his strong advice and then had
occupied large areas containing nearly a million Palestinians. A
firestorm of charges of anti-Semitism followed his remarks, culminating
in an interesting exchange by two of the world's great elder statesmen,
David Ben-Gurion and De Gaulle.2

While the rare public exchange of views between these two heroic figures
caught the headlines, little noted was a profound geopolitical shift
taking place. France was ending its strong support of Israel and the
United States was replacing France as Israel's major patron. Up to this
point the United States had sometimes taken a fairly balanced attitude
to the Middle East conflict. [...]

French Jews back Israel in 1967 War, but lead Paris 1968 against de Gaulle

Jean-Paul Sartre and the Jewish Question: Anti-antisemitism and the
Politics of the French Intellectual

By Jonathan Judaken

University of Nebraska Press, 2006

{p. 197} On November 27, 1967, in a press conference from the Elysee
Palace that Robert Wistrich termed his "sermon to the Hebrews,"
President Charles de Gaulle condemned Israel as the instigator of the
war, severed France's alliance, and legitimated an arms embargo as the
beginning of a major shift in France's foreign policy in the Middle
East. In castigating Israel de Gaulle crossed the line in also defaming
the character of the Jewish people as a whole, calling Jews "a
self-assured, domineering, elite people," thus echoing antisemitic

{p. 215} The Six-Day War, in Dominique Schnapper's words, "shook the
consciousness of the Jews of France (as of Jews the world over) and led
a large number of them to rediscover their identity.13 French Jews
organized huge demonstrations in support of Israel in May 1967 at the
same time that many Jewish and non-Jewish leftists came to identify the
Palestinian cause with that of the oppressed. The aftereffects would be
expressed during the events of May '68. [...]

While it is clear that other world events, especially the
Franco-Algerian War, had a more powerful catalytic effect on May '68,
the Six-Day war and the Palestinian cause that it ushered in was a
significant animating issue for both Jewish and non-Jewish leftists
before, during, and after the events of May.15 This is especially true
when one considers the high level of Jewish participants among those who
animated May ' 68.16 Out of the four most visible figures among the
student radicals (Daniel Cohn- Bendit, Alain Krivine, Alain Geismar, and
Jacques Sauvageot), only Sauvageot was not Jewish. In 1982 matin
magazine  published a list of the 153 personalities that most marked the
events, and at least 55 were Jews. In the portraits of insurgents
included in Herve Hamon and Patrick Rotman's best-seller of 1988,
Generation I: Les anne'es du reue, sixteen out of the twenty-nine are
Jews. ==

(9) Even in 1968, despite the "Green" label, Cohn-Bendit was a Marxist


June 11, 1968

French student rebel arrives in UK

French student rebel leader Daniel Cohn-Bendit has arrived in Britain
stirring up fears of campus unrest.

The 23-year-old law student from Paris has been given permission to
remain in the country just 24 hours but he has already threatened to
defy the authorities and out-stay his welcome.

Mr Cohn-Bendit - who is a German citizen - was expelled from France on
21 May for being the ringleader of the French student demonstrations,
which almost brought the country to a standstill last month.

Angry about the Vietnam war and political stagnation, he led the
occupation of the university at Nanterre and students at the Sorbonne
quickly followed.

The violence which police used to suppress the protesters brought French
workers onto the streets in their support.

A "back me or sack me" speech from President Charles de Gaulle led only
to more violence and eventually order was restored on 29 May when tanks
were ordered onto the streets of the outskirts of Paris.

Fears of unrest

Mr Cohn-Bendit, also known as Danny the Red because of his red hair, has
today staged a sit-in at the BBC's Television Centre building in Wood
Lane, West London.

In an interview with the BBC, he denied coming to Britain to cause
trouble and shrugged off news of death threats made against him.

He said: " Two years ago I came here and nobody said a word, it is
strange, they are telling me I am only allowed to stay 24 hours.

"We don't care about frontiers and I don't know how long I will stay, it
depends what I have to do. I don't see why I shouldn't stay longer. I
think it's a free country."

