People want to know what I, a Jewish guy, think about Israel.
I want to make something clear. I live in New York. I am from New York. I do not have a right and do not want a right to "return" to Israel. I never was there. I want to skip all the arguments about whether or not today's Jews descend from the people of the Old Testament. I don't care if I do or I don't. It doesn't matter nor should it.
The territory that is known to many as Palestine had been peopled by Arabic speaking folks for centuries, mainly they were Muslims, many were Christians, and a few of them Jewish too. Most of those people were kicked out of their lands and homes in 1948 by people like David Ben Gurion and Ariel Sharon and more were expelled in 1967. They are the ones who have a right to return, not me.
Actually there is a place I want to return to. The New York of my youth. That was a place where the schools were the best. Where a first class education to the university level was there for free, with extra money for the most gifted. It was a place where a widow working as a sales clerk could pay the rent for an apartment for her kid and herself, not a room in someone else's place.
The place I want to go back to was called a "Union Town." There were factories and warehouses and eleven or twelve newspapers that hired typesetters, proofreaders, truck drivers and more, people who could on their wages, pay a going rent.
Yes, let the Palestinians return to their homes, and let me return to mine.
Links about Israel and Palestine:
On the Fiftieth Anniversary of Deir Yassin—
A View from the Arab World By Rami G. Khouri
Lenni Brenner
Zionism in the Age of the Dictators
7. Hitler Looks at Zionism
This item may be reporoduced only in its entirety with credit to this website Fat Old Jewish Guy Who Lives In the Projects
Eugene Weixel
67 comments:
Hello sue!
Thanks for your support. Link me under any classification you deem appropriate. Y'all come back soon, okay?
A beautiful blog on the right of return ! Thank you Fat Old Jewish Guy who lives in the projects- you have just helped bring much more beauty, decency and dignity to the world.... a copy of your comments on Palestine and respectful attitude towards Arabs are zipping all over the internet, savored and passed from one to another with warm (may I even say loving) notes attached on top.
You my friend, just figured out the key to stopping this man made clash of civilization exactly where it starts, zeroing in and clearly speaking out on the crucial importance of FULLY respecting the Palestinian refugees inalienable right of return.
Hey! I'm Jewish and I'm offended by this blog. I look pretty much the same age and size as you but I don't go round calling myself "fat old Jewish guy from London." But I've linked you all the same in spite of you being a self-hating fat oldie.
If you called yourself "Pots and Pans" it would be alright by me. Thanks for the link Levi, and relax. Now, life is not so bad is it?
Fat ignorant fool.What do you honestly think would happen if thoes retuned you would create another 5 million israeli refugees who would be kicked out or worse.Nice to see the people who comment here sue blackwell fundamentalist christian turned socialist or i think that what she is today who knows .And nuts like annie annab of al awda media a group wich seems to worship the likes of david irving and a group in wich holocaust denial is the majority thought.
Tim the main thing I'd like to know is this: did you give me a link? Have a nice day.
You are linked up.
Well, Levi9909, I was just wondering how long
it would be before the phrase "self-hating"
appeared in the comments on this blog. But
apparently Eugene is a "self-hating fat oldie"
not a self-hating Jew. So that's all right then. LOL.
I'm in love. You have immeasurably brightened my day. What a mensch! Best Regards, umkahlil
FOGGY, I got your link from my soul sister Umka. This is a great post, and you say it all. Why can't people see the sense in what you express. It's really just so simple.
Fair and well said!
Now linked here:
http://sabbah.biz/mt/?p=1071
consider urself linked!!! ;)
Oh yeah, beautiful post. From now on, I'll say that pro-Palestinian will use any Jew they can find to make their case for them, even the fat old Jewish guy who lives in the projects.
I see that the "we're not antisemites we're anti-Zionists even though we have no problem with people who traffic in classic Jewish stereotypes" crowd is here, including the Christian fundamentalist nutjob turned radical nutjob from London who tried to launch a boycott of Israeli universities who offer Arabs the best education in the Middle East, the self-hating Stalinist who throws a hissy fit when someone writes comments on his blog that doesn't toe the party line, and even the Middle East editor of Global Voices, who doesn't understand why Jews find articles from Nationalvanguard.com offensive.
All so that they don't have to confront anyone who actually disagrees with them since that might require actually dealing with the reality, which is that most Jews believe in the right to self-determination and right to one Jewish state in the sea of Muslim states with much worse human rights records.
Yes, a beautiful post for the fat old Jewish guy who lives in the projects. It's too bad that you don't want your right of return, but somehow, I don't feel too bad about it.
You speak the truth, you are truly a righteous soul in a world gone mad. We need more people of your character in this chaotic world of ours - where justice is nothing more than a passing concept.
Michael thanks for taking the time to nudge such a useless wasted soul as I. Please come back soon, and if you have a web page hook me up and I'll reciprocate.
Anonymous is too kind. Thanks.
Isn't it interesting how keen Zionists are on labelling other people as 'haters' or 'self-haters'?
In my experience, someone who goes around imputing 'hate' to everybody who disagrees with him is usually carrying a load of the stuff himself, which he's desperate to shove on to anybody else.
I have some pity for and wish to reach those Jewish people who believe that the whole world hates them. (Not to the extent of justifying things they do of course).
Zionism is based on this belief that was shared by the Aryan and Judaic wings of the Zionazzi (or Nazozio) movement.
Dear Eugene,
I am grateful for this post. Your honesty and earthiness is most welcome.
I was born into exile, my folks were expelled/deported from their homes in Palestine in '48. I don't hear many Israelis questioning this event, questioning their moral obligation to the Palestinians. Instead, we get labelled as anti-semites, or, as in your case 'self-hating', for speaking out for our basic rights.
Up until early last century, Palestinians of all backgrounds lived side by side.
I always get a kick out hearing Palestinians being wrongly labelled as anti-semites; Palestinians are semites!
I guess that makes Palestinians 'self-hating semites'(???).
Anyhoo, I don't have you linked up, but rest assured you will be as soon as my blog is sorted out.
Peace.
Divide and conquer, distract and destroy... interesting thing about the insults carefully chosen by Tim to dismiss those who dared enthusiastically support you speaking out on the Palestinian right of return. Take for instance the hot button issue of Holocaust denial. Not hard for Tim to find my web page of published letters and actually see that over and over again I in fact, use a capital "H" and refer to the Holocaust with horror, too frequently in fact for some peace activists who think such a response on my part helps empower the whole Holocaust industry thing. Who knows- they might be right. Meanwhile, from what I have seen Sue Blackwell, very active with advocating boycotts, is totally repulsed by any hint of Holocaust denial. She's no dummy.
But then again- neither are Zion-Nazis: Divide and conquer....
Insults and targeted character assassinations are quite a Zio-Nazi art form. Carefully chosen barbs that aren't as sloppy as they might appear. Intentionally trying to fracture, undermine, and dissolve resistance to Israeli racism.
By the way that Tim phrased it , you would have no way of knowing unless you already did that Al Awda is the Palestine Right to Return Coalition. The primary goal is advocating human rights, mainly by educating the international community to fulfill its legal and moral obligations vis-a-vis Palestinian refugees based on The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, International law and through the implementation of United Nations Resolutions upholding the inalienable right of Palestinians to return to their homes of origin and to restitution of all their confiscated and destroyed property (see fact sheet). ( I confess I didn't write that part- just did a quick cut and paste from the Al Awda page)
Sure wish I had a zingy line to finish with- but I don't.
I'm going to post an excellent item by Paul Eisen about this whole "Holocaust thing."
Jewish Power
By Paul Eisen - (August 19, 2004)
The crime against the Palestinian people is being committed by a Jewish state with Jewish soldiers using weapons displaying Jewish religious symbols, and with the full support and complicity of the overwhelming mass of organised Jews worldwide. But to name Jews as responsible for this crime seems impossible to do.
The future is always open and nothing can ever be ruled out; but, for now, it's hard to see how Israel can be stopped. After over fifty years, it is clear that Israel will only relinquish its eliminationist attitude to Palestinians and Palestinian life when it has to. This need not be through military action but it is hard to see how anything else will do. The conventional wisdom - that if America turned off the tap, Israel would be brought to its knees - is far from proven. First, it's not going to happen. Second, those who believe it may well be underestimating both the cohesiveness of Israeli society and the force of Jewish history which permeates it. Even more unlikely is the military option. The only force on earth which could possibly confront Israel is the American military, and, again, that is not going to happen.
Palestinian resistance has been astonishing. After over fifty years of brutal assault by what may well one day be seen as one of the most ruthless and irrational powers of modern times, and with just about every power on earth ranged against them, Palestinians are still with us, still steadfast, still knowing who they are and where they come from. Nonetheless, for the time being effective resistance may be over (though the possibility of organised non-violent resistance can never be ruled out), and, for now, the only strategy open may be no more than one for survival.
