For One Democratic State
in the whole of Palestine (Israel)


FOR One Man, One Vote



The Martial Arts of Discourse


Usually, newspaper polemic is akin to épée fencing: one tries to keep the opponent at arm's length, avoid his thrusts and draw his blood. The thoughtful and friendly query of Haakon Kolmanskog deserves a quite different attitude and a most sincere reply. Haakon poses a question: We can't be indifferent if friends of the Palestinians are branded anti-Semites. Who will benefit in allowing the Zionists to have a free go playing the anti-Semite card against anyone who criticise them? The sad answer is that we have no means of stopping their playing it. For years, the friends of Palestine tried to evade the label by saying:

Israel behaves horribly, but it has nothing to do with the fact that it is defining itself as 'the Jewish state'. It has nothing to do with Jews elsewhere, and therefore criticism of Israel is not related to anti-Semitism.

But this easy answer was rejected by the Masters of Discourse. Friends of Palestine were forced into daily confessions of their love of Jews, as the suspected heretics of Middle Ages had been of their orthodoxy. Their protestations are without avail, for our opponents can effectively decide what is and what is not anti-Semitism. They can decide because they hold commanding heights in discourse: by virtue of media ownership, economic power and international connections integrated into one armoured fist.

And they use this power by stretching the definition of anti-Semitism as they find fit. Anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism, according to Professor Ruth Wisse of Harvard University and to a plethora of other Judeo-American pundits. Anti-Americanism is a new, virulent form of anti-Semitism, wrote David Quinn in The Sunday Times. "Anti-Globalisation is anti-Semitism", "the Green policies of Environmentalism' is anti-Semitism now" are frequent headlines in Israeli newspapers. "Christianity is anti-Semitism" is the recent title of Goldhagen's book. In 1990's Russia, anti-market forces were described as "anti-Semites". Recently, Christine Mohn in the Nationen described Russian Communists as "anti-Semites".

In no way can you, Haakon, nor your friends in this uniquely free newspaper, define "anti-Semitism". Likewise, you cannot define "Communism". Definitions of these terms are forced on us by the Masters of Discourse. We can work only with them, the existing and prevailing definitions, though we might regret their existence sometimes and offer our own understanding of the phenomena they classify. Alternatively, we can invent our own definitions, as did the Trotskyites: they called Communism "Stalinism". But that was a sectarian escape.

What we can and should do is analyse the definitions forced upon us. If all the above is, indeed, anti-Semitism as decreed by the Masters of Discourse, what is this legendary "Semitism"? Surely it has nothing to do with the Semitic race? It is, by their definition, a fusion of Zionism, Americanism, Globalisation, Neo-Liberalism, anti-Communism, destruction of Nature and reduction of the Church. As the Masters of Discourse declared this "Semitism", and their definition is the only one that matters, I can freely acknowledge my (and hopefully your) "anti-Semitism".

Accepting their definition is tactically much better than fighting it. In Oriental martial arts one lets the brute strength of the adversary work against him. That is exactly what I try to do in my essays that you printed. The adversary is strong: let it be his undoing.


Let us deal now with the second question of Haakon. How should we view the anti-Semitism of Hamsun the Nazi? he asks. The answer is that we should place Hamsun in his historical context.

All participants in WWII were homicidal racists, in modern terms. While the German Nazis killed a lot of Slavs, Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals and the mentally deranged, the democratic US deported thousands of American citizens of Japanese [and German ] descent or locked them up for years in concentration camps; the Soviets deported ethnic Germans, Chechens and Crimean Tatars [and Balts ] and destroyed their centuries-old villages and homes. Britain invented concentration camps in the Boer War when Hamsun was a child, and deported the ethnic Germans from British Palestine. The British Bomber Harris probably killed as many innocent civilians as any German war criminal.

The great Knut Hamsun, whose beautiful books we cherish, was a man of his times. He was a contemporary of the Russian Jewish writer and publicist, Iliya Ehrenburg, whose brilliant early novel, Julio Jurenito, was rightly acclaimed by Lenin. Ehrenburg was a worldly communist and humanist, a great friend of Picasso and Matisse, of Aragon and Castro. He also pioneered the anti-Zionist genre with his sarcastic novel, Lazik Roitschwantz. However, during WWII, Ehrenburg wrote in the Pravda: "Kill the German! Kill this sausage-and-sauerkraut-eating vermin! Exterminate his seed!"

Horrified, Joseph Stalin personally responded to this call to genocide by disavowing Ehrenburg in the Pravda: "We are not fighting the German people", he wrote, "but the Nazi regime." He was true to his words, and in 1945 derailed the Henry Morgenthau plan to cripple Germany and starve millions of Germans to death.

Was the anti-Semitism of Hamsun the Nazi ethically worse than the anti-Germanism of Iliya Ehrenburg the Jew? Yes: if you think that Jewish life is much more precious than the life of a non-Jew, in which case you find yourself in the nauseating company of Eli Landau and Ivett Lieberman, two Israeli MPs who called for the extermination of a thousand Palestinians for each murdered Jew, and of Madeleine Albright, who thought the killing of half-a-million Iraqi children for the protection of Israel "worth it". No: if you share my belief in the equality of Man. That is why you have no reason to reject your great national treasure, Knut Hamsun; just view him in the context of his time.

