No Holds Barred Discussion
situation is absolutely unique. It didn't come about like Kosovo, where
illiterate neighbours started insulting each other after centuries of
thinking nasty thoughts about each other's cattle.
hadn't been for the theories and the books, Palestinians and Israelis
would never even have met.
of the two-thousand year obsession on "our" part - meaning Western
Christians - that there is a kind of million-headed, one-souled being
called "the Jews", indeed often in the singular: "the Jew...".
of the things "we" say or said about "The Jew" are nasty, some are nice,
but they are all collective: The Jew is stiff-necked, The Jew loves
money, The Jew in his soul yearns for
Jerusalem. This means that several hundred million people, in the part
of the world which has all the military and financial might, think the
Palestinians have a duty to make way for "The Jew". Of course there are
a lot of practical reasons behind politicians supporting Israel; but
these practical reasons can be applied because there is the right
emotional and sentimental background to do so.
the West will not cease to be pro-Israeli until "we" learn to think of
Samuel and Isaac the same way we think of Joe and Michael. Pro-Judaism
and Anti-Judaism are simply both sides of the same coin: a kind of
Judeo-Centrism which is the opposite of a humanity-centered mentality.
idea of "the Jew" (who has a "special relationship" with "his" land) is
of course not an invention of Western Christians. It is written into a
series of rather confused writings dating back to the Iron Age, which
referred to a long extinct culture. For a whole series of reasons, those
writings were copied, re-written and totally re-imagined by entirely
different cultures of various kinds, but they still speak in Iron Age
terms of collective souls of tribes and their jealous group gods.
has created a kind of false memory. Whether or not most Jews today are
the genetic descendants of those Iron Age tribes is of course no more
interesting than the fact that my ancestors used to commit human
sacrifices on Aztec pyramids or in the bogs of Ireland, or used to burn
witches (I am partly Mexican, partly Irish, partly Anglo-US). What is
important is that words created a kind of continuity, while actually
taking on a completely different meaning.
description of the lost land turned into a rather typical, and quite
beautiful, myth of a Golden Age, of "another" dimension: no different
really from the dreams of Christian peasants about a land where food
grows on the trees, and where no one is forced to labour.
are words again, however, and political leaders manipulated them
successfully to create Zionism.
there is the main reason why otherwise perfectly normal people around
the world are ready to do anything to support
Israel, with money, activism and even their own lives. These people say
"I am like everybody else, but since my surname is Cohen, sooner or
later all those smiling people out there can leap at my throat, and I
need a place like Israel to escape when they do so". This is another
issue which appears quite theoretical, but has tremendous practical
consequences. And needs to be discussed too.
Another "word" of course is "Israel".
Now, whatever one wants to do practically about Palestine depends on
choosing whether we accept the PA idea (maximum 20% of the original
land) or not. Now, if one does *not* accept the PA idea, the main
obstacle to the 100% idea - a democratic, inter-ethnic state -, if you
really think of it, lies in the name: would "Palestinians" ever accept
the idea of living in a country which the majority of the population
wants to call "Israel"? And would the Jewish inhabitants of the place
ever accept living in a place called "Palestine"?
not saying that one should just sit back and theorize. I am only saying
that *one* "theoretical" list should exist, alongside a dozen practical
ones, in order to discuss these issues.
I first stumbled across the writings of Israel Shamir on the Net, what
struck me was not just his excellent style. What struck me most was the
avalanche of ideas and associations his words set moving inside me.
issue is of course an issue of ethnic oppression, and by no means the
only one in the world. This could link it to other ills; however it is
also true that we tend to look with much greater detachment at
situations like that of the Kurds in Turkey: it is hard to feel directly
involved unless we have some personal connection to one of the ethnic
groups at stake.
is not the case with
Palestine: the Palestine issue has absolutely unique features which make
it unlike any other issue. Paradoxically, it is this uniqueness which
links it to all the other ills. Palestine involves nearly every
mythological issue of the West.
course I believe that strategic interests and resources and all that are
important; however, people also think along mythological and emotional
lines. Symbols and dreams can also be used to mobilize people behind
practical, strategic matters. And, in certain cases, myths can take on a
life of their own and even determine quite important choices.
the case of
Palestine, we simply cannot do without analyzing the mythological issues
at stake, however painful it may be do to do so.
History has two faces: for a very small minority of scholars, it is
something to investigate objectively. For the great majority, it is a
series of significant tales which give meaning to our identity as a
Palestine is steeped in this very special kind of "history". Starting
with Moses: we all know about him, whether we be Christians, Jews or
Muslims. We all know the story of the man who led a people across an
obliging sea to rescue them from slavery. Apparently the whole story was
made up around the time of the first Exile to console the intellectuals
of Judah by saying, "it already happened once, we'll get back this time
too". But that is history in the abstract sense; History in the
emotional sense takes the shape of a ship called Exodus. And just think
how important the film with that title was: it struck everybody who had
already seen the great Biblical films of the previous decades. It spoke
to the average white American Christian racist through the blue eyes and
fair hair of an Aryan-looking Jew; it carefully used the image of a
young American Baptist who first hesitates to be on the side of Israel
(as does the viewer), then takes the plunge...
is just an example. But think again how much "our" Western identity has
been defined against the "hordes of the East", all the way since the
Tartars. The "hordes of the East" can be Russians, Chinese, Communists,
Muslims, Arabs (in the US, at one time, of course they were also the
Ashkenazim from Russia): and in Palestine we see people with faces like
ours, who speak languages like ours, with clean fair-haired kids, facing
an indistinct mass of dark, howling people, the men masked and the women
veiled, with dirty kids who look like Gypsies and who throw stones
instead of going to school.
often reads that Christians have been "anti-Semitic" for two thousand
years. There is some truth in this, but there would be a lot more if we
simply said that Christians have had Jews on their minds, in one way or
another, for twenty centuries.
obsession with the Jews is something quite peculiar, and different from
the dislike "Western" people may have for Blacks in the US or for the
Rom ("Gypsies") or for immigrant workers from other countries in Europe.
Such people are simply enemies or slaves or "foreign".
the other hand, the Jews - we have been told - were chosen by God as his
only beloved children, unlike us; then for centuries we were told that
they were so proud of being special that they killed God's very son. And
these strange, bearded creatures dressed in dark clothes, much richer
than us, our priests used to tell us, would sometimes murder our own
children to make up for the fact that they rejected the sacrifice of the
mass. At the same time we learned to admire a stubborn race which never
converted, while suspecting that it was secretly governing the entire
world. Now, we are told, that the Jews were as special as we had always
been told they were, only they were good. We are told that they are our
"elder brothers", that God thinks more about them than he does about us.
And of course the land the Jews have taken over is a special place for a
special people. Even when we criticize what the Israelis do, we often
ask ourselves, "how could such a very special people do something so
much like the things we do?"
Christianity stole a block of self-laudatory Jewish tribal stories, and
has been trying ever since to make sense of these stories. Of course, it
is not the Jews' fault that they wound up in somebody else's mythology,
but it is time we all realized that what is really behind the atrocities
committed in the past against the Jews is the notion that "the Jews" are
somehow a special collective being. And this is something each of us
must deal with. The Rome rabbis most definitely did *not* deal with it
when they praised John Paul II for having stated that the Jews were the
"elder brothers" of the Christians, but also criticized him for not
mentioning the special relation that these "elder brothers" had to the
land of Israel.
strongly sympathize with the Palestinian who complained the other day
that he does not care very much exactly who is to blame for all he and
his family have had to go through. However, I believe that if so many
identity factors had not been involved, he might not have had to go
through so much in the first place.
warm embrace to everybody on this wonderful list
relation to the question of this group's goal, I am of the opinion that
ideas constitute powerful action. Ideas have conquered the imagination
like no army has done.
all translate ideas into physical action in our own way, whether in our
diction or in our daily activities. Ideas influence almost every
thinking person into action, so there is a very small separation, in my
opinion, between sharing ideas and translating such ideas into action.
Sadly, the Palestinian struggle hasn't focused its campaign on a
consistent idea. I anticipate this forum might inspire at least one
participant to verbalize a concept that might win the hearts and minds
of most people who matter-therefrom effective and focused action would
of the ideas currently being discussed warrant support, if not by
members of this group perhaps by members of other activist groups.
Speaking of other groups, I contributed the following excerpt from my
upcoming novel, "Israel, By Any Other Name" (sorry Israel, it's not
about you) to the Global Network of Arab Activists in the past. I'd like
to share it with this group since it addresses some of the themes being
discussed, including the exclusivity of the Jewish experience.
apologize to those who might feel that I am merely promoting my upcoming
novel, I just don't have enough time to reinvent my ideas at this time.
"Incorrect universal usage of anti-Semite, for example, had focused a
murderous national hatred for Jews. Bad language, however, isn't
necessarily a precursor to human tragedy. Nevertheless, exclusionary
sentiments are first expressed by words, and anti-Semite's universally
accepted racist designation in the second half of the twentieth century
conversely equaled the racist connotation of the Semitic label from 19th
suddenly laughed. Even I initially had difficulty identifying the
other words, since the pejorative label of Semite as popularized during
19th century Germany carried the same connotation of the word nigger,
and since those who expressed hatred towards blacks have been known as
racists, why were those who exclusively hated Jews known as
anti-Semites? Shouldn't those who hated Negroes and Jews be equally
labeled as racists? I couldn't find any justification for an
exclusionary status in victimization, and through victimization I
identified my first separation from Adinah's identity as a Semite.
universal acceptance of anti-Semitism as exclusively anti-Jewish
therefore created its own form of absurd racism. This racism would
appear inverted if illustrated by a three-dimensional model. It could,
on the other hand, be more precisely expressed by a converse
to be confused with reverse racism, which described a reversal of roles,
this conversely inverted racism protected an exclusionary status for
victims of racist bias. Its product was expressed by an absolute value.