For us it is so much easier to deny this reality than to accept it, and doubtless the struggle will continue. How fruitful this will be no-one can say. Although the present seems hopeless, survival is still vital and no-one knows when new opportunities may arise. Anyway, to struggle against injustice is always worth doing. But what if the struggle becomes so delusional that it inhibits rather than advances resistance? What if the struggle becomes a way of avoiding rather than confronting reality? Those slogans "End the Occupation!" and "Two States for Two Peoples!" are now joined by a new slogan, "The One-State Solution!" This is every bit as fantastic as its predecessors because, just as there never was going to be an end to the occupation, nor a real Palestinian state, so, for now, there is no possibility of any "one state" other than the state of Israel which now stretches from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River, and the only "solution" is a final solution and even that cannot be ruled out.
"Zionism is not Judaism;
Judaism is not Zionism…."
The crime against the Palestinian people is being committed by a Jewish state with Jewish soldiers using weapons with Jewish religious symbols all over them, and with the full support and complicity of the overwhelming mass of organised Jews worldwide. But to name Jews as responsible for this crime seems impossible to do. The past is just too terrible. All of us know of the hatred and violence to which accusations against Jews have led in the past. Also, if we were to examine critically the role of Jews in this conflict, what would become of us and of our struggle? Would we be labelled anti-Semites and lose much of the support that we have worked so hard to gain?
The present, too, is full of ambiguities. Zionism is not Judaism; Judaism is not Zionism has become an article of faith, endlessly repeated, as is the assertion that Zionism is a secular ideology opposed, for much of its history, by the bulk of religious Jews and even now still opposed by true Torah Jews such as Neturei Karta. But Zionism is now at the heart of Jewish life with religious Jews amongst the most virulent of Zionists and Neturei Karta, despite their impeccable anti-Zionism, their beautiful words and the enthusiasm with which they are welcomed at solidarity rallies, etc., may well be just Jews in fancy dress, a million miles from the reality of Jewish life.
And even if Zionism can still be disentangled from Judaism, can it be distinguished from a broader Jewish identity or Jewishness? So often Zionism is proclaimed to be a modern add-on to Jewish identity, another, albeit anachronistic, settler-colonial ideology simply adopted by Jews in response to their predicament. But, could it be that our need to avoid the accusation of anti-Semitism and our own conflicted perceptions and feelings, our insistence that Zionism and Jewishness are separate, has led us seriously to misunderstand the situation? Has our refusal to look squarely at the very Jewishness of Zionism and its crimes caused us to fail to understand exactly what we are up against?
Jews, Judaism and Zionism
Jews are complex; Jewish identity is complex and the relationship between Judaism the religion, and a broader, often secular, Jewish identity or Jewishness is very complex indeed. Jewishness may be experienced a long way from synagogue, yeshiva or any other formal aspect of Jewish religious life, yet is often still inextricably bound to Judaism. That is why secular Jews are able to proclaim their secularity every bit as loudly as they proclaim their Jewishness. Marc Ellis, a religious Jew, says that when you look at those Jews who are in solidarity with Palestinians, the overwhelming majority of them are secular - but, from a religious point of view, the Covenant is with them. For Ellis, these secular Jews unknowingly and even unwillingly may be carrying with them the future of Jewish life.
Jewish identity, connecting Jews to other Jews, comes from deep within Jewish history. This is a shared history, both real and imagined, in that it is both literal and theological. Many Jews in the west share a real history of living together as a distinct people in Eastern, Central and then Western Europe and America. Others share a real history of settlement in Spain followed by expulsion and then settlement all over the world, particularly in Arab and Islamic lands. But this may not be what binds all Jews, because for all Jews it is not a real, but maybe a theological, history that is shared. Most Palestinians today probably have more Hebrew blood in their little fingers then most western Jews have in their whole bodies. And yet, the story of the Exodus from Egypt is as real to many of them, and most importantly was as real to them when they were children, as if they, along with all Jews, had stood with Moses at the foot of Mount Sinai.
And histories like that don't stop at the present. Even for secular Jews, though unacknowledged and even unrealized, there is a sense, not only of a shared history, but also of a shared destiny. Central to Jewish identity both religious and non-religious is the sense of mission centered on exile and return. How else to explain the extraordinary devotion of so many Jews, religious and secular, to the "return" to a land with which, in real terms, they have very little connection at all?
For many Jews, this history confers a 'specialness'. This is not unique to Jews - after all, who in their heart of hearts does not feel a little bit special? But for Jews this specialness is at the centre of their self-identification and much of the world seems to concur. For religious Jews, the specialness comes from the supposed covenant with God. But for secular Jews, the specialness comes from a special history. In either case this can be a good, even a beautiful, thing. In much of Jewish religious tradition this specialness is no more than a special moral obligation, a special responsibility to offer an example to the world, and for so many secular Jews it has led them to struggle for justice in many places around the world.
At the heart of this Jewish specialness is Jewish suffering and victimhood. Like the shared history itself, this suffering may, but need not, correspond to reality. Jews have certainly suffered but their suffering remains unexamined and unexplained. The Holocaust, now the paradigm of Jewish suffering, has long ceased to be a piece of history, and is now treated by religious and secular alike, as a piece of theology - a sacred text almost - and therefore beyond scrutiny. And the suffering never ends. No matter how much Jews have suffered they are certainly not suffering now, but for many Jews their history of suffering is not just an unchallengeable past but also a possible future. So, no matter how safe Jews may be, many feel just a hair's-breadth away from Auschwitz.
Zionism is at the heart of this. Zionism is also complex and also comes from deep within Jewish history with the same sense of exile and return. Zionism also confirms that Jews are special in their suffering and is explicit that Jews should 'return' to a land given to them, and only them - by God if they are religious, or by history if they are not - because they simply are not safe anywhere else on earth.
But so what? If Jews think that they are a people with a religious link to a land and have a deep wish to 'return', why should we care, so long as the land is not already populated by Palestinians? And if Jews feel that they are special and that God has made some kind of special arrangement with them, so what, so long as this does not lead them to demand preferential treatment and to discriminate against others? And if Jews feel that they have suffered like no-one else on the face of the earth, fine, so long as they do not use this suffering to justify the imposition of suffering on others and to blackmail morally the whole world into quiescent silence.
This is the problem with Zionism. It expresses Jewish identity but also empowers it. It tells Jews (and many others too) that Jews can do what Jews have always dreamed of doing. It takes the perfectly acceptable religious feelings of Jews, or if you prefer, the perfectly harmless delusions of Jews, and tries to turn them into a terrible reality. Jewish notions of specialness, choseness and even supremacism, are fine for a small, wandering people, but, when empowered with a state, an army and F16s become a concern for us all.
Zionism as Jewish empowerment in statehood changes everything. Israel is not just any state, it is a Jewish state and this means more than just a state for Jews. This Jewish state is built on traditions and modes of thought that have evolved amongst Jews for centuries - amongst which are the notions that Jews are special and that their suffering is special. By their own reckoning, Jews are "a nation that dwells alone" it is "us and them" and, in many cases, "us or them". And these tendencies are translated into the modern state of Israel. This is a state that knows no boundaries. It is a state that both believes, and uses as justification for its own aggression, the notion that its very survival is always at stake, so anything is justified to ensure that survival. Israel is a state that manifestly believes that the rules of both law and humanity, applicable to all other states, do not apply to it.
Their own worst nightmare
It is a terrible irony that this empowerment of Jews has come to most resemble those empowerments under which Jews have suffered the most. Empowered Christianity, also a marriage of faith and power, enforced its ideology and pursued its dissidents and enemies with no greater fervor than has empowered Judaism. In its zeal and self belief, Zionism has come to resemble the most brutal and relentless of modern ideologies. But unlike the brutal rationality of Stalinism, willing to sacrifice millions for political and economic revolution, this Jewish ideology, in its zealotry and irrationality, resembles more the National Socialism which condemned millions for the attainment of a nonsensical racial and ethnic supremacy.
Of course there are differences but there are also similarities. National Socialism, like Zionism, another blend of mysticism and power, gained credibility as a means to right wrongs done to a victimized people. National Socialism, like Zionism, also sought to maintain the racial/ethnic purity of one group and to maintain the rights of that ethnic group over others, and National Socialism, like Zionism, also proposed an almost mystical attachment of that group to a land. Also, both National Socialism and Zionism shared a common interest - to separate Jews from non-Jews, in this case to remove Jews from Europe - and actively co-operated in the attainment of this aim. And if the similarity between these two ideologies is simply too great and too bitter to accept, one may ask what National Socialism with its uniforms, flags and mobilized youth must have looked like to those Germans, desperate after Versailles and the ravages of post-First World War Germany. Perhaps not so different from how the uniforms, flags and marching youth of pre- and post-state Zionism must have looked to Jews after their history of suffering, and particularly after the Holocaust.
This is, for Jews, their own worst nightmare: the thing they love the most has become the thing they hate the most. And for those Jews and others, who shrink from the comparison, let them ask themselves this: What would an average German, an enthusiastic Nazi even, have said in, say, 1938 had they been confronted with the possibility of an Auschwitz? They would have thought that you were stark, staring mad.