Rioting has been continuing in France, though on a lesser scale than
before. There has also been speculation the rebel student was planning
to stir up trouble here.

Mr Cohn-Bendit said: "It is very interesting what people think I am
doing. I should be really better than batman or superman. It's really
amusing. They think I am organising world revolution."

He blamed the French police for provoking the protesters.

In Context {On this Day}
Daniel Cohn-Bendit's stay in Britain was extended to 14 days during
which time he and a group of supporters visited Karl Marx's grave where
they sang the protest song Internationale.

He eventually returned to Paris but was deported to West Germany in
April 1969. Although he had been born in France, he became a German
citizen. His parents were German Jews who had fled during the war but
went back to live there in 1958.

He settled in Frankfurt where he became a teacher, ecologist and
municipal councillor.

He was elected as a German MEP for the Green party in 1994 - then
switched to stand in France, by invitation, as a Green MEP in 1999. In
2001 he was elected co-leader of the Greens in the European Parliament.

He has spoken of applying for French citizenship in order to run as
mayor of Paris.

(10) "Václav Klaus is a nasty reactionary"

Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 07:09:09 -0800 (PST)
From: Eric Walberg <walberg2002@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Cohn-Bendit's Manifesto for a Green Communist EU, inspired
by Trotsky - Václav Klaus
To: "peter@mailstar.net" <peter@mailstar.net>
Cc: israel shamir <israel.shamir@gmail.com>

thanks for this, peter. but we mustn't jump on Klaus's bandwagon. he is
a nasty reactionary. there is a left (neo-Stalinist/ Shamir) critique of

This paper about pre-Russian revolutionary anti-capitalist writers
Vyazigin Karsavin and Trubetskoy is a good antidote, rejecting
ego-centered liberalism as the ideological distillation of capitalism.
true, these writers were killed or suppressed by the Bolsheviks (and
Johnson is a royalist), but I doubt Klaus would have any use for them.

Matthew Johnson, "Nationalism, Political Theory And The Errors Of The
Modern West – Analysis"


[...] The self is something that is created and cultivated. It is
constituted by those interwoven "institutions of reciprocity" that make
a community a real family rather than any mere flock of random people.
If the self is created, it is secondary in social significance. If it is
secondary, than it must have intrinsic obligations and responsibilities
to the society that raised and nurtured it.The liberal idea, rising with
and complimenting capitalism, takes the purely ideational ego as the
main "actor" of political theory. Yet, the family, language, creed,
history, geography and a countless number of other institutions are more
foundational than the ego. The very existence of an abstract ego, an
capricious will, is itself the creation of modern capitalism that does
not exist except as an expression of profound alienation.The self is
antithetical to the ego in that it is a hypostasis. This is just to say
that as a person, one manifests the historical experience of a group as
a person. In other words, the universal life of the community is carried
inside the self without negating one's personal identity and peculiar
purpose. From an ontological point of view, the alienated idea of the
abstract ego is the social expression of nominalism. Once the culture
has been corroded by the force of ego, cash and self-interest, what
remains is the detached, disoriented individual whose identity consists
of a fragmented and pliable set of conceptions deriving almost wholly
from both capital and the state.Individuals cannot exist without the
community. Post-modern America is probably the first example of a
culture-less people. What results is arbitrary behavior and the worship
of power. What was once seen as mental illness is now a virtue.
Deviousness is conflated with intelligence.

[...] the specificity of Russian history offers a very different set of
variables, ideas and justifications for community. The Russian climate,
geographic exposure, poor soil and monstrous size have created a
"Russian idea” that must establish and enforce strong communities,
sacral rulers and a militarized ethos based on common service. This is
essential for her security and survival. When the west piously condemns
these historical essentials as "backward,” they merely show their
intellectual stagnation, ideological shackles and lack of historical
sensitivity. Most of all, such sentiments serve the elite who require
traditional structures be dissolved in favor of the passionate haze of

(11) Shamir eulogizes Danny the Red, but laments his Zionism & support
for "Humanitarian" wars (2003)


[shamireaders] Danny the Blue-and-White, by Israel Shamir

Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2003 20:16:07 +0200 From: "Israel Shamir"

When the Jews object to political correctness? Whenever it interferes
with their Muslim-bashing.