Some Jews, for instance, claimed anti-Semitism with its entire negative
connotation as positively their burden, their own separate ordeal from
the rest of humanity, and denied other Semites, Arabs in this instance,
their status of victim using its terminology.
Arabs, it seemed, should be content with defending references, by Jews
and all, to camel jockey, sand nigger, and WOG, to name a few, as
racist. Whereas a reference to Jews as kikes invited the universal wrath
of anti-Semitism! As largely self-evident, what happened to all Semites
being hated equal?
goodness sake, though an anti-Jewish Wilhelm Marr coined the term
anti-Semite in 1879, it was a political ruse to make hatred a scientific
practice while promoting his anti-Jewish party: Arabs were not included
in his anti-Semitic platform because Arabs did not live in Germany as
German citizens. Ironically, in its incorrect yet universally accepted
meaning, how was the use of anti-Semite any less political today?
all, the word Semite did not identify a religion. It was a linguistic
and racial attribute that could have conceivably excluded a native
English speaker like Adinah and a native Russian speaker like Arebus,
yet it became the exclusionary identity that propelled Zionism into the
world's sympathy! The term was thus bastardized to accommodate an
exclusive religious profile as a basis for an exclusionary national
revival at mythical proportions. And in Zionism's political exploitation
of the word I identified my second separation from Adinah's identity as
Suppose the term had been accepted universally, albeit incorrectly,
because anti-Semitism was deliberately intended to have only meant
anti-Jewish in the West, shouldn't its harmful politicization have
stirred enough concern among intellectuals to inspire correcting it?
What was the cultural and historical value of invoking the image of
mankind's most brutal documented moment in the twentieth century with a
misnomer? In other words, hadn't mankind suffered enough from accepting
the political goals inherent in anti-Semitism to correct its usage?
Jewish state's often-brutal abuse of its non-Jewish citizens and
non-citizens under its control epitomized this converse racism. The
Jewish state's discriminatory policies were thus protected from the
misnomer, anti-Semitism, due to the universal acceptance that Jews
couldn't be anti-themselves. The Israeli policies against non-Jews
hadn't also been identified with racism since, on balance, Israeli Jews
comprised of most races, and Arabs comprised of most religions.
Regardless, the hate that bred anti-Semitism's universally accepted
misnomer should be stripped of its euphemism. The time was ripe for
words to embody their true meaning and for hatred of Jews to be unveiled
and categorized accordingly. Render to Jews what was Jewish, to Arabs
what was Arabic, and from both what was anti-Semitic!"
Faithfully, Ghassan Ghraizi, Author
idea of a bi-national state
Imagine, if you will, that Israel signs a permanent peace agreement with
the Palestinians which fully relinquishes Israeli control over the
territories occupied in 1967 and allows for the existence of a
Palestinian state on every inch occupied in 1967. And imagine that the
Palestinians no longer have travel, economic and other restrictions
imposed on them and are able to concentrate on building a truly
democratic civil society.
would be the result of such an agreement?
would lead to political stability and economic prosperity. In time,
perhaps in 15 to 20 years, such a condition of stability and prosperity
would naturally lead to a bi-national state. It would be the natural
result of real peace. And the country would become one state for two
propose that this is precisely why respective Israeli governments don't
want to make genuine peace with the Palestinians. For if such peace were
to exist and if a bi-national state were to be the end result, wouldn't
this completely shatter the entire concept of a Jewish state for a
Anyone who has visited the country and has traveled around by car knows
that physically speaking, there is room for the refugees to return. Of
course, we refugees are always being asked, both by the Israeli and
western press, what kind of return are we talking about? Do we want to
throw out Israelis who live in our homes?
answer, in my opinion, is no. I don't want the family who lives in my
father's house in the German colony in Haifa to leave, nor the Israeli
family who lives in my mother's house in Jerusalem. But I want to be
compensated for the loss of property, in addition to attaining my right
to return to live in either city. Right of return means, for me, the
right to rent an apartment in Haifa, buy a house in Haifa, work in Haifa
and live in Haifa for as long as I want. And this return is possible,
physically possible I mean. and frankly speaking, a Jew from Brooklyn or
from Latvia isn't in any way more entitled to Palestine than the
Palestinians are. Simply being a Jew doesn't give him/her the right to
Palestine, regardless of what promises god made to whom.
the Israelis know that should they allow for the right of return to
happen, in no time at all, there would be a majority of Palestinians in
the state and only a minority of Jews - simply because we have ahigher
birth rate. And this isn't what they want. For how then can they claim
it as a state for the Jews?
Events on the ground in the Palestinian Territories today indicate just
how much Israel has begun - in this intifada - to dig its own grave. An
all out war and with the type of weapons available in the region today
would have devastating ramifications on the entire area and would lead
to much death and destruction of sizable proportions.
alternative is for Israel, and the Jews around the world, to rethink the
whole idea of a Jewish state for a Jewish people. It is obvious that
this idea cannot work. It cannot last, specifically because the original
inhabitants of Palestine aren't going to disappear, no matter how many
of us get killed.
time for Jews around the world to realize that Israel cannot exist
without Palestine and that the Palestinians aren't the ones responsible
for what Europe did to the Jews in world War II. To continue to shy away
from calling Israel an apartheid state is no longer acceptable. To use
te guilt of what happened in Europe as an exucse to remain silent is no
longer acceptable. To continue to make excuses for the Israeli
occupation forces is no longer acceptable. No matter how many more years
it is going to take, the Israeli empire will come tumbling down. For the
sake of the Israelis, and not the Palestinians, real peace remains the
better alternative. Otherwise, there will come a day when the grave that
Israel is digging for itself will be so deep, it'll find itself buried
in it for good. There are no cases in history that show an ever-lasting
condition of opression.
yet here we are in the year 2001, and still trying to convince the world
that Israel has become worse in its apartheid than South Africa ever
was. It takes courage to speak up, and the need to speak up has never
been as vital. One day, not far from now, it is going to be too late to
speak, let alone take any action.
world, I agree, owes safety to all the beleagured peoples everywhere.
The problem of addressing the question of a sanctuary for Jews arises in
the confusion as to whether we Jews are a religion or a nationality.
Certainly, Bahais share a religion, are found in many countries, have
been subjected to horrific persecutions in various places. Noone, as far
as I know, is trying to constitute them as a distinct nationality and
establish a geographic homeland in which, armed to the teeth and at war
with their outraged neighbors whom they have forcibly displaced, they
will then be safe. Human rights organizations and activists who pay
attention to Bahai issues advocate their rights no matter where they
live. The same can be said for Muslims: what country must be seized to
ensure their safety and create a "homeland" for them? Indonesia?
Michigan? Of course not: their sanctuary must be wherever they live.
Christians and Jews lived for centuries in Muslim countries under the
explicit protection of Islam; the Jews of Egypt, Iraq, etc. WERE at
home. They were, and are, Arabs, free to practice a minority religion. I
can't believe that we Jews needed a separate country. The very
construction of the Jews as a supposed "foreign" nationality serves to
justify and facilitate their forcible exile from the countries and
locales in which the Jewish religion has been practiced. We must
guarantee the safety of all the members of the precious human family, as
well as their freedom and their right to their homes and livlihood.
wonder whether G. Westburg is right, and 'an emphasis on the virtues of
the Jewish people AND a portrayal of their morally corrupt, vile, and
lying leadership would be a better tactic in the continuing media war
with the Zionists'. The leadership is awful allright, but I doubt the
virtues of the Jewish People per se (as opposed to those of individual
Jews or descendents of Jews). One hears names of 'good Jews' mentioned
here and there (from Jesus and St Paul to Marx to Joe Slovo to Leo
Trotsky to Chomsky etc) in support of this thesis, but these people
(almost) always broke with the Jewish People and were anathemised by The
Jewish People. It is esp. true in respect to artists and poets: great
poets of Jewish origin like Heine, Tuwim or Pasternak etc rejected the
Jewish People and their belonging to this body, sometimes by a religious
act of baptism. The Jewish People, in my opinion, is a medieval
construct that should be undone, and the descendents of Jews should
integrate with their host nations. Those in Palestine - with
Palestinians, those in the US - with Americans. The Jewish People is
like a gang: a good man could leave the gang, and it would be counted as
his merit only. But it would be silly to consider his merits as the
merits of the gang! Talmud tells us a story of a brigand, Resh Lakish,
who gave up brigandage and became a great teacher. He is a positive
example, but his past is not seen as glorification of merits of
brigandage. The Jewish People, in my opinion, should be treated as the
omnipotent Catholic Church was treated by Voltaire: by strict denial of
its virtues, without any racist overtones. As for traditional Judaism
espoused by our good friend David Goldman, it is a small religious sect
like Amish, nobody minds them and let them live peacefully ever after,
wherever they are. Looking for virtues of the Jewish People, Mr Westburg
claims: The Jewish people have a long history of being a counter-force
in the U.S. to the right-wing of the political spectrum, of pushing for
human rights for the under-privileged (not Arabs), and of contributing
prolifically to the cultural and intellectual advancement of the human
race. All these claims are doubtful. The Jewish People in the US are the
mainstay of the real right wing globalist and imperialist trend, whether
Podgoretz or Tom Friedman. As for human rights for the underprivileged,
the struggle for the rights of Blacks in 1960s brought the Jewish People
to a position of power without improving the position of the Blacks.