American Jews and Jewish America
At the heart of the conflict is the relationship between Israel and America. The statistics - billions in aid and loans, UN vetoes, etc., etc. need not be repeated here - American support for Israel seems limitless. But what is the nature of this support? For many, perhaps most, the answer is relatively simple. Israel is a client state of America, serving American interests or, more particularly, the interests of its power elites. This view is underpinned by the obvious importance of oil, the huge strategic importance of the region and the fact that, if Israel did not further the interests of those who control America, then we can be sure America would not support Israel. Also, there is no doubt that, in the IDF, America has found a marvellously flexible and effective force, easily aroused and let loose whenever any group of Arabs get a little above themselves.
But is this the whole story? Does Israel really serve America's interests and is their relationship wholly based on the sharing of these interests? Consider how much in terms of goodwill from other nations America loses by its support for Israel, and consider the power and influence of the "Jewish", "Zionist" or "pro-Israel" lobby, as when many an otherwise responsible lawmaker, faced with the prospect of an intervention in their re-election campaign from the Jewish lobby, seems happy to put his or her re-election prospects way in front of what is good for America.
The details of the workings of AIPAC and others, and the mechanics by which these groups exert pressure on America's lawmakers and governors, have been dealt with elsewhere; we need only note that this interest group is undoubtedly extraordinarily effective and successful. Not just a small group of Jews supporting Israel, as its supporters would have us believe, these are powerful and committed ideologues: billionaires, media magnates, politicians, activists and religious leaders. In any event, the power of the Jewish lobby to make or break pretty well any public figure is legendary - not for nothing is it often referred to simply as "The Lobby".
But again, there may be far more to the Israel/U.S. relationship than just a commonality of interest and the effectiveness of certain interest groups. That support for Israel must be in the interests of those who control America is certainly true, but who controls America? Perhaps the real relationship is not between Israel and America but between Jews and America.
The overwhelming majority of Jews in America live their lives just like any other Americans. They've done well and are undoubtedly pleased that America supports their fellow Jews in Israel but that's as far as it goes. Nonetheless, an awful lot of Jews certainly do control an awful lot of America - not the industrial muscle of America - the steel, transport, etc., nor the oil and arms industries, those traditional money-spinners. No, if Jews have influence anywhere in America, it's not over its muscle and sinew but over its blood and its brain. It is in finance and the media that we find a great many Jews in very influential positions. Lists abound (though you have to go to some pretty unpopular websites to find them) of Jews, prominent in financial and cultural life: Jews in banks; Jews in Forbes Magazine's Richest Americans; Jews in Hollywood; Jews in TV; Jewish journalists, writers, critics, etc., etc.
Nor have Jews been slow in exploiting their position. Jews have not hesitated to use whatever resources they have to advance their interests as they see them. Nor does one need to subscribe to any conspiracy theory to note how natural it is for Jews in the media to promote Jews and their values as positive and worthy of emulation. When did anyone last see a Jew portrayed in anything other than a favourable light? Jews are clever, moral, interesting, intense, warm, witty, complex, ethical, contradictory, prophetic, infuriating, sometimes irritating, but always utterly engaging. Nor is it any wonder that Jews in influential positions are inclined to promote what they see as Jewish collective interests. Is it really all that incredible that Jewish advisers around the Presidency bear Israel's interests at heart when they advise the President on foreign affairs?
But so what? So there are a lot of Jews with a lot of money, and a lot of Jews with a lot to say and the means to say it. If Jews by virtue of their ability and use of resources (as honestly gained as by anyone else) promote what they perceive as their own collective interest, what's wrong with that? First, with some notable exceptions, the vast majority of Jews can, in good faith, lay hands on hearts and swear that they never take decisions or actions with collective Jewish interests in mind, certainly not consciously. And even if they did, they are acting no differently from anyone else. With a few exceptions, Jews have earned their advantageous positions. They came with nothing, played according to the rules and, if they use their influence to further what they perceive as Jewish interests, what's so special about that? Do not the Poles, the Ukrainians, the Gun lobby, the Christian Evangelicals also not work to further their group interests?
The difference between Jews and other groups is that they probably do it better. Jews are, by pretty well any criteria, easily the most successful ethnic group in America and, for whatever reason, have been extraordinarily successful in promoting themselves both individually and collectively. And there would probably be nothing wrong with this were it not for the fact that these same people who exert so much control and influence over American life also seem to refuse to be held accountable. It is the surreptitiousness with which Jews are perceived to have achieved their success which arouses suspicion. Jews certainly seem cagey about the influence they have. Just breathe the words "Jewish power" and wait for the reaction. They claim it's because this charge has so often been used as a precursor to discrimination and violence against them, but never consider the possibility that their own reluctance to discuss the power they wield arouses suspicion and even hostility.
But there is another claim, subtler and more worrying. This is that it doesn't exist; that Jews do not wield power, that there is no Jewish lobby; that Jews in America do not exert power and influence to advance Jewish interests, even that there are no such things as Jewish interests! There are no Jewish interests in the war in Iraq, there are no Jewish interests in America; most amazing, there are no Jewish interests even in Israel and Palestine. There is no Jewish collective. Jews do not act together to advance their aims. They even say that the pro-Israeli lobby has actually not all that much to do with Jews, that the Jewishness of Israel is irrelevant and the Public Affairs Committees (PACs) which lobby so hard for Israel are in fact doing no more than supporting an ally and thus looking after America's best interests even to the extent of concealing their true purpose behind names such as "American for Better Citizenship", "Citizen's Organised PAC" or the "National PAC" - none of which make one reference in their titles to Israel, Zionism or Jews. Similarly, Jews and Jewish organisations are said to be not so much furthering Jewish interests and values as American, or, even, universal interests and values. So, the major Holocaust Museum, styled as a "Museum of Tolerance", focuses not only on anti-Semitism, but on every kind of intolerance known to mankind (except that shown by Jews to non-Jews in Israel and Palestine). Similarly, the Anti-Defamation League is but an organisation for the promotion of universal principles of tolerance and justice, not just for Jews but for everyone.
This conflation of Jewish interests with American interests is nowhere more stark than in present American foreign policy. If ever an image was reminiscent of a Jewish world conspiracy, the spectacle of the Jewish neo-cons gathered around the current presidency and directing policy in the Middle East, this must be it. But we are told that the fact that the Jewish neo-cons, many with links with right wing political groups within Israel, are in the forefront of urging a pro-Israel policy, is but a coincidence, and any suggestion that these figures might be influenced by their Jewishness and their links with Israel is immediately marginalised as reviving old anti-Semitic myths about Jewish dual loyalty. The idea that American intervention in Iraq, the one viable military counterweight to Israeli hegemony in the Middle East and therefore an inspiration to Arab and Palestinian resistance, primarily serves Israeli rather than American interests has also been consigned to the nether world of mediaeval anti-Semitic myth. The suggestion that those Jews around the president act from motives other than those to promote the interests of all Americans is just anti-Semitic raving. And maybe they're right. Perhaps those who promote Jewish interests are in fact promoting American interests because, for now at least, they appear to be one and the same.
Jewish America
In Washington, D.C. is a memorial to a terrible tragedy. Not a memorial to a tragedy visited on Americans by a foreign power as at Pearl Harbour or 9/11, nor to a tragedy visited by Americans on Americans such the sacking of Atlanta. Nor is it a memorial of contrition to a tragedy inflicted by Americans onto another people, such as to slavery or to the history of racial injustice in America. It is to none of these. The Holocaust memorial is to a tragedy inflicted on people who were not Americans, by people who were not Americans, and in a place a very long way from America. And the co-religionists or, even, if you like, the co-nationals, of the people on whom the tragedy was visited and to whom the memorial is built make up around two percent of the American population. How is it that a group of people who make up such a tiny percentage of the overall American population can command such respect and regard that a memorial to them is built in the symbolic heart of American national life?
The Jewish narrative is now at the centre of American life, certainly that of its cultural and political elites. There is, anyway, much in the way that Americans choose to see themselves and their history which is quite naturally compatible with the way Jews see themselves and their history. What more fitting paradigm for a country founded on immigration, than the story of the mass immigration of Jews at the end of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries? For many Americans, the story of those Jews who came to their Goldenes Medina, their Golden Land, with nothing and, through hard work and perseverance, made it to the very top of American society, is also their story. And what could be more inspirational for a country, if not officially but still viscerally, deeply Christian than the story of the Jews, Jesus' own people and God's chosen people, returning to their ancient homeland and transforming it into a modern state. And for a nation which sees itself as a beacon of democracy in the world, what better international soul-mate than the state of Israel, widely held to be "the only democracy in the Middle-East"? Finally what greater validation for a country itself founded on a narrative of conquest and ethnic cleansing than the Biblical narrative of the conquest and ethnic cleansing of the Promised Land with the addition of the equally violent settlement of modern Palestine with its own ethnic cleansing and then "making the desert bloom"?