Danny the Blue-and-White

By Israel Shamir

For my generation, the name of Danny the Red, or Daniel Cohn-Bendit, is
forever connected to the glorious revolution of 1968, of Godard's La
Chinoise and Antonioni's Zabriski Point, of 'Defence de defence' signs
in universities, of hippies' long hair, of marijuana and free love, of
barricades in Paris and in Berkley, of sweet wind of freedom that swept
across the continents. Like its great predecessor, the Spring of Nations
1848, the revolution of 1968 failed, but it transformed Europe and the
United States. Danny the Red was a mover of the revolution, and a great
source of inspiration for us, who sought freedom and equality.

Years passed by, and Cohn-Bendit, now a respectable member of Euro
Parliament from the German Green Party, is visiting Jerusalem. Times
have changed, and he had changed with the times, not only his waist. He
is no zionist, he stresses, neither anti-zionist. Jews can live in
Europe, too; they do not have to move to Israel. He supports creation of
a Palestinian state, he says, he is against the occupation. He feels
that Sharon, too, is against the occupation – maybe Sharon wants to have
a slightly Greater Israel, but not much greater. The Wall, inhuman as it
is, is a proof of Sharon's intention to limit Israeli expansion.

He tells of his meetings with the 'boys' – his new friends, the War
party in Washington. Perle and Wolfowitz shared with him their plans for
the Middle East, he says. They want to give Iraq to a Hashemite ruler,
push Palestinians into Jordan and create a Palestinian state there.
Then, the Jews will get the whole of Palestine. They are Bolsheviks, he
says. 'Bolshevik' is a swear word for this new Danny. He has a better,
much better plan: give a state to Palestinians, and bring Israel into
NATO and into the European Union. Make Russia, China, everybody declare
their support for the Jewish state, the best and the only democracy in
the Middle East. If the Americans go along, he can deliver European
support for the American occupation of Iraq, he says. Even his hosts
from the liberal zionist Peace Now shudder uneasily.

Cohn-Bendit feels he can do it. He has many achievements behind him. He
promoted dismantling of Yugoslavia. He supported NATO's bombing of
Serbia into submission. But the Jewish cause occupies much of his time
and effort. He is proud that Germany supplied Israel with the
nuclear-capable submarines at the expense of the German taxpayer. 'This
gift is their payment for Holocaust', says this German parliamentarian.
Why a million of potential casualties (most probably Arabs) is the
desired atonement? Isn't he worried that Iran, or Syria can become a
target of the nuclear-armed missiles from these submarines? – I ask him.
No, he is not worried. But the homicidal maniacs now ruling the Holy
Land consider 'taking the world down with them', in words of Martin van
Creveld of Hebrew University, I push him; his country is also liable to
suffer. - What country? – Danny asks innocently. Born in France, serving
in Brussels and Strasbourg, loving Israel, he forgot he represents
Germany. Can't a Jew love his country? Yes, if he knows which one is his

Still, he does not think Israel is always right. One may, on certain
conditions, criticize Israel. These conditions are rather rigorous and
hard to meet. March last year, a member of a German state assembly from
Cohn-Bendit's party, an immigrant from Syria, Jamal Karsli, called on
Germany to stop providing Israel with weapons of mass destruction and
referred to the 'strong Jewish influence in German media'. Cohn-Bendit
and his Parteigenossen practically lynched Karsli for 'antisemitism'.
Their attack was supported by Michel Friedman, 'the most eloquent Jewish
spokesman in Germany'; it was before this best friend of Belarusian
whores was apprehended while pushing cocaine.