Look at Emory University in Alabama, in the centre of Afro-American
community: this best local university has, as the result of the
struggle, some 40 per cent of Jewish students and 10 per cent of the
Black students. As for the cultural advancement, as I said previously,
the good guys were rejected by the Jewish People and rejected it. The
Jewish state is a means to keep the Jewish People alive. While I wish
happiness and tranquillity to every member of human race including my
Jewish brothers, I think some structures should not be encouraged and
supported. I doubt they could be transformed by means of liberalism,
reformism or restructuralism. In plain words: speak good of an
individual, but do not support the structure. This is my opinion, but
Allah knows better, as they say at the end of weather forecast :-)
Shamir, once again, you have freed me! For as long as I can remember, I
have questioned my parents, reflexive Zionists though they may be, about
"What does it mean that we are Jewish?" My mother, outspokenly
atheistic, has always responded with jokes, references to food and, more
tellingly, with disparaging comments about those who are NOT "Jewish."
So, in our family, being Jewish apparantly IS simply a bad mood, or an
ideology of the inferiority of others. Yiddish speakers (Yiddish=a
surviving form of Old High German, close to Afrikaans, with vocabulary
words and grammatical constructions admixed from other languages)know
that the way to call someone stupid is to call them a "Goyishe kopf,"
literally, a "non-Jewish head." Conversly, a smart person is a "Yiddishe
kopf," a Jewish head. I agree that the Amish-style Jews (they even wear
the same coats and hats!) are a religious sect, harmful in that way to
no-one. But what of the rest of us? Each and every cultural flavor I
have been raised to recognize as distinctly Jewish, to my great suprise
but not dismay, as it turns out, is simply Eastern European,
particularly Germanic-Rumanian in the case of my family. In fact, my mom
has often characterized my father's family as "kikes", and "not like our
family", in a visceral rejection of their more Slavic folkways, as
distinguished from her family's Austro-Hungarian origins. If Jewishness
is an ideology, one must consult Helen Green to discover its tenets.
Dolores wrote: "I personally do not feel that One state is the best
solution. I think that peace and "togetherness" can better be achieved
in a manner in which each group preserves its integrity and right to
self-governance (as an organized Right of Return is simultaneously
implemented)''. Well, Palestine is too small for separateness, and the
differences are too big for non-apartheid self-governance.
there is an extra reason why One state is better. It appears to be the
least painful way to dismantle the Jewish state. I think it has to be
done, not only for the sake of Palestine, but for the sake of the world.
The Jewish state acts like a magnet and creates something that was on
its way out of history, the world Jewry, a supranational formation,
comparable with the Catholic church in the zenith of its power. Then,
the Catholic Church was undone, at first, by Reformation, later by
Voltaire and his contemporaries. A previously much smaller and weaker
Jewry rose on the ruins of other demolished ideologies.
asked whether Jews are a nation or a religion. Now, Bob's conclusion is
a perfectly good one, but on the way of getting to solution of the
problem, I propose a different reply: it is an ideology.
ideology, it contains a belief in superiority of Jews, and denial of
equal humanity of non-Jews. It is an ideology that wishes to create a
Brave New World of masters and slaves. The priests of this ideology
promote hatred of Jews to non-Jews, like a dog is trained to hate all
strangers. That is why you can read daily the holocaust stories in NY
Times, and stories of Palestinian terrorists, and of Russian pogroms
etc. Jewish ideology is strongly anti-Christian, as it was born to fight
Christianity. Before Joachim corrects me, I'll say, that modern Israeli
historians date the beginning of Judaism in 2 c. AD. Jewish ideology
disregards environment. It is also a result of certain historical
development. Not by chance, Israeli mainstream considers Greens a sort
of crypto-Nazis. Jewish ideology contains greed worshipping, as Marx
wrote in his Jewish Question. Marx actually prophesied in 1840s (!) that
America will become a Jewish state, will embrace the Jewish ideology of
greed and alienation. I saw last week on TV a new American movie,
Lansky, about the late American Jewish Mafioso. It is a horrible Zionist
propaganda B-movie, that starts with a pogrom, and showing Gentile
hatred to Jews, and a good guy Lansky who saved Israel and was good to
Jews. There is a line, when Lansky speaks of difference between himself
and Italian Mafiosi: they care about honour, he said, but I care only
about money. I would add: and power given by money.
who would care what is the law and the creed of the Jews? There are
Yezids, Satan worshippers, there are many strange sects, but the problem
is the power of the Jews. As long as our ancestors were tailors and
Talmud scholars, they could believe in absolutely anything, and nobody
would care. But when we speak of owners of the mightiest propaganda
machine in the world, I am worried.
doubt our ability to reform it, as Luther reformed the Church. I prefer
an approach of Voltaire, who said, Destroy the infamy. Voltaire spoke of
the Catholic Church he was born into. He also proposed to strangle the
last King by the gut of the last Catholic priest. It is as if Bob or I
would propose to strangle the last Jewish banker by the guts of the last
Jewish media lord. Hell, Bob, we are still not up to Voltaire!
wonderful people as Bob and many others are the result of hundred years
of emancipation, of getting away from this tribal hatred stuff. But let
us skip illusions: the power, formidable power is in the hands of the
evil guys. They want to have the Jews behind them. Only the best succeed
to break from the indoctrination grip, and that is why I love Bob and
Ellen and many others so much: they got out of mental ghetto. A lot of
other people of Jewish ancestry also go away quietly, and we can help
them, by giving fight to the very concept of Jewish ideology, not only a
would like to compare us Jews with the descendents of Assassins, this
dangerous sect of the Crusade days. Nowadays they are called Ismailites,
and they are perfectly harmless folk. When the ideology is destroyed,
there is no problem with the people. That is why I do not care for
racist stuff, whether anti-Jewish or anti-German as preached by
is why we need this list, to discuss some very unorthodox ideas, well
out of the mainstream discourse on this stage.
think you may have mis-read a previous post, adding to your discomfort
here. In post 119, the question was asked "where in the world are
anti-Jewish groups considered anything but a fringe-pack of mental
defectives?" It looks as though you think Jews were referred to by this
epithet. In general, I think that the critics of Zionist behavior must
examine whether it is an abberation of Judiasm, or a natural outgrowth
of its tenets and folkways. I agree that Judaism is evolving, or
attempting to do so, as represented by those reformist movements you
mention. Listening carefully to the leading lights of those movements,
is, with some exceptions, however, very disappointing. They offer
Zionism Light, Israeli Hegemonism Light, It's The Palestinians Own Fault
Light, Justify Aggression using the Bible Light, etc. Those who speak
out against the occupation of Palestine, if identified as Jewish, face
accusations of: 1)self hatred, 2)not really being Jewish and 3) treason.
What do you make of this? I think that it is indeed true, at this
juncture, that those of us raised as Jews who speak against Israeli
crimes may really be outside of Judaism as it is now constructed. I wish
it were otherwise. I work for it to be otherwise. If it is to be
otherwise, then we must see things as they really are, and not as we
wish them to be (to paraphrase K.G. Jung.)
name is Alex Chaihorsky from Reno, Nevada. Israel Shamir invited me to
join the circle. As an introduction of my views on the subject allow me
to post one of my letters to Israel Shamir.
Israel, I have received recently several articles from you and I am very
interested in your way of thinking. I feel very much in-sync with you on
analysis of what life serves us, but my solutions are different. I agree
that Israel treat Palestinians badly, but in a different sense. I,
myself is half Jew half Moslem. I feel like a Jew and my system of
beliefs both Cosmic and Religious is very Jewish, but I do have a
feeling that I understand Arabs better than average Ashkenazi Jew. BTW,
it is my mother that came from old Dutch Jewish family and my Dad from
Azeri Russian aristocracy, so I "belong" on both sides. I think that
Jews will be forced to finally decide if they are victors or victims.
Both roles have positive and negative strategic sides, and for a long
time Israelis tried to play both. But, "you can only fool few people for
a long time or all of them for a short time". Israel tries to get
cherries from both trees (victor's and victim's), leaving Palestinians
without benefit of any. I will explain. A victor rules by force and
justice, he says "I conquered and what yours is mine and my law is the
law". 99% of the world lives by these rules today. But the conquered are
free to resist, rebel, have sympathy from outside and help from
supporters. Nobody blames them for wanting and trying to get back what
they lost. Israel tried to tell Palestinians that although Israel won,
Palestinians are not victims and they DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO WANT AND
FIGHT FOR WHAT THEY LOST. Israel wants peace where the side which lost
voluntarily loves the winners. That can only be done if the losers lose
the hope to win one day. Arabs are much more "down-to -earth" folks when
it comes to simple things. They know how to be victors and how to be
victims - they have seen both during their long and glorious history.
Arabs, because of their "untwisted minds" will never succumb to that
game when they are dealt loosing hand from both decks. Israelis, with
their Talmudic and Communist "twisted" minds (not necessarily a bad
thing, per se, BTW) are hoping to win a very complicated strategic chess
game, forgetting that their opponents are not interested in chess at
all. So, you both play chess if you opponent agrees or you both fight if
he doesn't. But bombing your opponent into a chess match is ridiculous.