Most resonant, of course, is the notion of Jews as a suffering people. The fact that this "suffering people" is now enjoying a success beyond the dreams of any other ethnic group in America seems irrelevant. Also ignored is how American Jews have made it to the very top of American society whilst, every step of the way, complaining about how much they're being discriminated against. Nonetheless, to America, Jews have an enduring and ongoing history of suffering and victimhood. But this history has rarely been examined or even discussed.
A Suffering People
That Jews have suffered is undeniable, but Jewish suffering is claimed to have been so enduring, so intense and so particular that it is to be treated differently from other sufferings. The issue is complex and cannot be fully debated or decided here but the following points may stimulate thought and discussion.
During even the most terrible times of Jewish suffering such as the Crusades or the Chmielnitzky massacres of seventeenth century Ukraine, and even more so at other times in history, it has been said that the average peasant would have given his eye-teeth to be a Jew. The meaning is clear: generally speaking, and throughout most of their history, the condition of Jews was often far superior to the mass of the population.
The above-mentioned Ukrainian massacres took place in the context of a peasant uprising against the oppression of the Ukrainian peasantry by their Polish overlords. As has often been the case, Jews were seen as occupying a traditional position of being in alliance with the ruling class in their oppression of the peasantry. Chmielnitzky, the leader of this popular uprising, is today a Ukrainian national hero, not for his assaults on Jews (there are even references to his having offered poor Jews to join the uprising against their exploitative co-religionists - the Jews declined) but for his championing of the rights of the oppressed Ukrainians. Again, the inference is plain: outbreaks of anti-Semitic violence, though never justified, have often been responses to Jewish behaviour both real and imaginary.
In the Holocaust three million Polish Jews died, but so did three million non-Jewish Poles. Jews were targeted but so were Gypsies, homosexuals, Slavs and Poles. Similarly, the Church burned Jews for their dissenting beliefs but then the church burned everyone for their dissenting beliefs. So again, the question must be asked: what's so special about Jewish suffering?
The Holocaust, the paradigm for all anti-Semitism and all Jewish suffering, is treated as being beyond examination and scrutiny. Questioning the Holocaust narrative is, at best, socially unacceptable, leading often to social exclusion and discrimination, and, at worst, in some places is illegal and subject to severe penalty. Holocaust revisionist scholars, named Holocaust deniers by their opponents, have challenged this. They do not deny a brutal and extensive assault on Jews by the Nazi regime but they do deny the Holocaust narrative as framed by present day establishments and elites. Specifically, their denial is limited to three main areas. First, they deny that there ever was an official plan on the part of Hitler or any other part of the Nazi regime systematically and physically to eliminate every Jew in Europe; second, they deny that there ever existed homicidal gas-chambers; third, they claim that the numbers of Jewish victims of the Nazi assault have been greatly exaggerated.
But none of this is the point. Whether those who question the Holocaust narrative are revisionist scholars striving to find the truth and shamelessly persecuted for opposing a powerful faction, or whether they are crazy Jew-haters denying a tragedy and defaming its victims, the fact is that one may question the Armenian genocide, one may freely discuss the Slave Trade, one can say that the murder of millions of Ibos, Kampucheans and Rwandans never took place and that the moon is but a piece of green cheese floating in space, but one may not question the Jewish Holocaust. Why? Because, like the rest of the Jewish history of suffering, the Holocaust underpins the narrative of Jewish innocence which is used to bewilder and befuddle any attempt to see and to comprehend Jewish power and responsibility in Israel/Palestine and elsewhere in the world.
Jewish Power
What is a Jew?
Israel Shamir, the Russian-born Israeli writer, advocates the right of all people, whatever their ethnicity or religion, to live together in complete equality between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River. Shamir condemns the behaviour of Israel and of Diaspora Jews and calls for an end to their preferential treatment, but he also proposes an opposition to Judaism itself for which he stands accused of being anti-Jewish - a charge he does not deny but actually embraces.
Shamir proposes the existence of a Jewish ideology, or "Jewish paradigm" as he puts it, and proposes that it is the voluntary adherence to this "spirit" which makes a Jew into a Jew. For him, Jewishness is neither race nor ethnicity - there is, for Shamir, no such thing as a Jewish 'tribe' or 'family' - no biological or ethnic body from which there can be no escape. Further, this ideology, based on notions of choseness, exclusivity and even supremacism is, at least when empowered, incompatible with peace, equality and justice in Palestine or anywhere else for that matter.
No-one wants to oppose any Jews simply for being Jews, or even for what they believe, but only because of what they do. The problem is that since, according to Shamir, what Jews believe and even do is precisely what makes them into Jews, so opposition to Jewishness as an ideology surely comes dangerously close to opposition to Jews simply for being Jews. But for Shamir, Jews are Jews because they choose to be Jews. Someone may be born of Jews and raised as a Jew but they can if they wish reject their Jewish upbringing and become a non-Jew. And many have done just that including such famous escapees as Karl Marx, St. Paul, Leon Trotsky (and Shamir himself), etc. Opposition to Jews is not, therefore, like opposition to Blacks or to Asians or to other common racist attitudes since the object of the opposition is perfectly able to relinquish the ideology in question.
Shamir has never in any way called for any harm to be done to Jews or anyone else, nor for Jews or anyone else to be discriminated against in any way. Adherence to this Jewish ideology is, for Shamir, regrettable, but not, in itself, a matter for active opposition. Nor does this mean that Shamir is opposed to any individual Jew just because he or she is a Jew. What Shamir actively opposes is not "Jews" but "Jewry". Analogous to say, the Catholic Church, Jewry consists of those organised Jews and their leaders who actively promote corrosive Jewish interests and values, particularly now in the oppression of the Palestinians.
One doesn't have to be in complete agreement with Shamir to understand what he is talking about. Why should Jews not have a "spirit"; after all, such a concept has been discussed with regard to other nations?
"It is dangerous, wrong, to speak about the "Germans," or any other people, as of a single undifferentiated entity, and include all individuals in one judgement. And yet I don't think I would deny that there exists a spirit of each people (otherwise it would not be a people) a Deutschtum, an italianitia, an hispanidad: they are the sums of traditions, customs, history, language, and culture. Whoever does not feel within himself this spirit, which is national in the best sense of the word, not only does not entirely belong to his own people but is not part of human civilization. Therefore, while I consider insensate the syllogism, 'All Italians are passionate; you are Italian; therefore you are passionate," I do however believe it legitimate, within certain limits, to expect from Italians taken as a whole, or from Germans, etc., one specific, collective behavior rather than another. There will certainly be individual exceptions, but a prudent, probabilistic forecast is in my opinion possible." Primo Levi
And for Jews it is, perhaps, even more appropriate. The place of Judaism as an ideology at the centre for all Jewish identity may be debated, but few would dispute that Judaism is at least at the historic heart of Jewishness and, whatever else may bind Jews together, it is certainly true that religion plays an important part. Second, for a group of people who have retained such a strong collective identity with no shared occupation of any land, language, nor even, in many cases, a culture, it is hard to see what else there could be that makes Jews into Jews. Surely for Jews, in the absence of other, more obvious factors, it is precisely such a spirit that has enabled them to retain their distinctive identity for so long and in the face of such opposition.
But if there is some kind of Jewish spirit or ideology, what is it? As far as Judaism, the religion, goes it seems fairly clear that there is an ideology based on the election of Israel by God, the special relationship Jews are supposed to have with God and the special mission allocated to Jews by God. So for observant Jews there is a special quality intrinsic to the covenant and to Judaism itself, though not all of them find it appealing:
"There is a strain in Jewish thought that says there is a special Godly something or other that is passed down in a certain genetic line which confers a special quality on people and Jewishness is a special quality. I call that metaphysical racism." Rabbi Mark Solomon
But whilst easy to see such a common spirit in religious Jews - after all it is precisely that which makes them religious - it is so much harder to define it in secular Jews, those Jews who reject, often quite vociferously, all aspects of Jewish faith. They often claim that they don't have an ideology, or that their ideology is one of, say, the left: not only not Jewish, but opposed to all religions including Judaism. Yet seemingly so free of all such ignorant superstition, these same people still call themselves Jews, still more often than not marry other Jews and still turn up to solidarity rallies only with other Jews and under Jewish banners. What is their ideology?
For my money it is much the same sense of specialness found in religious Jews but with a special reference to victimhood. "Yes, but only in the Hitlerian sense", answered philosopher Maxime Rodinson when asked if he still considered himself a Jew. For many of these Jews it is their identity as a threatened and victimized people that makes them Jews. "Hitler said I was a Jew, so I may as well be a Jew" is one response or "To be a Jew somehow denies all those who ever persecuted Jews a victory- so I'm a Jew". For these Jews, albeit estranged from Jewish religious and often community life as well, Emil Fackenheim's famous post-Holocaust 614th commandment (to add to the other 613): Thou shall survive! is an absolute imperative. But whatever the motive, this self-identity runs very deep indeed. Amongst these Jews, no matter how left or progressive they may be, one may criticise Israel to the nth degree, poke fun at the Jewish establishment and even shamefully denigrate Judaism as a religion, but depart one iota from the approved text on anti-Semitism and Jewish suffering, and you are in deep trouble. For these rational folk, Jewish suffering and anti-Semitism is every bit as inexplicable, mysterious and therefore, unchallengeable as for any religious Jew.