Have you no qualms, I ask him, for invoking antisemitism like Bush and
Ashcroft, Friedman and Foxman? It is a Bolshevik attitude, he says. 'One
should be able to express a view even if a similar opinion is expressed
by some unpleasant folks'. Bravo, Danny! But why he did not think of it
when he expelled Karsli from the Party for 'repeating the Nazi canard of
Jewish control'? Why this brilliant thought did not stop him – or other
Jews – from forever appealing to the Protocols of Zion as to their best
defence: if the Protocols say the Jews take over the media, now no one
is allowed to notice the steady takeover of the European media by Jewish
interests. Why here the same maxim, 'One should be able to express a
view even if a similar opinion is expressed by some unpleasant folks'
can't be applied?

The reason is that as a rule, a Jew is unable to apply Kant's
categorical imperative, to make a universal rule. It could provide a
definition of a Jew: 'a person unable to make an objective moral
judgement', for the old religious or ethnic criteria do not apply
anymore. His judgement will be forever different whether it is good for
Jews or bad for Jews. WMD are bad if in Gentile hands, good if in Jewish
hands. Nationalism of a goy – bad, devotion to the Jewish cause – good.
Equal rights for Jew and non-Jew in Europe – good, in Palestine – bad.
Karsli was bad for Jews, so he had to go.

Expelled by Cohn-Bendit from the Green party, Karsli joined the FDP of
Juergen Moellemann, a brave German politician who objected to rearmament
of Israel and to the Jewish control of German media. In a short while,
Juergen Moellemann had met with a fatal accident: both his parachutes
did not open. (Practically in the same time, Anna Lindh, the Swedish
Foreign minister and steadfast supporter of the Palestinian cause was
assassinated in Stockholm.) Karsli's political career was stopped in bud.

It was just the beginning of Cohn-Bendit's campaign against Arab
immigrants in Europe. Recently the European Union had commissioned a
research on antisemitism in Europe. A group of Zionist researchers took
the job, and produced a report that blamed anti-Semitism on Semites –
more precisely, on Arabs.

It was an improbable suggestion. Ethnically and religiously
heterogeneous East never knew racism. Everyone with even a limited
knowledge of Arabs knows they have no racial prejudice against Jews. In
the past, as David Shasha, a Syrian Jewish researcher wrote, "Jews and
other ethnic minorities served within the Islamic polity as recognized
members of a cultured society and participated in an intimate way in the
evolution and development of that society”. In the present, dozens of
Jews – supporters of the Palestinian cause stay in Arab Palestinian
homes from Rafah to Jenin. Be it Norman Finkelstein or Jennifer
Loewenstein, they never experienced racial hatred. As for myself, I
always felt at home with the Arabs, with Maghribis in Marseille and
Saudis in London, with Egyptians in Cairo and Palestinians in my own Jaffa.

In order to show the desired result, the researchers included
anti-Israeli activity within their scope and came to conclusion:
'Muslims and pro-Palestinian activists stand behind antisemitism in
Europe'. Rightly, the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and
Xenophobia (EUMC) shelved the report for it was "tainted by anti-Muslim
bias and the use of inappropriate research methods”. Instead of
recognising their errors, the researchers went to complain to the
Israeli daily Haaretz, that the Europeans dismissed their report due to
"excessive political correctness”.

When the Jews object to political correctness? Whenever it interferes
with their Muslim-bashing.

The European antiracist watchdog judged "the focus on Muslim and
pro-Palestinian perpetrators to be inflammatory” and liable to cause
"civil war in Europe”. But a civil war in Europe against millions of
Arabs and other Muslims is a Zionist objective, a part and parcel of the
US-led War on Islam. Haaretz reported:

"Daniel Cohn-Bendit, a leader of the Greens party in the European
Parliament Tuesday strongly denounced the EUMC for shelving the report.
"The completely mad thing is that they didn't want to continue because
they were afraid to offend a certain Muslim opinion in Europe,” he told
Israel Radio. "This is a completely crazy and wrong approach.”
Cohn-Bendit, currently on a visit to Israel, said the decision to shelve
the study was a "big, big, error” and that his party would question the
move in the European Parliament at the first opportunity”.