This whole exercise since 1948 was an attempt of chess-players to have a
country to play with. And now they aged and are tired and want peace and
to be left alone. But then you have to give back all the toys you took
from others or defend these toys as your own. Hoping that you can keep
all the spoils and that the losers will love you for your nice smile
uncovers national immaturity as coutryowners. The country will be owned
by people who value the land beyond their lives and to who the existance
without it is worse than death. I do not think that Jews are able to
sustain this attitude for a long time. We value ourselves too much.
or flight, so to speak. As it was for thousands of years.
Chaihorsky Reno, NV
some people said that the University of Human Sciences of Strasbourg had
no name and that a name should be given it, there were several
proposals. The winner was almost Gutenberg, who worked on his printing
system in Strasbourg. Without the printing press, perhaps there would
not have been the period of Enlightment. Then came a professor of Jewish
origin, Deyon. He pushed Gutenberg out of the nest and put in the name
of Marc Bloch. When the French reconquered Strasbourg in 1918, the best
German professors that the Kaiser had attracted there were driven back
over the bridge of the Rhine, with one piece of luggage per person.
Amongst them was Harry Bresslau, a great Jewish historian who had been
at the university of Berlin before accepting a function in Strasbourg.
His place was taken by another Jew, Marc Bloch, who had not even
finished his doctorate and took the place in expectation of a place at
the Sorbonne. In 16 years at Strasbourg, he directed one doctorate.
with Gutenberg out and Marc Bloch in, the battle was not over. I created
an "association pour l'université Albert Schweitzer de Strasbourg".
Albert Schweitzer, a theologian and physician from that université was
the right name in our eyes. I made a visit to prof. Isch, former dean of
the faculty of medecine and chairman of the association of the French
friends of Albert Schweitzer, to ask him, if we could do something
together. He told me that he had tried, but had been told that to
persist promoting another name against Marc Bloch would be considered as
an antisemitic behaviour. Result : on the day of vote, there was only
one name left : Marc Bloch.
the Strasbourg university had been created five centuries ago by the
protestants and was for a long time very famous in the German cultural
space. But it faltered under French domination. After 1870, the German
Kaiser decided to make it great again and succeeded.
way that had been taken to give this university the name of Marc Bloch
had very negative effects and promoted an antisemitism in the cultural
classes of Alsace which will be lasting.
all this happened, I published it in a communiqué which I faxed to the
press and different personalities having cultural and political
responsabilities. I send arount 20 faxes. I was denounced to Licra (ligue
international contre le racisme et l'antisémitisme), brought to justice
and condemned for provocation of hatred against Jews to 6 months in jail
and around $10 000 in fines, damages and publication of the judgement in
the local press, at my expense.
protested sayaing that if such methods were used just to give a name,
they would certainly be used too to appoint the staff (the international
impact of French publications in human sciences lies near 0.80, whereas
the American index is leading at around 1.40).
the court the Jewish lawyer said that I was paving the road for the next
my affair is in the "cour de cassation" the last resort of the French
judiciary system. If I should be definitely condemned, I'll go to the
European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.
affair demonstrates that amongst the benefits of the holocaust there is
not only immunity againt critic, but much more negative, the promotion
of stupid layers of the Jewish community who are not aware that they are
sawing the branch on which they are dwelling. The Holocaust has been the
cause of a new antisemitism that has never existed before : stupid Jews
coming to rule in politics, culture and mass media. Untill the beginning
of this century, a Jew had to be very good to be accepted, like Harry
Bresslau (Albert Schweitzer married his daughter). Jews got the general
reputation of being intelligent. Now, after the holocaust, if you find a
Jew in a high position, people will ask if he has got this position as a
profit of the holocaust.
Rachi predicted, the Wiesel, Goldhagen, Kosinski are up, and a
Finkelstein can only survive where the Wiesel, Goldhagen and Kosinski
have not concentrated all the power.
author in the togethernetwork group affirmed that there were no
archaeological data to confirm the presence of Israel in the Ancient
Near East in the 2nd nor in beginning of the 1st millennium BCE. Persian
i.e. Zoroastrian religion was suggested as the main background for the
formation of the Hebrew Bible. 1. The first mention of Israel in an
extra-biblical source stems from the Victory Stele of the pharaoh
Merneptah, dating from 1220 BCE after his military campaign in the land
of Canaan. In line 27 of his inscription the pharaoh affirms: "Israel is
annihilated and has no more seed, i.e. descendents". With this mention
of Israel, unique in ancient Egyptian texts, the inscriptions offers the
first extra-biblical evidence of the existence of Israel by the end of
the 2nd millennium BCE. According to a Paris Egyptologist, Jean Yoyotte,
"La campagne du pharaoh Merneptah," in E.-M. Laperrousaz, La
protohistoire d'Israel, Paris, 1990, pp. 109-119, this Israel does not
yet represent the coalition of twelve tribes. Rather it stands for a
tribal group that eventually joined several other tribes that went out
from Egypt. 2. The second mention of Israel coming from an
archaeological source stems from a stele discovered in 1993 in Tel Dan
in the region north of Galilee. The stele was written in paleo-Aramaic
by a Syrian king who fought "The king of Israel" and against the "king
of the House of David" (mlk bytdwd in the consonantal text read: Melek
Bayt Dawid). The stele dates from 850 BCE according to the surrounding
potsherds found on the site. If this date is correct, the "King of
Israel" would be king Omri of Samaria, the famous founder of the Omride
dynasty whose name is attested several times in Assyrian Royal Annals,
cuneiform texts now in the British Museum. The Assyrian Annals beginning
with 12th century down to 612 BCE, date of the fall of Niniveh, contain
several references to the Kings of Jerusalem like "Manase shar yaudi" ("Mannaseh
king of Judah") Walter Dietrich, "dawid, dod und bytdwd," Theologische
Zeitschrift 53 (1997), pp. 17-32; Andre Lemaire, "Epigraphie
palestinienne: nouveaux documents I. Frag ments de stele arameenne de
Tel Dan (IXe av. J.-C.), Henoch 16 (1994), pp. 87-93. 3. The Persian
aristocrats practiced incest as a supreme religious duty. The sons of
Perisan royalty were marrying daughters of conquered peoples for
diplomatic reasons but Perisan royal daughters were never given in
marriage to non-Perisans. For Persians marrying one's mother or sister
was seen as a way out from the endless battle between good and evil. The
females were dipositories of what was considred as supreme good in the
religious sense of the term. It is widely admitted by historians of
religions that Zoroastrian dualism, with its battle between good and
evil, light and darkness had influenced Qumran Judaism in the 2nd
century BCE as attested by their "Battle Scroll" 1QM i.e. the "Battle
Between the Children of Darkness Against the Children of Light".
Elements of this dualistic worldview are also found in the
Judeo-Christian sect whose founder Yeshuah Ha-Notsri (Jesus of Nazareth)
also spoke of the "Children of Darkness" and "Chidren of Light" i.e. the
Christians. The Book of Revelation is replete with dualistic and
apocalyptic visions of the final Battle between Children of Light and
Chidren of Darkness (cf. the Judeao-Christian idea of Armageddon, Hebrew
"har" = "mountain" and mageddon from the plain of "Megiddo", the
proverbial scene of decisive battles, Revelation 16:16). It is also
widely admitted by historians that the Persian Period was the time when
Ezra the Scribe put together ancient patriarchal and tribal traditions
and gave the Torah its first written shape. The most striking evidence
that the Torah had to distance itself from Zoroastrian religion is found
in the Book of Leviticus ch. 18 containing a very detailed list of laws
against incest. While 5th century Judaism practiced endogamous
marriages, it refused to go as far as Persian Zoroastrianism and condone
incestuous relationships. Some Persian elements like dualism found its
way in the Hebrew Bible and in the Christian New Testament but other
elements like institutionalized incest was rejected.
Daniel Bodi Professor at the Paris School of Oriental Studies (www.inalco.fr)
have problems with my Jewish and my Gentile friends about my views on
very surprised by their attitude. They think that one side has to be
right and another - wrong. That is so stupid and primitive that my teeth
admire both a Jewish settler who brought farming to Negev and a
Palestinian fellach who tended his garden for hundreds of years. I
respect any one on each side who died for what he believed to be his
people's right and his true legacy. As a son of a Jewish mother I shrug
when I hear another story about innocent people who were killed by the
bus bomb, but I will lie, if I will tell you that I do not respect a
martirdom of self-sacrifice of a young Palestinian man. My friends tell
me that this is cowardice. The difference between us is that they spent
most of their lives in warm offices and I was for the most of my life
field geologist in Siberia and Kamtchatka and spent 2 years in Russian
Army fighting oil field fires. This is not cowardice, this is heroism.
You may think of it as misguided heroism, but anyone who think its a
cowardice I would like to pose a question - what is the most brave thing
YOU did in your life? Is there a cause for which YOU will be willing to
sacrifice YOUR life?
same way one cannot escape feeling deep respect when one sees the
chronicle of kamikadze attacks. I discussed that matter with WW2
veterans on the US side and all of them, yes, all without exception told
me that they respected the young Japanese pilots. Yes, kamikadze fought
with military, but I suspect that Palestinians would rather bomb
military bases, if they would have a chance. I admire Mossad agents who
put their lives at stake for their cause. I admire the persistance and
survivability of their coutreparts who, with minimal resources are still
able to keep Mossad on their toes. See, I admire honor, noble desire to
self-sacrifice for any cause that puts people hearts on fireand the
pride of non-abiding to slavery. I admire dirty heroic faces of the tank
crews of Golan Division as much as I admire the way that Palestinian
mothers raise their boys knowing that they can die at any moment. I
admire honor and chivalry and will admire them whatever anyone sez.
hope that if the time comes, I will have enough in me to do for the US
Constitution what these guys did for their causes.