Jewish secularism is often offered as evidence that there is no such thing as a Jewish identity gathered around any shared ideology. After all, if all Jews subscribe to the same basic ideology, then how come so many Jews so obviously don't? And if all Jews essentially support the same interests, how come so many Jews so obviously don't? But is it that obvious? Not only do secular Jews very often seem to subscribe to Jewish notions of specialness and victimhood, but also, in their attitudes to non-Jews in general, and Palestinians in particular, they are by no means all that different from religious Jews.
It is often quoted how many Jews are in solidarity movements with Palestinians and how many of these are secular. And it's true: there are many Jews in sympathy with the Palestinians and the overwhelming majority are secular, and the main thrust of post-1967 virulent Zionism has come to be associated with the religious right. But this secular Jewish tradition, in fact, has been at the forefront of Zionism's assault on the Palestinians. It was secular Labour Zionists who created the Zionist ideology and the pre-state Jewish-only society. It was secular Zionists - good, humanistic, left-wing kibbutzniks - who directed and carried out the ethnic cleansing of 750,000 Palestinians, and the destruction of their towns and villages. It was secular Zionists who established the present state with all its discriminatory practices; and it was a largely secular Labour government that held the Palestinian citizens of Israel under military government in their own land for eighteen years. Finally, it was a secular, Labour government which conquered the West Bank and Gaza, and first built the settlements, and embarked on the Oslo peace process, coolly designed to deceive the Palestinians into surrendering their rights.
And even those secular Jews who do support Palestinian rights, on so many occasions, the solidarity they offer is limited by self interest. That these people, at least as much as anyone else, act out of their highest motives may be true. Many have been lifelong activists for many causes and many find their activism springs, consciously or unconsciously, from what they see as the highest ideals of their Jewishness. But nonetheless for many of them, solidarity with Palestinians means above all, the protection of Jews. They call for a Palestinian state on 22 per cent of the Palestinian homeland, but only to keep and protect the 'Jewishness' of the Jewish state. The Palestinian state they call for would inevitably be weak, dominated by the Israeli economy and under the guns of the Israeli military - surely they must know what this would mean!
At rally after rally, in speeches and on leaflets and banners, these Jews denounce the occupation: "Down with the occupation…down with the occupation…down with the occupation…" but not a word of the inherent injustice of a state for Jews only; perhaps a mention of the ill-gotten gains of 1948, but nothing of the right of return of the refugees, no restitution merely 'a just solution' taking account, of course, of Israel's 'demographic concerns'. "We are with you….we are with you….we are with you" they say "...but...". Whether it be condemnation of some form of Palestinian resistance of which they disapprove, or some real or perceived occurrence of anti-Semitism, for these Jews there is always a "but."
They should take a leaf from Henry Herskovitz. He is part of an organisation called Jewish Witnesses for Peace, which holds silent vigils outside synagogues on shabbat. Of course, all the other Jewish activists are shrieking at him that you mustn't target Jews for protest, that you must draw a distinction between Jews, Israelis and Zionists, that you'll only alienate the people we want to engage.... but he doesn't care. He knows that support from the Jewish mainstream, as Tony Cliff the Trotskyite used to say, "….is like honey on your elbow - you can see it, you can smell it but you can never quite taste it!" Henry also knows that to say that Jews in America individually and in their religious and community organisations should not be held accountable for what is happening is a lie and discredits all Jews before the non-Jewish world.
So these secular Jews often end up being just another round of Michael Neuman's "veritable shell game" of Jewish identity. "Look! We're a religion! No! a race! No! a cultural entity! Sorry--a religion!" Because this is the key to maintaining Jewish power - if it's indefinable, it's invisible. Like a Stealth Bomber (you can't see it on your radar but you sure know when you've been hit) Jewish power, with its blurred outlines and changing forms, becomes invisible. And if you can't see it you can't fight it. Meanwhile the assault on the Palestinians continues.
"The Jews"
The phrase is itself terrifying because of its past association with discrimination and violence against Jews, but Jews themselves have no problem with it. The notion of a Jewish People is at the centre of Jewish faith with Jews of all or no degrees of religious adherence over and over again affirming its existence. It is also at the heart of Zionism even in its most secular forms and is written into the foundational texts of the state of Israel. The concept even received international legal approval when the Jewish people were declared, by the West German state, to be the post-war residual heirs of intestate Jews. And yet it is an absolute article of faith for everyone, including those in the solidarity movement, that while we may criticize and confront Israel and Israelis, we may not criticize and confront the Jewish people and Jews. Unlike Israel and any other state, the Jewish People has no common policy and any attack on the Jewish people is, therefore, aimed at what they are and not at what they do.
But is speaking of the Jews doing this or doing that any more or less acceptable than speaking of, say, the Americans? If the American military lays waste a third world country, it is done by order of the government (a small group) with the full support of the ruling elites (another small group), the tacit support of a substantial segment of the population (a larger group), the silent denial of probably the majority of the population (a very large group) and the opposition of a tiny minority (a small group). Is it all that different with Jews?
It may be. Unlike the United States, 'the Jews' are not a legally constituted body and they do not have an obvious and defined common policy. 'The Jews' do not have an officially designated leadership, nor do they inhabit one area of land, nor do they speak a common language or even share a common culture. Theoretically at least there seem to be so many differences as to render any comparison untenable. In practice this may not be the whole story.
It is true that 'the Jews' do not constitute a legally recognized body, but Zionism, with its claim to represent all Jews, has increasingly confused the issue. It is also true that the Zionists do not represent all Jews but they do represent the views of very many Jews indeed, and certainly the most powerful and influential Jews. And there is no doubt that the overwhelming majority of organized Jews are fully behind the Zionist project. That 'the Jews' do not have a formally designated leadership does not mean that they have no leadership - bodies again to which the overwhelming majority of organized Jews owe allegiance: the Israeli Government, the World Zionist Organization; numerous large and powerful Jewish organizations such as the Anti-Defamation League and The Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, The Simon Wiesenthal Centre; lesser bodies such as the Board of Deputies of British Jews and similar organizations in every country in which Jews reside. Then there is the extensive network of Jewish bodies often linked, through synagogues to the whole spectrum of mainstream Jewish religious and community life. All these bodies with their vast and interconnected network do provide leadership; they do have clearly defined policies and they are all four-square behind Zionism and Israel in its assault on the Palestinians.
Does this constitute a definable Jewish collective engaged in advancing Jewish interests? Officially, perhaps not, but, effectively, when one notes the remarkable unanimity of intent of all these bodies, the answer may well be yes. They do not of course represent all Jews nor are all individual Jews responsible for their actions, but nonetheless 'the Jews' - organized, active and effective Jews - are as responsible for the pursuit of Jewish interests in Palestine and elsewhere as 'the Americans' in Vietnam, 'the French' in Algeria, and 'the British' in India.
So why should our response be different? Why should 'the Jews' not be as accountable as 'the Americans' and even ordinary Jews as accountable as ordinary Americans? Why do we not picket the offices of the Anti-Defamation League or The Conference of Presidents or the offices or even the homes of Abe Foxman, Edgar Bronfman and Mort Zuckerman in the U.S. and Neville Nagler in the U.K.? Why do we not heckle Alan Dershowitz in the U.S. and Melanie Phillips in the U.K.? What about the U.K. Chief Rabbi who in his time has had lots to say about Israel and Palestine? Why do we not take the struggle to every synagogue and Jewish community centre in the world? After all, every Shabbat a prayer is said for the state of Israel in every mainstream synagogue in the land, most of which are focal points for Zionist propagandizing and fundraising, so why should these Jews who choose to combine their prayers and their politics be immune while at prayer from our legitimate protests at their politics? And for those few Jews who are really prepared to stand up and be counted for their solidarity with Palestinians, why can we not still give to them due honour and regard as we did to those few Americans who opposed American imperialism and those white South Africans who opposed apartheid?
The answer is that we are frightened. Even knowing that Jews are responsible and should be held accountable, still we are frightened. We are frightened because criticism of Jews with its woeful history of violence and discrimination seems just too dangerous a position to take - it may open the flood-gates to a burst of Jew hatred. We are frightened that if we were to discuss the role of Jews in this conflict and in other areas and begin to hold Jews accountable, we might be labelled anti-Semites and lose support. And, perhaps most of all, we are frightened of the conflicted inner passions that confound us all whenever we come to look at these things.
