© 2007-2018 All Rights Reserved. Powered by Blogger.

Sunday, November 8, 2009

Ayn Rand on Israel

Arabs: Savages that resent the civilized Israelis.  
So sayeth the guru Ayn Rand.  
The video below shows what Palestine looked like 
before the Zionist takeover.

When Ayn Rand spoke at the Ford Hall Forum she frequently got asked about Israel – whose supporters are anything if not vociferous – during the question and answer periods, which were open to any question. 

Her reply would go along the following lines: I support Israel; though Israel is a socialist country, [2]  in that region of the world Israel is the vanguard of civilization.

In other words, the gray of Israel is white compared to the surrounding near-black of Arabia. There is something to be said for that kind of argument, but of course it fails when the gray gets dark enough. 

Did Ayn Rand know how dark Israel really was? The year she wrote her essay, 1975, was long before Israeli torture came to light in the 1993 New York Times exposé, over 20 years after her death. 1975 was long before Israel’s massacre of Beirut in 1982, the year of her death. [3] 

Ayn Rand believed that Israel was America’s ally. Did she know how treacherous Israel really was? 1975 was long before the exposure of the Pollard Affair in 1985, three years after her death. Not to mention the USS Liberty attack (though it occurred in 1967 it was not made public until 1980), and many other acts by Israel against America. [4] And long before the publication of such exposés as Victor Ostrovsky’s By Way of Deception (1990) and Ari Ben-Menashe’s Profits of War (1992).

It is far more probable that Ayn Rand was ignorant of Israel’s brutality and deceit than that she thought Israel’s brutality and deceit were comparatively unimportant.

Still, she must be held partly responsible for her ignorance. With some effort even in 1975 one could break through the cloud of propaganda thrown out by Israel and its worshippers. Her mistake was surrounding herself with people like Leonard Peikoff, and – very likely – relying on their research, or lack of it. [5]

Even if Israel were truly civilized and our ally, it would not justify forcing American citizens to pay for Israel’s support. Ayn Rand did not have John Galt say:

“I swear – by my life and my love of it – that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine ... uh ... except in the case of Israel.”

Israel is no exception, and one would like to think Ayn Rand did not make it one. She was mistaken about the nature of Israel and sincerely believed that helping the Israeli government was in our interest. A mistake preserved in amber which ARI’s (Ayn Rand Institute) supporters bring forth at every opportunity. [6]   Source:  Ayn Rand Institute Watch

Naked Zionism

A Mr. Yitzhak Epstein, visiting Palestine in 1907, admonished his fellow Zionists that “our country” (meaning Arab Palestine) was not empty and that they should disabuse themselves of the notion that Palestine was a deserted place. He told them quite candidly that Palestine had been inhabited “for centuries by another race” which had “absolutely no thought of departing the land” He further informed them that there was not “a cultivable parcel of acreage” left in Palestine”; all arable land being already worked by the Arabs.

Remember these words were written in 1907 by a Jew who had done an on-site inspection. How can these words be reconciled with the Zionist narrative that Palestine was an empty land before the coming of the Zionists? They can’t, obviously. There are literally dozens of similar statements by early Zionist scouts of Arab Palestine, 1880-1914. The Zionist Asher Ginsberg/Achad Haam, sadly commented that the incoming Zionists never took the slightest account of the Arabs of Palestine, except as an obstacle to be overcome. Herzl himself proposed that the penniless Arab population be expelled across the border at the first opportunity.

None of these comments can be reconciled with the Zionist fiction of “a land without a people for a people without a land”. The Zionists moving to Palestine after the Balfour Declaration of 1917 were at great pains to pretend that they were not going to dispossess the Arabs. They spoke in mellow, lying words about how they only wanted a “national home”, not a national state, while privately admitting that “national home” was merely a circumlocution for the real thing. Sir Herbert Samuel, the English Jew who was the first British High Commissioner of Palestine, proclaimed that the Jews, having been victims of persecution for centuries, were not about to dispossess nor expropriate the Arabs. These Jews lied, obviously. But some Jews were more honest.

Vladimir Jabotinsky wrote two famous essays in a Russian language Paris newspaper in the early 1920’s. These essays, entitled “The Iron Wall” and “The Iron Law” proclaimed that Zionism was “a colonizing adventure and that it stood or fell on the question of armed force”. It was important to “read Hebrew but it is more important to shoot”. He went on to say that the Arabs of Palestine were not savages but were deeply attached to their land. They would never voluntarily relinquish their land. They would only do so when all hope was lost to them. Thus, they must be confronted with an “iron wall of bayonets”. Agreement with the Arabs in the future was possible only if there was no agreement with them now.

Here we have the entire ugly truth about Zionism in Palestine. Hiding behind the myth of “a land without a people for a people without a land” Zionism was never anything but a naked power grab aimed at taking Palestine from the Arabs. Rather than admit this undeniable truth, the Zionists manipulate statistics, turn the truth upside down and reinvent history to pretend that pure thievery constitutes a bogus national right “to exist”.

Below - Jewish terrorists in Palestine



Anonymous said...

Fair dinkum. Back in those days I knew where Palestine was and understood that "israel" was a country next to it. I thought they were just two dirty little countries with a boring border dispute. It wasn't until I saw a modern map with "israel" wiping Palestine off the map that I understood what my classmates had been protesting against.

Anonymous said...

She would not have been so thoroughly one-sided about the whole thing if she wasn't a zion-collaborator of some sort...I do't think...

Anonymous said...

Creating the largest/longest suffering refugee population alone should have made any civilised human being shudder and not support it. So the jury is still out if she knew anything about the creation through terrorism of 'israel' &/or if shes civilised herself to judge a people who were wronged so savagely and harshly.

andie531 said...

Ayn Rand was Jewish. In one of her essays on tribalism, she called the Palestinians tribalists. Nothing could be further from the truth. Palestinians are both Christian and Muslim and apparently some are even Jewish. Palestinians are simply people who originated in an area known as Palestine, just as Texans are people from Texas. They may share a common bond, but I would not refer to a Texan as a tribalist, that would be a highly inaccurate use of the term.

Rand's inner circle, consisting of Nathaniel Branden, Alan Greenspan and a few others was almost exclusively, dare I say completely Jewish, which is a strongly tribalist cult, and yet she was blind to that fact. That is the essence of tribalism, to prefer one's own group and to give favors to that group over others. It's a form of separatism and Rand was guilty of it on that level.