Recently I came up with a mental experiment.
Assume that some Illinois Indian tribe (I will not use the word Native
Americans just to tease the PC crowd) - I repeat - some Illinois Indian
tribe will revolt, raid the near US miliraty base (peacfully sleeping at
their command posts), gathered a good supply of tanks (remember that guy
in San Diego that stole a tank?), ammo, communication equipment,
surrounded nearest towns, threw out inhabitants and dug in. They issued
declaration on the abuses of promises by the US government, their native
right of ownership, etc, etc, etc.
the next day, poor American farmers that were thrown out of their homes
call Washington and the whole vortex started to come alive.
imagine that UN, pissed off by the US not paying them their lunch money
get suddenly a chance to play hardball and RECOGNIZES the tribe as a
nation, Canada and France follow, in both English and French
declarations. Australia pisses in their pants and signs, terrified.
Russia agrees laughing to the point of throwing up. Chinese cannot
believe their luck. India declared that now all Indians can have
automatic US residency because technically Indian is "Indian". English
Queen was overheard saying "finally we have got a chance to finish that
tea party".............. etc, etc. etc.
Government is paralized, nobody wants to take responsibility, shuttle
envoys, lawyers, Hillary Clinton discovers that she is the only direct
offspring of Sitting Bull, takes a name of Chief "Nothing But Bull",
etc, etc, etc.
Recognised? We have Middle East in Mid-West. Now war starts. Farmer boys
with clenched teeth and volonteers from Montana, Nevada, Arizona and
Idaho fight and die in skirmishes, Indians blow up their enemies Broncos
with guided missiles ($2 mil a piece, but who is counting?), a yound
Idaho man blows up an Indian school together with himself shouting "And
the Land of the Brave!". Do you have an audacity to tell me who is right
and who is wrong? The truth is - both parties have a right to fight for
their lost lands or homesteads, hunting grounds or professional offices,
mushroom fields or football stadiums. Certainly there will be people who
will dig up tons of docs supporting both sides, lawyers will law,
professors will pro, ambassadors will amb, presidents will pres.
question - what a decent man to do? My answer - join the side you feel
you cannot not join or join the Red Cross or... shut up and go to work.
is not to do? Do not ask your government to impose sanctions, do not
send peacekeepers, do not support any side unless you feel that you can
put your life on line.
Otherwise, instead of bloody, but quick resolution after which both
sides will come with the grips with the reality and adjust accordingly
(and they will as all the winners and losers did since times immemorial
and until that UN monster appeared) otherwise you will have bloody, but
endless process where millions will be borne in refugee camps, adjust to
criminal thinking, form "omerta" mafiosi societies, create hereditary
terrorists, waste zillions, in one word - you will create Middle East as
it is today. And final blow - it will end up with a nuclear explosion.
See, when farmers and indians fought, they both fought for the land they
loved. Three generation of that artificially prolonged war later some
groups emerged on both sides that have no regard for the land, but
fought because they hated each other. The window of opportunity to
obtain nuclear weapons will ulimately present itself one day. At that
day,(my prediction - within 5 years) at that moment, when the mushroom
will bloom over Jerusalem, it will be you, false peace lovers, who would
be at fault. You, who negated human nature and created monster nations
out of good people on both sides, because you never left them alone to
slug it out themselves. You thought that conflicts can be resolved by
you, smart, elegant, educated, rich idiots, rather then the parties
themselves. Now you have to accept responsibilities. But you won't. You
will just board the planes, some real some virtual and leave, until the
next chance to interrupt your boring existance with lectures on peace
andd humanity to some other "barbaric" nations who face irreconcilable
conflict. Same attitude will turn Balkans into yet another Middle East.
the years before anti-biotics (the times when doctors were doctors, not
pillpushers) people who contracted a disease if nothing helped were
prepared for "crisis". This was a moment, that may have lasted several
hours or even days when the human immune system would slug it out with a
microbe. The victory was almost always full, whatever side won. If human
won, he/she would get well very fast and no sign of the disease will be
left. If microbe would win - the human most probably would die. Tragic,
but creates immune heredity, develops immune system and does not create
chronic diseases. The survivor would pass his/her immune knowledge to
Later, antibiotics took over and doctors started to prescribe them left
and right. That created enormous amounts of cronic conditions. This is
what we have in the Middle East today and in the Balkans. This is like
wrong medicine - it does not heal, but turn cronic.
People, give peace a chance - let them slug it out, for Pete's sake!
Chaihorsky Reno, NV
few of us (unfortunately) protest when people say "These gentiles" or
"these Goys"... Jewish establishment always supported blacks in their
condemnation of Whites as a whole group, so why shouldn' they see us as
a coherent group? We think we are not, but what matters is how "they"
think. If a farmer in Iowa sees all Jews as a coherent group this is
because he was raped by a Jewish banker when he got a loan, raped by a
Jewish trader when he bought his supplies and raped by Jewish lawyer
when he wanted to resist. On top of that, Mr. Greespan pumped up the
interest rates. I do not blame him. I myself am appalled by how much
Jews occupy what appeared to be almost all visible space.
remember three-four years ago there were a "Town meeting" on
Israeli-Palestinian problems on ABC. The US was represented by:
Koppel, Madam Albright Sandy Burger
the hell a coutry that has 2% Jewish population is 100% represented by
members on one group? And the group that is directly involved in a
is it but the direct spit into the face of Arabs? What would Jews say if
the US would have been represented in the same situation by three
Arab-American? Do the people at ABC has any brains whatsoever? Or they
did it on purpose? Or the message was - "We own this country, do not
then we shout about "diversity" on every corner. isn't it hypocricy
Chaihorsky Reno, NV
tend to overlook the fact that Interest, is the main cause of conflict -
it was forbidden to the Children of Israel to charge interest amongst
themselves, or to those "in whose lands they sojourned..."
the most subtle weapon of war as described by St Ambrose: The sole,
legitimate purpose for inter-est/usury/riba is explained by St Ambrose,
in his comments on Deuteronomy 23:19, found in the five books of Moses
(AS) in the Old Testament. "From him demand usury, whom you rightly
desire to harm, against whom weapons are lawfully carried. From him
exact usury whom it would not be a crime to kill. He fights without a
(visible) weapon who demands usury; he who revenges himself upon an
enemy, who is an inter-est collector from his foe, fights without a
sword. Therefore, where there is a right of war, there also is a right
Scarcity of Money is the Root of All Evil. "The creation of Dirhams and
Dinars (money) is one of the blessings of Allah. They are stones having
no intrinsic usufruct or utility, but all human beings need them,
because everybody needs a large number of commodities for his eating,
wearing etc. And often he does not have what he needs, and does have
what he needs not. Therefore, the transactions of exchange are
inevitable. Allah Almighty has created Dirhams and Dinars (money) as
judges and mediators between all commodities so that all objects of
wealth are measured through them. And their being the measure of the
value of all commodities is based upon the fact that they are not an
object in themselves. And whoever effects the transactions of interest
on money is, in fact, discarding the blessings of Allah, and is
committing injustice, because money is created for some other things,
not for itself. So the one who has started trading in money itself has
made it an objective contrary to the wisdom behind its creation, because
it is injustice to use money for a purpose other than it was created
for. If it is allowed for him to trade in money itself, money will
become his ultimate goal, and will remain detained with him like hoarded
money. And imprisoning a ruler, or restricting a postman from conveying
messages is nothing but injustice."
Al-Ghazali (D 505 A.H.) (c11th century Christian era) recorded in "Ihya-al-Uloom"
v.4, P,88-89, Cairo 1939.
1668, Sir Josiah Child, a banker, had this to say on the destructive
role of interest on humanity which is exactly the same in the year 2001:
'All countries are at this day richer or poorer in an exact proportion
to what they pay, and have usually paid, for the interest on money…The
abatement of interest is the cause of the prosperity and riches of any
HOLOCAUSTS & WAR ARE THE GUARANTEED RESULT OF USURY - RIBIS - REBA -
I.E. INTEREST In order to leave no lingering doubt that war is an
inevitable and unavoidable consequence of interest and compound interest
let us take a look at a prediction that came true exactly within the
time frame specified by Silvio Gessel in 1918. At the signing of the
Armistice in 1918, Gessel predicted World War II within less than 25
years unless the world changed its monetary system from one based on
interest to one without. As previously mentioned, the Qur'an tells us
unequivocally to: "expect war from Allah and His Messenger." It is a
promise binding on Allah: The seeds of all future wars were sown at
Versailles in 1919, and ratified in perpetuity at Bretton Woods in 1944.