Apparently, Cohn-Bendit is not afraid to upset Muslim sensibility or
cause a civil war. Who cares? Anti-Arab and anti-Muslim propaganda pours
out of the Jewish-controlled media in Europe. While Cohn-Bendit spoke to
the students in the Hebrew university, in the other end of the city,
Ariel Sharon offered a photo opportunity to the visiting leader of
Italian fascists, Gianfranco Fini. The message was clear: right or left,
Green or Fascist, all are welcome to enter pro-Zionist entente against

In Germany, after expulsion of Karsli and untimely death of Moellemann,
timid pro-Palestinian groups became even more fearful. They are
constantly attacked from the mainstream left and the mainstream right.
The malaise of German national psyche is best expressed by the rise of
crazy pro-Israel and anti-German 'Left'. Their hero is 'Bomber' Harris,
the British mass murderer who razed German cities and killed millions of
German civilians during WWII. Their love is given to Jews. My friend, a
pro-Palestinian activist Ingrid K. (German friends of Palestine are
afraid to be exposed in the media) wrote to me:

"The so-called Anti-Deutsche Antifa (anti-fascists) worship Bomber
Harris. They are a disastrous group, their main profession is to act as
hyper-Zionists, and attack the leftwing. They managed to divide the
small left in Germany with their focus on 'Antisemitismus'. (It's like
we Germans stop thinking when it comes to anti-Semitism.) The left have
come to a sad degree of powerlessness and disorientation. To stand up
for Palestinians is a kind of courage test as one risks to be cited as
an anti-Semite”.

Germany is a much-needed member of Europe. Together with France, Germany
could be a stumbling block for the Zionists and Neo-Cons. Its support is
necessary for the Palestinians and the Iraqis. But this great country,
home to Hegel and Marx, Beethoven and Goethe, is sick, if it is
represented by the likes of Cohn-Bendit, a man who promotes strife
between the native Germans and the Muslim immigrants, who supplies
Israel with WMD to blackmail Germany in future, who befriends the
American and Israeli enemies of the international law, who stops the
pro-Palestinian voice in Germany by the antisemitism libel; in short, a
man who preferred the Jewish cause to the cause he upheld once, the
cause of freedom and equality.


 From Dan, the US

In Danny the Blue and White, you write:
"The revolution of 1968 failed, but it transformed Europe and the United
States. Danny the Red was a mover of the revolution, and a great source of
inspiration for us, who sought freedom and equality."

1968 was a transforming event: the watershed of the circulation of elites
that is the foundation of the West today. It was a great success in every
respect; it destroyed academic curricula, the authority of churches, the
legitimacy of states and their histories and family relationships. It
created new markets and new sources of wealth, power, and authority. In
terms of short range goals 1968 defeated Lyndon Johnson (by default) and
through Danny's zealous determination, Charles DeGaulle. Remember the
screaming and the rage? The all purpose epithets of "Fascist!" and "Nazi!"
that provided dependable conclusions to debates? And remember the
"Authoritarian Personality" and its corollary about sexual frustration
leading to violence and militarism?

While 1968 was an astounding success for its catalysts and authors like
Cohn-Bendit and Todd Gitlin. The only failure was that of the auxiliaries
or dupes such as myself. Our narcotic political and cultural fantasies
provided us a way of avoiding reality and we were disappointed that there
was a discrepancy between the media hype and the morning after what Tom
Wolfe calls "that lurid carnival."

In his memoirs Gore Vidal recalls a conversation he had with Allen Ginsburg
about Jack Kerouac: "You know around 1968 when we were all protesting the
Vietnam War, Jack wrote to me that the war was just an excuse for 'you Jews
to be spiteful again.' I sometimes think maybe he was right."

I see Danny as a faithful adherent to the goals if not the articulated
ideals of 1968 and his astounding self-confidence and shameless triumphalism
has been thoroughly warranted in terms of his success. Of course he is not a
Kantian; he is a "flexible strategizer" You can't get Kantian if you want to
get laid as Michel Houellebeq so vividly shows in his great novel of 1968
and its disastrous aftermath, Elementary Particles.