While the time of Hamsun and Ehrenburg is over, Elie Wiesel is still very much with us. In his book, Legends of Our Time, this Jewish writer wrote: "Every Jew, somewhere in his being, should set apart a zone of hate -- healthy, virile hate -- for what the German personifies and for what persists in the German." Not "the Nazi", but "the German". For this sermon of hate he received the 1986 Nobel Peace Prize from the Norwegian Academy, in company with the Cambodia-destroyer Henry Kissinger and the Cana-murderer, Shimon Peres. Armed with this recognition of the Norwegians, Elie Wiesel called (at Christmas Eve!): War [with Iraq] is the only option"[1]. If you need to feel guilt, feel guilt for this Nobel Peace Prize.

This vast difference in the feelings of Norwegians towards their national genius Hamsun and towards Elie Wiesel the schmaltzy hate-monger leads us to a conclusion: in prevailing post-WWII mainstream discourse, the taboo on criticism of Jews has caused strong bias and undermined the humanist idea of the Equality of Man. Pre-war anti-Semitism has been superseded by another extreme, philo-Semitism, a belief that Jews can do no wrong and should never be referred to except in the most complimentary terms. This equally racist attitude has created severe misbalance in politics and discourse. It has to be corrected in order to save our planet and mankind from the triumphant "Semitism" of their definition.


The third question of Haakon was: Israel's president Moshe Katsav recently visited Germany. He was last Monday confronted by German neo-Nazis carrying Palestinian flags and banners saying "Hands off Palestine - No German armaments to Israel." It was a disaster! If the neo-Nazis hadn't thought of it themselves, I guess Ariel Sharon would have phoned them to give them the idea. I'm wondering if Israel Shamir shares my concerns and if he agrees with me that at all means we have to avoid a situation where Nazis march in support of Palestine? Or if it means nothing since "Anti-Semitism" has become an empty and meaningless phrase and only a weapon in the hands of Israeli Zionists? Is this a question of no importance?

In the Gospel, the Disciples of Christ acclaimed him as "the King who comes in the name of the Lord". The Pharisees demanded: Rabbi, rebuke your disciples! But Jesus replied: If they keep silent the stones will cry out[2].

This prophecy was fulfilled in Germany. The German Left betrayed its duty to demonstrate against the supplying of the apartheid state with nuclear-bearing submarines, the most fearsome weapons of mass destruction of our age, for it to target the peaceful cities of man. The German Left accepted the thoroughly racist concept of "Jewish property" and transferred billions of dollars to Sharon and his American Jewish partners[3]. "Fear of the Jews"[4] befell them, and caused them to forget their ideals. The Left is the salt of the earth by virtue of upholding the values of equality, mercy, humanity. But if the salt has lost its taste, it is to be thrown out and walked on by the people[5]. The Left kept silent, therefore the stones cried out. Whoever demonstrated against the monstrous decision to arm Israel is surely blessed.

Haakon describes these people as 'neo-Nazis'. I greatly doubt this definition. German law is very strict, and the real Nazis are in jail or in exile. The neo-Nazis of our day usually support Israel: representatives of Israeli parties were welcome guests at their gathering in Holland. They even marched together in Amsterdam under Israeli banners and with anti-Muslim slogans.

The Masters of Discourse can call whomever they wish "neo-Nazi". Nasser was "Hitler", Arafat was "Hitler", Saddam Hussein is "Hitler". In Russia, they gave this name to everybody who objected to privatisation, americanisation, globalisation. As the majority of these people were actually communists, the Masters of Discourse coined the term "Red-Brown". They called the veterans of the Battle of Stalingrad "Nazis". They wrote that for them there is no real difference between the Communists and the Nazis. The Russian people responded to it by forming a new Left-and-Right alliance against these globalising, predatory forces.

They followed the great example of Mao Zedong, who allied with the Right Nationalists of the Kuomintang when the very existence of China was endangered. Recently, the exiled Russian tycoon Boris Berezovsky, billionaire and a media-lord and man of impeccable Jewish origin who embraced Christ, publicly joined this alliance in an earth-shaking interview with Zavtra, the leading newspaper of the Left-and-Right. He was warmly welcomed by the jailed leader of National Bolshevik Party, writer Edward Limonov, who is often described as an "anti-Semite and neo-Nazi". Ze lo kol kah pashut, as we say in Hebrew: life is not as simple as comics and the Masters of Discourse present it.

WWII is long over. Present-day Communists are not "Stalinists", present-day Traditionalists are not "Nazis", present-day "Semitists" are not the Democrats of yesteryear. If we forever look back to the fields of Stalingrad and to the ravaged Finnmark, we are liable to overlook the new dangers mankind faces. The dreadful fate of Palestine calls us, the men of thought, to develop new paradigms for the new situation.


[1] <,12239,864318,00.html>

[2] Luke 19:39-40.

[3] see my essay Bankers and Robbers. [Trad. fr. dans Conseils de révision de décembre 2001.]

[4] John 19:38 and elsewhere.

[5] Matthew, 5:13.