These future wars, like all their predecessors, will be caused by the
congenital fault in our hideous monetary system - based as it is on
inter-est and compound inter-est. And nowhere better is this deadly
fault defined than in the newspaper article published by Gessell, on the
eve of the Armistice in 1918. In 'Zeitung am Mitag' a German language
newspaper he stated:-
spite of the holy promises of people to banish war once and for all, in
spite of the cry of millions 'never again war' in spite of all the hopes
for a better future I have this to say: - 'If the present monetary
system based on inter-est and compound inter-est, remains in operation,
I dare to predict today that it will take less than 25 years until we
have a new and even worse war. "Government can, and does finance itself
to a small extent by the issue of non-inter-est bearing money: this is
the aggregate known as M0, the stock of which is currently some 19.1/2
billion. The size of the stock of M0 is limited by the demand for this
form of money…The money that banks CREATE is either inter-est-bearing or
renders some sort of service that costs banks money to provide"
wrote Anthony Nelson, M.P, whilst acting as a spokesman for Her
Majesty's Treasury, on the 22nd February 1993. He failed to point out
that he, like Norman Lamont, were both from N.M.Rothschild & Co, perhaps
the greatest purveyors of government debt-finance the world has ever
known. And purveyors of, in the words of Gilbert and Sullivan:
"monumental loans to foreign thrones". Debt is not an inevitability and
it can be cancelled without injury to society as a whole. What is,
however required, is the euthanasia of the rentier or the money lenders.
Between 1817 & 1845 Britain's National Debt was cancelled and, to the
best of our knowledge - The World Did Not Come To An End. Is it not time
to cancel all debts in line with the Biblical Jubilee? Kondratiev's
Curve, shows that depressions occur every 7 years, when people and
communities have become choked with escalating debt and inter-est
payments: confirming the wisdom of Jubilee which calls for a
cancellation of all debts every 7th year. This is further confirmed in
the Qur'an which states:
"Those who devour usury will not stand except as stands one whom Satan,
by his touch, has driven to madness. That is because they say: 'Trade is
like usury', But Allah/Adonai has permitted trade but forbidden usury.
"Those who after receiving admonition from their Lord, and desist, shall
be pardoned for the past; their case is for Allah (to judge); But those
who repeat the offence are Companions Of The Fire: they will abide
therein for ever. Allah will deprive usury of all blessing, But will
give increase For deeds of charity (and justice). For He loveth not Any
ungrateful Sinner…O you who believe! Fear Allah, and give up what
remains of your demands for usury - If you are indeed believers?"
explains Lord Acton's remark that: "The issue which has swept down the
centuries, and must be fought sooner or later, is the people versus the
banks ." Gladstone said about the Bank of England: "The Bank of England,
from becoming the banker's bank has become the government's government."
is why, Napoleon abolished interest in France in 1807, with the full
co-operation of Rabbi David Sindzheim. He knew that Europe would forever
be at war unless it eradicated interest from its economy. Having
embraced Islam in 1798, and taken the name Ali, Napoleon Bonaparte, he
had the fiqh of Imam Malik translated and took it as the Civil Code,
better known as the Code Napoleon which is 96% Islamic. His
understanding of the importance of abolishing interest can be gauged
from the following. He said: "It is amazing that this monster, interest,
has not devoured all humanity, it would have done so long ago had not
bankruptcy and revolution acted as counter poisons."
French usually refer to these conflicts as the "Usury Wars". This was
the real reason for the Battle of Waterloo which was the first round of
negotiations for the Maastricht Treaty - Napoleon wanted a common
currency - but not a single currency. The Bank of England had to prevent
Napoleon from spreading Islam "the democratic faith."
sincerely David M Pidcock Islamic Party of Britain
Responding to Miguel, in the words of the great actor, Danny Kaye,
(Jewish) in the 70's TV movie 'Skokie, Ill.', " it's ok to say 'Jew',
Marty." I have a problem with being told what to say, or think. If I
wanted that sort of a society, I'd have stayed in Pakistan. I have a
problem with the fact that after years of brainwashing by media and
governments its ok to say 'Arab', 'Palestinian', or 'Muslim', and the
automatic association with those words is 'Militant', 'Terrorist', or
'Fanatic'. And with the automatic association of 'Jew' with 'Holocaust
victim', 'The Chosen People', and 'brave defenders of Israel, a plucky
little country surrounded by a mass of blood- thirsty savages, fanatics
and undemocratic countries'. You see the power of language? And you want
to take that power away from the good guys? We are free to discuss every
thing but 'Jews'? But the problem is that when we say Jew we aren't even
clear about whether its the religion, culture, society, or ideology, all
interchangeable, all saying it isn't the religion, culture etc. that's
at fault, it's always the other. No wonder we get all tied up in knots.
No wonder that the whole Arab Nation abjectly grovels before the West
trying so hard to please their masters and be seen as 'good' Arabs,
yessuh, massa. No wonder that a whole bunch of 'friends of the
Palestinians' ganged up on Israel Shamir because he got quoted by
(horrors) some right wingers and that his words might be misused by
anti-semites. (!) I really don't want to do the left-wing dance about
the problems of neo-nazism, white supremacy and all their liberal
preoccupations. I saw jewskickwoman.jpg at www.aztlan.net and also the
white survival posting which I didn't a problem opening. I appreciated
the information, I didn't automatically become a white survivalist, and
would really hope to be allowed to think for myself instead of having
these warnings- White survivalist ahead! Stay away or civilisation as we
know it will come to an end! I apologise for my hyperbole. But I want
you all to step away from your way of thinking for a moment. We can't
say Jew but they can say Arab. And if they're going to set themselves up
as saints-on-a-pedestal, a little mud flinging is ok, it'll make them a
little more human, then they can join the rest of the human race, and
the Arabs can throw a party and the Jews can cater it.(joke) And if I
offended any body, I'm sorry, but as long as one more Palestinian baby
gets to be butchered, and another Iraqi child die dies of radiation
poisoning from depleted uranium shells, I'll say it again! Sincerely,
Naseer Ahmad, M.D.(MA), D.Sc. :)
Naseer, As a Jew, even though I'm not 100% sure, in a scientific sense
how to define or prove that term, I am more than happy to have us
discuss the "Jews." When the Israelis abuse and kill Palestinians, they
do so as Jews, by that exact name. They don't qualify their identity as
"Zionist" or "Israeli". No, they kill specifically those they identify
as "not Jewish." One of the gifts Israel Shamir has given to
anti-Zionist Jews is to liberate us from our reluctance to be called
"self-hating Jews," or, heaven forfend, "anti-Semitic." I often remind
people that Jews rarely hate themselves, they concentrate on hating
OTHERS. That is one of the main points in contention, actually. One
thing is clear: a Jew is not the name of a nationality or even an
ethnicity. The Jews do not share a common language, common area of
origin, common culture, common tradition or history. Many so-called Jews
have no religious belief or practice, or have adopted practices of other
peoples, or of recent invention under the brand-name of some novel form
of "Judaism." We have been falsely constituted as a colonial power, with
a re-created language, somewhat like South Africa's "white tribe", the
Afrikaaners. As such, the Jews are a political movement and must be
discussed in any way that allows the discussion to make sense... So,
Miguel, I join Naseer in making it a usable word: Jew Jew Jew Jew Jew.
Bob Green P.S. I'll be happy to cater a party for Free Palestine (not a
the argument between our friends Miguel and Nasser I fully support our
moderator Bob Green! After all, this is the only 'no holds barred'
discussion list in the Universe! As for the witty definition of the
Jewry by Miguel, "a gigantic collective creature with a lot of heads and
hands, but only one brain", it could be said about any structure, for
instance, England, Italy, Catholic church, KKK, Communist (or
Democratic) Party, Afro-Americans, WASPs etc. Yes, we want to cause
disintegration of 'the Jewry', but it is not the same as saying that it
does not exist full stop. There are forces that want the thing to exist,
so it is a process, a struggle, a dynamic interaction. A normal
descendent of Jews probably wants 'the Jewry' to disappear, but there
are many guys (Bronfman and Foxman, not only Kahane) who want to make it
stronger. I would love to be sure that the Jewry (The Jewish People)
does not exist, but I am not certain. As you know, Germany turned
property of deceased Jews (OK, I mean German persons considered to
belong to Jewish People by these bastards) to the Jewish People (I mean
the Conference for Claims of Bronfman et al). In other words, the
residue (the property not collected by direct heirs) will go to Messrs
Bronfman, Silver, Burg etc. It means that (at least) Germany believes in
existence of the Jewish People as a legal entity. Similar decisions were
taken by Italy, Switzerland, etc. Give it a thought, Miguel! Your
Italian army caused a lot of damage during WWII from Ethiopia to
Stalingrad. Still, you Italians paid just for one thing, for one bombing
of Tel Aviv. You paid for it full market price (details by request). If
the Jewry does not exist, why has Italy paid up? That is why I tend to
think the Jewry exists, to the extent any other person of public law
exists. Then, Israel is just a part-time occupation for this entity. Let
us post it as a theoretical question: whether the Jewry exists? And I do
not mean 'exists in feverish minds of Kahanists and Hitlerites'. The
reply will have some practical conclusions. If we reply in affirmative,
the Jewry should be pushed and prodded, so it would have less desire to
deal with Palestine. The Jewry (I mean the elites of Organised Jewry
from Friedman to Bronfman) should be attacked, as it was done by our
good friends Robert Silverman and Bruce Katz of Montreal etc. But if our
answer to the theoretical question is in negative, we should lay off.
anyone help me to understand why the Holocaust seem to be a forbidden
subject nowadays? I run into some info about very bizarre law suits
against so- called "revisionists" and this business puzzled me. It seems
that the revisionists deny many things that for years were never
disputed about treatment of Jews by Germans during WW2. Well, some
people still think the Earth is flat. However, I have never heard of
people why deny the spherical nature of our planet to be attacked or
criminalized the way these revisionists are. If a guy who passionately
believe in Eart flaness would walk in any astronomical observatory,
people would just show him (may be hiding a smile) why he is wrong. No
hate, no accusations would be troiwn at him and if he would go away
unconvinced, nobody would sue him, or call him a criminal or arrest him.