Does speaking the truth about Jewish identity, power and history lead to Jews being led to concentration camps and ovens? Of course it doesn't! It is hatred, fear and the suppression of free thought and speech which leads to these things - whether the hatred, fear and suppression is directed against Jews or by Jews. Anyway, despite efforts to convince us to the contrary, we do not live in the thirteenth century. Californians are unlikely to pour out of their cinemas showing Mel Gibson's 'Passion' chanting "Death to the Jews!" And, at a time when Jews in Israel/Palestine, overwhelmingly backed by Jewish organisations in the west, are desecrating churches and mosques wholesale and brutally oppressing entire Christian and Muslim populations, we may be forgiven for finding it hard to get excited about graffiti daubed on some synagogue somewhere.
If we were to begin to engage with the role of Jews in this conflict, we may well be labelled anti-Semites and we may well, initially at least, lose support. The anti-Semite curse has long served as a frightener to silence all criticism of Jews, Israel and Zionism, and undoubtedly will be used to discredit our cause. But so what? They call us anti-Semites anyway so what's to lose? Edward Said spent a lifetime picking his way through the Israel/Zionism/Judaism minefield and never once criticised Jews, and he was called an anti-Semite his whole life, right up to and even after his death. As a movement we have probably spent as much time being nice to Jews as we have speaking up for Palestinians, and for what? Where has it got us? We are not racists and we are not anti-Semites, so let them do their worst. We shall speak our minds.
For so long now Jews have told the world that black is white and not only that, but also if anyone should dare to deny that black is white they will be denounced as anti-Semites with all the attendant penalties. We are held in a moral and intellectual lock, the intention of which has been to silence all criticism of Israeli and Jewish power. In saying the unsayable we may set ourselves and others free. And think how it will feel the next time you are called an anti-Semite to say "Well, I don't know about that, but I do have some very strong but legitimate criticisms to make of Jews and the way they are behaving….and I intend to speak out"?
And you never know; we may be pleasantly surprised. Israel Shamir, who has no trouble whatsoever in calling a Jew a Jew, was cheered spontaneously recently when he introduced himself from the floor at a London solidarity meeting. I saw it with my own eyes. His first English-language book has just been published; he corresponds freely and reciprocally with many highly respected figures and is on the boards of advisers of The Association for One Democratic State in Palestine and of Deir Yassin Remembered. Perhaps it's all just a case of the Emperor's new clothes. Perhaps we're all just waiting for some innocent child to blow the whistle.
The situation facing the Palestinian people is truly terrible. Old political strategies have got us nowhere. We need a new and widened debate. It may be that a new and credible discourse which puts Jews and Jewishness at the critical centre of our discussions is part of that.
And one final point: In a previous piece, paraphrasing Marc Ellis I wrote:
"To the Christian and to the entire non-Jewish world, Jews say this: 'You will apologise for Jewish suffering again and again and again. And, when you have done apologising, you will then apologise some more. When you have apologised sufficiently we will forgive you ... provided that you let us do what we want in Palestine.'
Shamir took me to task, "Eisen is too optimistic", he said, "Palestine is not the ultimate goal of the Jews... ...the world is."
Well, I don't know about that, but, if as now seems likely, the conquest of Palestine is complete and the state of Israel stretches from Tel-Aviv to the Jordan River, what can we expect? Will the Jews of Israel, supported by Jews outside of Israel, now obey the law, live peaceably behind their borders and enjoy the fruits of their victory, or will they want more? Who's next?
Paul Eisen is a director of Deir Yassin Remembered
dyr@eisen.demon.co.uk
"I have some pity for and wish to reach those Jewish people who believe that the whole world hates them. (Not to the extent of justifying things they do of course)."
Zionism is based on this belief that was shared by the Aryan and Judaic wings of the Zionazzi (or Nazozio) movement."
A. I don't believe the whole world hates me. I just believe in the Jewish right to self-determination.
B. Let's see: Nazis believed in a master race. Zionists believe that Jews of all races have a right to self determination (which is why Israel is by far the most racially diverse county in the Middle East). Most Zionists do not believe that Palestinians have no right to live in Israel. We believe they have a right to live in their own state. Arab states, on the other hand, by and large believe that Jews should not live in their state. In Saudi Arabia, this policy is explicit. This is why Jews were ethnically cleansed from Arab states in the 1940s and 1950s.
Zionists also do not believe that Jews are superior to other "races", in the first place because Zionism is not based on viewing Jews as a "race" and in the second place because there is no narrative of racial superiority in mainstream Zionist discourse. If being for self-determination is the same as believing in the superiority of the Jewish "race", I suggest you examine pan-Arabism, Islamism, and other Arab nationalisms and try telling me with a straight face it is the Zionist who sees himself as superior.
I also suggest you examine Muslim discourse on victimhood and martyrology and come back and tell me with a straight face that it is we Jews who are too ready to justify excess on the basis of past wrongs done to us.
Hey Eugene,
(sorry, the previous one was posted in the wrong place)
Did they tell you how to treat guests, even uninvited ones? It is true that you avoid Middle East, but even in New York they should know better than erase posts they disagree with.
KalamazooKid is mightily displeased with the way you treat him.
Come visit us, fatso.
http://simplyjews.blogspot.com/
Your posts are not wanted here. Be advised you are stalking. You have most of the media at your disposal to propagate your views. Please allow me to propagate mine in peace.
"Please allow me to propagate mine in peace."
Nah, Eugene, you have been marked by the Elders as a prime material for development. You alone do for the case of Zionism more than a legion of paid propagandists, baby.
You are just too slow to grok it.
I think it will be better to let these guys show the world what happens when a Jew "Steps out of line."
I remember that article by Paul from last year I think. It is very long, I never did finish it as it isn't on topics I am interested in pursuing. Paul does like to think for himself though- and that is obvious. He refuses to be bullied into only pursuing politically correct courses of thought, even though he obviously very much offends some people with the direction of his probes.
And in wondering about Paul's essay, I can not help but wonder about that whole don't mention Jewish power and don't deny the Holocaust thing- do Zionist militants use that charge of holocaust denial- often as not totally false and out of the blue- as an indicator to help figure out how easily bullied a person can be. A kind of power play, and a distraction.
Well, you're certainly Jewish enough for Hitler to kill, but not jewish enough to be actually Jewish. You just happened to have been accidentally born to Jewish parents. Go figure.
Pan-Arabism died with Nasser; you know this Brenner...
Your spin on Islamic victimhood is good. Unfortunately, again, you are wrong. Muslims are being targetted by Western aliances, all you have to do is turn on the mainstream media.
Reality check, Palestinians are "real" victims, in stark contrast to the "virtual victimhood" that zionists keep banging on about. Check any Human Rights records on Israel, any one, and see for yourself.
Before you point your finger, predictably, at other states, I suggest you get your own house in order. Israel has a third of its population living in poverty...I won't go into the illegal Wall, the illegal settler activity, and the expropriation of Palestinan land to build more illegal settlements...the list of Israeli policy reads like an Imperialist's manifesto.
As far as this post is concerned, Eugene decides to speak his mind on HIS blog about his right to do as he pleases with himself, and a bunch of assholes pounce down his throat.
Eugene is completely entitled to his feelings and expressing them; which I'm sure any zionist must concede.
So, the question becomes, why are you so afraid of Eugene's words?
After all, he's just a "fat old jewish guy who lives in the projects".
As eugene has the right to express his view, we have the right to prove him wrong. You won't go into the "illegal" fence? Because you can't. It is as legal as my right to prove you wrong.
There is a poverty problem in Israel? Just as there is a poverty problem all over the world.
Israel's policy appears imperial only to racists and antisemites such as yourself. When compared to Arab nations, Israel is the most liberal around. But your bigotry can't see that.
Let eugene renounce all he wants. But he doesn't do it as a jew, but as someone who was accidentally born to jews. As he gives up his rights he gives up his identity.
Why must a zionist concede anything that is not conceded by every human being on earth? Zundel got your tongue?
Hi Eugene
I've just had this Paul Eisen post drawn to my attention. I keep various articles at this blog - Jews against zionism - and I have a response to Paul Eisen's Jewish Power there. Perhaps you'd have a look.
Thanks
check out the link back to this at:
http://kabobfest.blogspot.com/2005/12/who-lives-where.html
Eugene please do not give space on your
excellent blog to Holocaust revisionists
like Paul Eisen and his soulmate Israel
Shamir. They do no favours to the Palestinians,
and by suggesting that all Jews are Zionists
of one sort or another Eisen is insulting
all those Jews who genuinely oppose Zionism -
which apparently includes yourself.
I have a whole page about these people at: http://www.sue.be/pal/nazis.html
Dear Sue:
I am saddened by your post here at this blog. Let me tell you why.
I have been aware of the differences between you, and Paul Eisen, and Israel Shamir. I have participated in Shamir's group togethernet at yahoo and have corresponded briefly with both of them prior to starting this blog, not about this blog but about a world of issues and opinions.
I can feel your opinions because two years ago ago they were mine more or less too. I think they are honest on your part but off the mark, and seriously so. However, I did not attack or even bring up this difference with you because people who oppose the Israeli state or even who oppose its actions need to show as much unity as is possible. It's not as though the zionists are on the run and we have the luxury of a cat fight, a public one at that.