As I dimly perceive Danny through the broken clouded lenses of my vestigial
standards of pre-1968 rationality, it is easy enough to "expose the
contradictions" with respect to Danny but why would I wish to do so if the
consequences are so dire and if Danny will only laugh at me and sneer
contemptuously and call me a "schmuck"? In 1968 we had Danny's permission to
"expose the contradictions"; we do not have his permission to do so today.

{Shamir on 1968: it was the beginning of the Rise of Jews in the US}

Shamir to Dan:
I am aware of this point of view. It is possible to see 1968 as the
movement used and utilized for advancement of the Jewish cause. Indeed,
in France it came after de Gaulle declared embargo on weapons to Israel;
in the US it was the break point for the hold of the old elites and the
beginning of the Rise of Jews. To a great extent, we can say the same
about Russia in 1917. But, while I agree that 'the Jews' had their own
agenda, and eventually betrayed the revolution of 1968, their agenda was
defeated in Russia in 1936; and it could be defeated in 1970 in Europe.
In short, the revolution was right and good, and even Danny the Red was
OK when on service of the revolution.

People with live link to 'the Jews' should not be on the top of any
revolutionary movement that does not want to be betrayed - it is a
possible conclusion. The conclusion that I want to avoid (for I disagree
with it) is that the old elites were fine before 1968 and the revolution
was unnecessary and erroneous. It went wrong, yes, but the idea was (is)
good. The revolutionaries used the Jews (including bankers and newspaper
owners), while the Jews used the revolutionaries. We were not careful
enough and let them to carry out their policy. The revolution '68 had
its Trotskyism a-plenty, but it had no Stalin.

Dear Shamir,
I applaud your sharp report on Cohn-Bendit. I have myself experienced in
Germany the fear of saying anything critical of Israel, let alone of
Jews. The self-censure exercised by Germans and the internalization of
fear of being singled out as anti-Semite will one day burst out and I do
not relish that day. I keep telling my German friends that they should
use only one yardstick to judge conduct, a universal standard, not one
for Jews and one for others.

I also agree that Muslims are not generally racist, let alone anti-Jews.
I have always felt more at ease with Arabs than with Jewish Zionists.
There is lots of racism among Jews. However, it is true that Israeli and
Zionist policies have caused a surge of anti-Semitism in Muslim
countries that is racist in nature: I am talking about myths about the
eternal nature of Jews, of their inherent wickedness, etc. It serve no
good purpose to close one's eyes to such pathological developments among
Arabs. Here again, let us stick with one yardstick of opposing all forms
of racism and prejudice, regardless towards whom it is leveled.

(12) Reply to Shamir on Cohn-Bendit & 1968

Peter Myers, January 30, 2014


Zionism was not something that Cohn-Bendit turned to as he got older. On
the contrary, as I show (using quotes) in item 2 above, he became a
fierce Zionist in the leadup to the 1967 Six-Day War, when he felt that
Israel's existence was at stake.

The 1967 War seems to have had a similar effect on you too. You made
Aliyah (migrated from Russia to Israel) just a few years after it.

A wave of nationalistic feeling swept through Jewish communities
worldwide, prompting many to change their identities.

This must have happened to you too, though you have never written about it.

Later, you reconsidered.

1968 was not just a big street-party. At the time, I was a student in a
Catholic seminary, in "the bush" west of Sydney. 1968 even reverberated
there; it contributed to a mass exodus. I was one who left, in 1969.

In the years following, the Cultural Revolutionaries have not let up.
Moderate changes of the mid 1970s were beneficial, but then came Sex
War, Gay Marriage, chaos in the schools, drugs, open-border immigration
... a social breakdown.

The Westerners defending Pussy Riot are the same Cultural
Revolutionaries who have wrecked our Western culture. I applaud your
defence of Putin's putting a stop to it in Russia; please don't defend
the same Revolutionaries for what they did to the West.

No comments:

Post a Comment