The guy is wrong and stupid - so what? However these revisionists are
not treated that way... and I am suspicious.
brought up in belief that 6 millions of Jews perished during WW2 and
never ever I doubted this, as I have never doubted the numbers of total
world population - I cannot count them myself, but since everybody saiz
that that is what it is, so be it. One of the branches of our family
perished during WW2 in Germany and I was pretty sure that they were
victims of the Holocaust. But then I saw a film about revisionism on the
History channel. The way these people were treated, the way they were
attacked and beaten to the pulp during that trial (in England, I think)
reminded me immediately of Soviet courts. But I was still not thinking
much of this.
a while that shameful Swiss thing happened, when Bronfman and Co.
demanded that Swiss would pay them the "Jewish people's money". That
made me puke. I am slightly familiar with Swiss banking history and know
that a good percentage of Swiss banks are owned and/or managed by Jewish
families for centuries. Some nerve that Bronfman had to make Swiss
people pay for what at least some Jewish bankers never returned to their
Jewish clients! I was ashamed and angry and mad. For me the tragedy of
Holocaust was a human tragedy, a thing that made us all aware of what
humans are capable of. It is customary to put all the blame on Germans,
but I am pretty sure that if Hitler would fell in love with Jews and
hated only, say, Slavs, the SS-uniformed Jews would diligently do to
Slavs what was instead done to them. We, who was borne and raised in
Russia know that there was no difference between what Gestapo did and
what Cheka and NKVD did. And both Cheka and NKVD were, as the whole
Bolshevik leadeship, unproportionally high in Jewish membership. Again,
for me that was a human tragedy and a human failure. However all these
"payments" - Swiss being the latest, made this tragedy being shamefully
used as a cash cow. I thought that there would be a tsunami of protest
within Jewish community against using the Holocaust that way, but...
there were nothing like it. That made me suspicious. And I started to
look for answers.
I found out that it is virtually impossible to find in bookshops
anything written on the subject from any perspective other than the
"official". Then I found that the number 6 millions was taken from
Russian documents and it did not addressed Jews specifically (as I
understood), but rather all victims of concentration camps. As a former
Russian Jewish citizen, I know how many Russians, Roms, Georgians,
Armenians, Azeris, Kazakhs, etc. were prisoners of German concentration
camps. I started to look for other sources and scientfic evidence, but
have found only emotional accounts. And then, I found that in France it
is a crime punishable by imprisonment to cite anything but official
version. That left me speachless.
there anything in the literature that would provide support for the
Holocaust claims with scientific arguments without mud trowing? Any
civilized discussions on the subject? After that Swiss case I do not
believe the Bronfmans of the world anymore.
Chaihorsky Reno, NV
mia! Que pasa contigo, hombre? Ayayay! How COME jew say dat J word so
many times like dat, hombre? "Jew Jew Jew Jew Jew"! Phew! Wattsa MATTA
you? Jew gonna get everybody mad now! Now day gonna say jewr anti-semiticos!!!
Ayayay, otra vez !
remember when our good Jewish friend he got mad when Israel Shamir say
"Jewish tanks"? I assed him "Ay caramba, hombre! Why CAN'T he no say
"Jewish tanks"? ~ I mean who ELSE got tanks in Palestine!!!!!?? Eh????"
But no, our amigo he say jew gotta say "Zionist" tank, NOT "Jewish"
tank, cuz jew not supposta say dee J word bout people doin' anyting bad,
even if day ARE Jewish, or about bad tings like tanks dat blow up kids
even if eets only Jews in dem! So I got kinda confused, hombre, and I
assed him "So entonces, CAN I call Israel a Jewish State, or no,
hombre?" and he say "No way
Y tambien, hombre!! Otra cosa...Since I guess he don't like anybody
using the J word 'bout anyting, eres completamente LOCO!!?? Ayayay! Now
when he see jew say "Jew Jew Jew Jew Jew" he gonna hit da cielo!!! Ay
jew betta tell him jewr practicing to sing wit dat jew-wop band ova dare
in the barrio, doze Zion and the Belmonts!** Uddawise jew in BIG
trouble, hombre, an I tink he gonna give jew a karate chop an' den a jew-doe
flip an' bust jewr head!! So tell him dat jew were jus' practicin' de
song dat goes like dis:
Jew-wop! Jew wa-wa-wa-wa-wa! Jew-wop! Jew wa-wa-wa-wa-wa! JEW~LY!!!
........................................... Jew Jew Jew Jew Jew Lee Lee
Lee JEW~LY BABY! .................................... JEW~LY! Won't jew
come out tonight? Jew-wa, Jew wa-wa-wa-wa- wa! Jew-Jew, Jew
hombre, watcha tink? Es bueno, si? If he don like dat one, maybe jew can
sing him dat old Chattanoga-JewJew song.....
Anyway, if he don believe jew bout all dis, never mind, amigo, I visit
jew in dee hospital...... an after jew get betta an jew are in one peace
again we can have dat fiesta jew were talkin' about!
suerte, Adios, Jose
From Roberto: ... So, Miguel, I join Naseer in making it a usable word:
Jew Jew Jew Jew Jew. Roberto Verde (aka Bob Green) P.S. I'll be happy to
cater a party for Free Palestine (not a joke.)
*** Jew know what ? Roberto, he did wat I say, an' den he got famous
singing dat Jew-wop stuff with dat band!! Jew can hear him here singin'
dat famous Zion and the Belmontes song "The Chosen Few" below! Es Verdad!
Eet's no joke! Jew just go down to the "Listen to de Samples" place,
click on dat song "The Chosen Few" and dares Roberto singin' dee song
on the ground here in the West Bank working for a development agency. I
must tell you that I'm afraid of saying too much on this email system,
not for myself, but if it got into the wrong hands it could affect
relief and development attempts here. Sometimes I think it is safer in
the clashes here then to speak out about Israel publicly. However here
is my little piece. Palestinians are tough. The toughest and most
patient people I have ever seen. Enduring suffering is in their blood,
they don't enjoy it but if it is required they are damn good at it. They
need more support in (for now) stopping the expansions that are taking
place now in the West bank and Gaza, whilst they are all locked away in
their villages. People should not be blinded by the military actions
taking place in Palestine now, it is an excuse for what Israel is doing
behind the scenes. Israel has a very sophisticated and long term
strategy for this intifada.
the last two weeks a major by pass road has been built around one of the
villages I work in, boulders have destroyed crops and water channels,
the dynamite used by construction workers is going off all the time. In
another village a huge 9 ft fence has been errected which in the words
of a famous European Journalist mirrored the fences of the townships of
South Africa. The fence will allow for the expansion of Betar Illit
settlement on land confiscated from the newly enclosed village. Maybe
the fence is a test run for unilateral seperation I don't know.
Yesterday Sharon proposed a military zone on the East side of the green
line (West Bank) to be 200meters to 2 km wide, any Palestinian not
living in the area caught in that area (the West Bank ) can be shot,
this is already happening... if it is an enclosed military zone it will
also require that journalist, foreign development agencies etc obtain a
special pass from the military to enter.A new buffer zone is required
between Israel and Egypt to be built on the land of Rafah etc ... All
security strategies here on the ground involve a slow transfer of the
population right now.
to Israel's (shamir) ideas of exposing funders, it's important because
little victories over there (Outside of Palestine) against these people
will boost the morale here for villagers to stand their ground. To be
honest I'm terrified to do it and I think those of you who are Jewish
should concentrate on this. Some examples In Australia Joseph Gutnik is
a major sponsor of the Hebron settlers (and who knows what else) what
pain and misery his funds are creating. Whoever funds Betar Illit
settlement I know the story from farmers who lost their land there, lets
show what his/her funds are doing. Hey why we're at it lets send some
villagers over to sue them. I heard that some American Palestinians were
going to sue the American govt who proposed to build the new American
embassy in Jerusalem on their land. Who are the legal experts out
Shaming doesn't have to involve a law suit it can be simple eg Jo Blow
funds the settlement of blah blah the management of this settlement have
done this and this, what does Jo blow have to say about it.
agree with Shamir that the settlements are also a diversion but they are
a good place to begin dismantling the donors because their evil is
obvious to those unfamiliar with this conflict... and when the money
stops coming in I'm sure many people are going to start booking flights
for Florida! If anyone knows how we can find out about who is funding
what I'd like to know.
the congresswoman from Nevada feels that Israel is her state, then she's
welcome to it. I, for one, no longer believe that our battle for
liberation is going to be won in the United States, but on the ground in
Palestine. If Amercian congresswomen/men and the US media wish to go
down in history as being such promoters of apartheid, ethnic cleansing
and genocide, then history will one day redicule them and this will be
the only way that they'll deserve to be remembered.
it is in the US congress that aid to Israel is approved, but I have no
faith or hope that our battle is to be fought here. How to empower
people on the ground in Palestine, arm their children with education,
rid ourselves of the current leadership and replacing it with one more
befitting to lead an honorable people, and trying to implement the south
Lebanon reistence experience in Plaestine is the priority.
for deligitimizing all support of Jewish supremacy, I think the Jews are
the ones who need to stop using the Holocaust as an excuse to be
supreme. The draft of the final statement at Durban speaks of the
Holocaust - remindig us of it again - but fails to blast Israel for the
racist state that it is. I hardly think of this as a success.
time for Jews to recognize that the Palestinians must not continue to be
used as the excuse for "never again". Funny how atrocities committed in
Europe must be paid for by another people. So long as the Jews hide
behind the Holocaust to justify what Israel is doing, they will continue
to think of themselves as supreme. I don't, as a Palestinian, think that
they are. They are not different than others.