Let me tell you how broadly I mean this. I have differed with Shamir on some things on his yahoo group, and trust me when I say I despise a David Duke. (Read my post about tripping over the code of military justice, it's a true story) and in that I have not changed a whit, except perhaps I'm stronger about racism.(Read my stuff about NYC snatching Black and Hispanic Kids and locking up their parents).
However, I have not sought to go out of my way to amplify differences with Shamir. He has guts like few others and he tells the truth about Israel, about Judaism and about zionism. and he does not say, nor does Eisner, that there are no anti zionist Jews. In fact they point out, at least Shamir does, how few and far between they are and how little they (we) represent. If anything, in being the exception for the present we tend to prove the rule.
Shamir thinks a Jew can and has to stop being one. I frankly don't know if this is either possible or entirely desireable. I've gone back and forth on this inside my own head, but I'm satisfied to go on living and be who and what I am, which is a commie pinko Jewish subversive.
Shamir has an honest opinion.
If I can dialogue with the zionists who have come here to my blog to disrupt and threaten, if I could want with all my might to have my pieces about Child Welfare be in the Zionist newspapers here in New York, why on earth would I not dialogue with any other racist?
It's Bloomberg's New York where a Black man with a clean police record has a harder time in getting a job than a white felon. it's Zuckerman's Daily News that demonized the Black people of New Orleans, and though David Duke copied his garbage and put it on his website, like a dog yapping and running alongside his master, it's no doubt who does the most damage.
When I use the term "Zionazi I mean it.
"Eugene please do not give space on your
excellent blog to Holocaust revisionists"
Gee, Doesn't it just take the cake, Eugene? It seems we have a rift even in that budding friendship.
But don't worry - after all, both you and Sue work dilligently toward the same goal - elimination of the State of Israel. The only difference is in the methods, otherwise you may as well be twins.
In truth - she is just trying to warn you not to show your true colors. She was also caught several times linking to and adoring some pretty sleazy types.
Well, it takes one to know one...
"I have a whole page about these people at: http://www.sue.be/pal/nazis.html"
Now, honey cake, you can add your dear ole Eugene to the list. He belongs there.
Next time choose your friends more carefully.
Oh, gosh, you have been already told so. Repeatedly, too...
"People who oppose the Israeli state or even who oppose its actions need to show as much unity as is possible" - sorry Eugene, I want no unity with Holocaust
deniers and anti-semites. (I know that "unity" stuff is exactly what
Shamir says. BTW I don't believe he is even Jewish, not that it matters.)
Choice quote from Eisen:
"True, there was little hard evidence, but what there was could so easily be made to fit. After all, everyone knew that the Germans had engaged in purposeful mass extermination of Jews therefore 'special treatment' and 'deportation to the East' must be euphemisms for extermination, and any sealed chamber attached to a crematorium especially if used for disinfestations by gas, must have been a homicidal gas chamber."
If that's not Holocaust denial I don't know what is. You really want "unity" with such people?
Dear Sue,
I don't want to end up mixing apples and oranges here. I've read what David Irving said at his trial in Canada and I've read quite a lot more.
I know enough about Shamir to say he hates what the Nazis did in the USSR and the rest of Europe. I know he was and still is pro Soviet in fact.
I read Eisen's stuff pretty closely. He is referring to holes in the official or accepted, or taught to the school children in Harlem version of what took place in Europe between 1938 and 1945.
The holes in that narrative are glaring. Sue when I was a boy I knew that four million Jews wee murdered by the Nazis at Auschwitz and that the toal of Jews murdered was six million.
Now they say one million or one and a half million or perhaps six hundred thousand were murdered at Auschwitz, yet the official total six million (or five million one hundred thousand if you read Raul Hillberg) remains. Isn't there an inconsitency here? Have you read Arno Mayer?
The stories I grew up on, about the human flesh rendered into soap, about the whole vicinity around Auschwitz stinking from the ashes of human beings, about gas chambers in Dachau are just not true. And there is a challenge to the notion that the gas chambers at Auschwitz and crematoria there could have physically been accessories to the number of said to be murdered inmates, and I have not seen any rebuttal. If you have, please p[ost it here on my website.
I'm not making light of what the Nazis did, Sue, nor do I think Eisen is, nor Atzmon, nor Shamir. I have a problem though with little children being indoctrinated with propaganda that was used to justify the imperialist side of World War Two (it seved other purposes as well, even contradictory ones, but still war propaganda.) Worse this narrative serves as Zionist propaganda and indoctrination.
Let me take it one step further. Holocaust propaganda serves to shield the most priviledged group (religion, ethnicity,nationality, call it what you will, what "the Jews" are is a mystery to me) from just crticism of many of its members and of its collective conduct.
About "unity":
In a united front diverse and even antagonistic forces work or fight in one direction on one or several related matters in which they share common interest. "One direction" doesen't mean in lockstep on all matters. If Shamir and my differences of opinion were important at this moment I'd be bringing them out in detail. In fact they're hypothetical and theoretical for the most part.
Shamir shakes the Jewish world and that's a good thing!
Paul Eisen's stuff?
To quote you quoting Paul Eisen:
"'Choice quote from Eisen:
"True, there was little hard evidence, but what there was could so easily be made to fit. After all, everyone knew that the Germans had engaged in purposeful mass extermination of Jews therefore 'special treatment' and 'deportation to the East' must be euphemisms for extermination, and any sealed chamber attached to a crematorium especially if used for disinfestations by gas, must have been a homicidal gas chamber.'"
Even Yehuda Bauer said that the story of Wannsee is a myth.
What the Nazis did to the Jews was bad enough Sue. It was part of their anti Communist crusade (a fact buried today in "the narrative" - an insult to those who fought the Nazis from the start.)
It was bad Sue but it was not the crime of all history, it does not equal the ongoing holocaust of hunger and death from curable disease that kills as many children every year as the Nazis are said to have killed the Jews over seven years, it does not equate with the slave trade.It might be right up there with the slaughter of the Indochina war and other crimes too.
I'm not an expert on the Holocaust and I don't have as much time as you do, Eugene, otherwise I'd start my own blog! I will respond to just a few of your points and let others deal with the rest of them, if anyone else is still reading this.
You said in an earlier post:
>I did not attack or even bring up this difference with you because people who oppose the Israeli state or even who oppose its actions need to show as much unity as is possible. It's not as though the zionists are on the run and we have the luxury of a cat fight, a public one at that.
Well if you prefer to continue this debate off-line you are welcome: I have sent you my e-address. But I thought the whole point of blogging was to have one's arguments in a public forum. You can't expect to post several pages of crap by Paul Eisen and not get a response, indeed I'm sure you were trying to provoke one and that's what you got.
You suggest that Eisen is merely referring to the "holes" in the official version. But the passage I quoted indicates to me that he is denying the existence of gas chambers at all, not just quibbling over the numbers who died in them. And I'm sure most people would read it the same way.
> And there is a challenge to the notion that the gas chambers at Auschwitz and crematoria there could have physically been accessories to the number of said to be murdered inmates, and I have not seen any rebuttal. If you have, please post it here on my website.
Try this one:
http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/body-disposal/
Of course Zionists make propaganda out of the Holocaust, distort it, divert money intended for the survivors etc. etc. But you don't counter that propaganda by encouraging people who deny the existence of gas chambers.
I'm all for bona-fide academic research which gets us closer to the real numbers and the whole truth about the Holocaust - including the millions of non-Jewish victims who are often overlooked. To say that there have been other acts of genocide and the Nazi holocaust was not unique is not at all the same thing as denying what the Nazis actually did.
To anyone in the UK I would recommend the current BBC2 series "Auschwitz, the final solution" which is shown around 8.15 on Saturdays. It includes numerous interviews with both survivors and perpetrators. Perhaps Eisen thinks they were all lying?
This will be my last post on this page -
I'll see y'all elsewhere on the web before
long.
http://www.vho.org/GB/c/CM/jcz.html
Sue, try that one on for size if you have the time.
You're right,a blog is exactly a place for controversy. I was not looking for attacks from within the camp opposed to Israel and its actions to the level of calling activists like Eisen a nazi. I think that's over the top, Sue.
Here's the kernel of your argument with Eisen (correct me here if I'm wrong):
"'Choice quote from Eisen:
"'True, there was little hard evidence, but what there was could so easily be made to fit. After all, everyone knew that the Germans had engaged in purposeful mass extermination of Jews therefore 'special treatment' and 'deportation to the East' must be euphemisms for extermination, and any sealed chamber attached to a crematorium especially if used for disinfestations by gas, must have been a homicidal gas chamber.'"