Believe me, it is not our future as Palestinians that I am worried
about. Justice eventualy previals, no matter how long it takes. But
since I am not a racist and have nothing against the Jews, it is THEIR
future in Palestine that I worry about. Because the brutal way in which
the Israelis are insiting on maintaining their occupation, they are
digging their grave with their own hands and the future, for them, looks
very bleak indeed.
Muna and Ahmad make extremely important points. I often remind my Jewish
brothers and sisters that the Palestinians are very capable of saving
themselves; after all, didn't the European Jews prevail over the
formerly powerful Nazi Germany in the long run? One reason for Jews to
stop the Israeli crimes against the humanity of Palestine and the world
is to save their OWN souls. Those of us who do not actively engage in
this struggle are actively abetting the atrocities. Only by admitting
the crimes and beginning the impossible but necessary task of making
restitution will the responsible parties ever be able to rejoin the
human community. This is why I support an undivided, secular, democratic
state. Only when all have equal rights and power will justice be
possible and therefore real peace as well. There will need to be trials,
Truth and Reconciliation Tribunals, open elections. If there are two
states, it will be a strong, armed Israel dominating a small, barely
armed "Palestine" Bantustan, and the Judeo-fascists in Israel (and their
international allies) will simply continue their expansionist, genocidal
war against the Palestinians and against the entire region. A good
beginning gesture, a small show of good faith, might be a Jewish-funded
memorial to Deir Yassin. Bob Green
makes some points about Edward Said that I have a few questions about.
First, what do you mean by "deconstruct?" Is it the terminology of the
Continental philosphers that you use, or do you mean that Edward Said
has analyzed the role of media and intellectuals in a manner that shows
how they serve the interests of power? These are two separate issues.
"Deconstruction" is philosophical concept that calls into question the
basis for meaning, and, aside from his examination of the idea of the
"Oriental," I do not see this influencing his scholarship greatly.
has written an afterward in the new book "The War for Palestine" (Eds
Rogan and Schlaim) which addresses the failures of the Arab political
establishment in the Middle East to encourage citizenship and
development among the people in the face of Zionism and Israel. How the
Arab regimes are to be "deconstructed" is beyond me; they are dependents
on US, British, and French power, and would not maintain their
authorities in Saudi Arabia and Egypt without the backing of these
powers. Much of Said's earlier analyses, especially the afterward to
Orientalism addressed the intellectual and political malaise of the Arab
world due to these tyrants.
I think Said has shifted the onus for Palestinian independence to the
Arab citizens themselves, finding that the the PLO and the Arab regimes
have spent there credibility. This is apparent in the afterward in the
new book and in his criticisms of the Arab American leadership.
think our challenge now is: How do we build economic, political, social,
and intellectual institutions in Palestine, Israel, and the US to
address independence, whether for a binational state or for partition. I
have seen read or heard very few analysis for the development of a
Palestinian economy that is self-sufficient, that is, one that develops
independent of Israeli capital, foreign investment, the IMF, and the
World Bank. How can we finance Palestinian cultivation of land, to
prevent further confiscation by Israel for settlements? What military
and political organizations must we help the Palestinians develop
internally, so that, in the event of an Israeli withdrawal from the
occupied territories, the Palestinians can defend their villages against
future incursions? Who shall be responsible for care of the sick and
elderly? What about Water? I do not have the answers to these; some are
simpler questions than others. These are questions we must discuss and
answer if we wish to avoid another Oslo when the war ends. Otherwise,
whether we favor a unitary state, or a settlement based on the green
line, or one based on the 1947 UN plan, the Arab citizens of the state
will have no real social and political power. Nor can we work toward
that power without answering these questions. These questions form the
basis for the institutions Palestinians shall live with after a peace;
they have been absent or undermined by the PA during the Oslo fascade,
and this cannot happen again. And we need a new Palestinian leadership,
especially in the US, that can address these questions in a thorough and
comprehensive manner. What we have now are dolts and James Zogbys who
like photographers to snap pictures of them standing beside officials.
problem with Edward Said is that he shows two faces: 1. That of the
Intellectual who is involved in post-modern efforts at deconstructing
the role of the media and the role of the intellectual in the West; 2.
But that of the Intellectual who is at loss to deconstruct the Arab role
of the Arab intellectual himself or herself and to deconstruct the role
of the Arab political establishment. He is at odds to add up the two
faces, and he ends up refering to non- existent categories when it comes
to the Arab role. As in calling on the Arabs to do this and that. Which
Arabs exactly Edward Said?
not wish to give a literary analysis of his essay as to show the closed
alley that someone like Edward Said has constructed for himself. My
belief is so great that a formulation of Liberation will have to
reverberate through Arab capitals - one would expect Said to define the
role of the intellectual and a set of expectations that sketches this
role. On this later. It is quite late at night. So this will have to
continue. Maan I am very glad to see Porter Notebook pick up the idea I
started out with on this network Drop the Zionist faction row, the
heroics about who will kill who;to concentrate on the ultimately basic
reasons for the secrets of Israeli power plans as discussion of them and
sueing them under International Law is the only headway you can make
with mind-sets of bigotted people.We also have to realise that the
Israelis are already at war with the Palestinians and are conducting a
television war in "real time". Palestinian leadership is divided because
over 35% of Palestinians are Christians, not Muslims. That fact has
evidently worried Israel from way back and they feared international
christians would interfere in the easy solution of polarising Jews to
Muslims in world opinion.There is also their scientific research to
consider which re. heart treatment is way ahead internationally and the
USA are not going to allow that sort of thing. Re single state ideas one
only has to read how Israeli employers malt reat the workers, (a letter
from chinese employees can be found on IndyMedia,)they have imported to
replace the Palestinians, to know that the Israelis arrogant attitudes
are.not going to change - and how the Israel state supports the old is
another disgrace; & their infrastructure ,where many crimes go
unchallenged because of police corruption; A protest worker,Liz Lalor,
wrote recently, why not sue??; indeed why don't concientious jews in
America cohere with the Palestinians to financially mount a court case
under International Law?? I attended a lecture in Dublin two days ago
where David Jacobson from London sought to establish Jewish history as
from 8000 BC for the erection of Solomon's Mount and the creation of
David's city. We were also informed that the Israeli authorities have
purchased both the Temple/Mount of the Rock and the Tomb of the Prophets
"from the original owners "- This last a member of the audience in a
position to know confirmed to me that this is the very first time such
land purchases have ever been mentioned. Any comments? jocelyn braddell.
<It's the Water Stupid:Re Porter Notebook. In the meantime, the IDF can
still bulldoze a few more Palestinian orchards, reducing the water needs
of the West Bank in increments.
Wall with a Water Pipe in it
thing should be clear from the above. The Israelis are not going to
leave the West Bank and they are not going to give up that water. If
they did so, without developing one of the above plans, they would be
reduced to using only twice as much as the Palestinians use today, and I
don't think they would be able to handle it. All this talk about giving
up 90% of the West Bank has always cleverly disguised the fact that the
arrangement of Jewish settlements and "security zones" is closely linked
with all identifiable catchments and aquifers in the region.
any of the above plans would take years to implement, and wouldn't
address the problem of population growth in the region, which projects
to be mostly Arab. So an Israeli abandonment of "some" settlements and a
retreat behind a wall should be seen for what it is: a wet dream, at
least for the foreseeable future.
can the Israelis hunker down behind some magic wall that will keep out
suicide bombers and other Arabs lusting after a cool glass of water.
Simply put, if the Palestinians controlled the West Bank, there would be
nothing to stop them from busting the pipelines and using the water for
themselves. In fact, they would have every right to do so. At least in
the West Bank, it's their land, and their water.
short, Israel can't do anything about the Occupied Territories, except
to continue to play terror bean bag with the armies of - probably very
thirsty - young Arab males who for all we know may be suffering from
water deprivation psychosis.
not agree that nationalisme entails hatred. The nation is a level on
which a group of human beings has decided to live and is able to do it.
There are other levels, like the family, the parish. Or the Italian
borough in NY, or the Chinese. Once a group has been able to manage its
life on one level, it can try and live on a larger level, e.g. a
federation, like the USA, or a union like the European community, which
has become a European Union. Hate has nothing do with a nation. A nation
can have the virus of hate as an individual. Or it can fight it. I
suspect a group of fierce nationalists to have declared war to nations,
pledge to destroy nations, and celebrate it publicly. It is like the
greatest racists who have declared war to the racism of others, esp. the
racism the super-racists generate with people which were no racists
before meeting the superracists. I think that a coherent nation, with
high collective achievements is healthy for its members and that
individuals who gradually are ashamed by their nation and have the
growing feeling no longer belonging to it are in a very deplorable
situation. Manfred-C. S