It seems quite reasonable to me that Paul could be speaking of Dachau, a camp I knew of as a boy. You will have to agree that the war propaganda that identified Dachau as a place of mass gassings and creamations turned out to be false. It turns out that indeed there was a gas chamber at Dachau in which clothing of inmates was in fact rid of lice. As distateful as that expresson is it's accepted today.
http://www.scrapbookpages.com/DachauScrapbook/GasChamber/Index.html
Gas Chambers at Dachau
"Baracke X, erected May 1942 to April 1943. It was to serve both as a killing facility and to remove the dead, but the gas chamber in the middle of the building was not used for mass murder. Survivors have testified that the SS did, however, murder individual prisoners and small groups here using poison gas."
Building where Dachau gas chamber was located
The photograph above, taken in May 2003, shows the building where the infamous Dachau gas chamber is located. The gas chamber room is right behind the white table, which has a memorial inscription to the victims. The low shrub on the left hides a memorial plaque on the ground which marks the spot where the gallows stood.
When soldiers of the US Seventh Army arrived on April 29, 1945 to liberate the concentration camp at Dachau, they found that the inmates in the camp, who were predominantly Communists and other anti-Nazi political prisoners, had organized into an International Committee headed by a Belgian Communist named Albert Guérisse who was using the fake name of Patrick O'Leary and pretending to be Canadian. Patrick O'Leary spoke perfect English and he and his fellow Committee members were very anxious to give a guided tour of the camp to the American heroes and the newspaper reporters who accompanied them. They particularly wanted to show them the five gas chambers outside the prison compound in the new crematorium building, named Baracke X. Many of the soldiers and newspaper reporters who took this tour wrote their descriptions of the gas chambers. I have put these eye-witness descriptions on a separate page.
The official report of the US Seventh Army was printed as a book entitled Dachau Liberated: The Official Report of The U.S. Seventh Army, Released Within Days of the Camp's Liberation by Elements of the 42nd and 45th Divisions. The following quote is from this book:
"When the American troops arrived on 29 April 1945, there were approximately 32,500 estimated internees of all nationalities, the Poles predominating. During this period, the camp was notorious for its cruelty, but within the last six or eight months, some 'token' improvement was noted in the treatment of the internees. However, the new crematorium was completed in May 1944, and the gas chambers, a total of five, were used for the executions and the disposals of the bodies."
Shortly after the liberation of Dachau, the American Army released a photograph which clearly showed that a gas chamber was in operation there. The photograph was published in American newspapers and magazines and was then shown in a traveling exhibit which started in St. Louis and ended in Washington, DC. Films of Dachau taken at the liberation of the camp were shown in the weekly newsreels in American movie theaters. American congressmen traveled to Dachau in early May 1945 and stood in the largest gas chamber, examining its fake shower heads. Their Congressional Report, based on this visit, was entered into the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg as evidence that a homicidal gas chamber was used to murder prisoners at Dachau.
After the liberation of Dachau, the Army quickly set up a museum in the new crematorium and General Dwight D. Eisenhower ordered that as many American soldiers as possible should be brought to the camp to view the evidence of Nazi atrocities, particularly the notorious gas chamber disguised as a shower room. However, Eisenhower himself never visited any of the three major Nazi concentration camps in Germany, nor did he mention any gas chambers in his book, Crusade in Europe.
At the Nuremberg war crimes trial, eye-witness testimony about prisoners being killed in the Dachau gas chamber was given by Dr. Franz Blaha, a Czech Communist who was a prisoner in the camp and a prominent member of the International Committee at Dachau. At the Nuremberg trial of the Nazi war criminals, a film was shown which included some footage of the Dachau gas chamber. Visitors to the Memorial Site can see the gas chamber footage from this film in a 22-minute movie shown every half hour in the museum.
In the immediate aftermath of World War II, there was no doubt whatsoever in anyone's mind that there was indeed a homicidal gas chamber in the new crematorium building at Dachau and that prisoners in the camp had been murdered there. In 1972 a fictional Hollywood film called Justice at Nuremberg confirmed this belief. Dachau was the only concentration camp mentioned in the movie, giving some people the impression that 6,000,000 Jews had been gassed to death there.
Up until 1960, it was an accepted fact that a gas chamber, disguised as a shower room, had been used to murder prisoners at the Dachau concentration camp. Then on August 19, 1960 on page 16, Die Zeit, a German magazine, published a letter from Martin Broszat, head of the Institute for Contemporary History in Munich. Herr Broszat stated that the Dachau gas chamber had never been completed and had not been put into operation..."
Ah, yes, the movie "Judgement at Nuremberg" by which I a youth learned that the Jews were mass murdered at Dachau. I was like the entire generation of Jewish youths at that time indoctrinated and traumatized by a Hollywood lie. For shame!
Guttenplan in The Guardian:
"Although the grisly tale of the soap figured in some of the earliest accounts of Nazi-occupied Europe, it is now rejected by historians as a fabrication - similar to the atrocity stories of Allied propaganda during the first world war. Dachau did have a gas chamber, but it was never used. This week the BBC referred to the "death camp" at Belsen, but there were no gas chambers at Belsen.
Nor did the Nazis come first for the Jews; as Peter Novick explains in his brilliant and provocative new book, The Holocaust in American Life, "First they came for the Communists" - a circumstance acknowledged by Niemöller, who continued, "but I was not a Communist - so I said nothing. Then they came for the Social Democrats, but I was not a Social Democrat - so I did nothing. Then came the trade unionists, but I was not a trade unionist. And then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew - so I did little. Then when they came for me, there was no one left who could stand up for me." The Holocaust Museum in Washington DC is just one of those who, in Novick's phrase "prudently omits" Communists from Niemöller's homily.
But prudence and political calculation have influenced our knowledge of the Holocaust from the beginning. Even the word itself - from the Greek holos, for whole, and kaustos, for burnt - is contested. In some circles, the Hebrew word Shoah, meaning destruction, is preferred. The Princeton historian Arno Mayer coined the term "Judeocide" to describe the subject of his study Why Did the Heavens Not Darken? For a long time after the war, the fate of European Jewry was hardly mentioned, partly because, as the cartoonist Art Spiegelman's father says in Maus, his survivor's tale in cartoon format, "No one wants anyway to hear such stories," and partly because in camps liberated by British and American troops including Dachau, Belsen and Buchenwald, only a minority of the prisoners were Jews. In Ed Murrow's famous 1945 broadcast from Buchenwald the words Jew and Jewish are never spoken.
In her first book, Beyond Belief, Lipstadt wrote that even when confronted by the evidence, many correspondents were reluctant to admit to themselves and their readers the reality of genocide. She attributes some reluctance to anti-Semitism. Novick, who teaches history at the University of Chicago, suggests a different reason for postwar reticence: with the realignment of the cold war, talk of the Holocaust was inimical to US interests. In 50s America few besides Communists shouted "Remember the six million!"
For most Americans, including Jews, the Holocaust was "the wrong atrocity" - mention of it was at best an embarrassment, at worst a cause for suspicion. Today the Holocaust is ubiquitous. Films such as Schindler's List, television programmes, novels, memoirs all add to what we know - or think we know - about what Raul Hilberg called "the destruction of the European Jews". His book with that title was published in 1961. The first reviews were mostly hostile: it was years before Hilberg won prizes. Merely consider the reception of Binjamin Wilkomirski's Fragments (1995) to see how much has changed: it won the National Jewish Book Award for autobiography. Even after evidence mounted that Wilkomirski was really Bruno Dössekker, a Swiss musician whose account of a childhood in the camps is fictional, Fragments attracted readers, such is the appetite for Holocaust literature.
How did this change come about? Novick mentions a gradual easing of the cold war, outbreaks of neo-Nazism in Germany and the US, the 1952 publication of Anne Frank: The Diary of A Young Girl, adapted to stage and screen. But the single greatest catalyst was the trial of war criminal Adolf Eichmann. Much of the initial response was negative. But as the trial wore on, the mass of detail overcame scepticism. The trial was televised, and for the first time the American public was confronted with the Holocaust distinct from the general carnage of war.
Now, nearly 40 years after, Eichmann's name again echoed in a court. For over nine weeks in Courtroom 73 of the Royal Courts of Justice the Holocaust has been on trial as Charles Gray presided over David Irving v. Penguin Books Ltd and Deborah Lipstadt. Towards the end of the trial, which, thanks to British libel laws, forced Lipstadt to prove the truth of the claim in her book Denying the Holocaust that Irving knowingly distorted or suppressed evidence regarding the Nazi massacre of European Jewry, it was announced that the Israeli authorities had agreed to release Eichmann's diaries. But the problem of Lipstadt and her lawyers couldn't be solved by new evidence. The problem was how to interpret what was already there.
To Irving, author of numerous books on the Third Reich, the Holocaust is "an ill-fitting legend". He didn't deny many Jews died; he denied that any of them were killed in gas chambers, that Hitler directly ordered the annihilation of Jewry, and that the killings were in any significant way different from the war's other atrocities.
In Hilberg's insight, the destruction of European Jewry was a bureaucratic process, the result of "a series of administrative measures". In their pursuit of the Endlösung - the Final Solution to the Jewish question - the Nazis left the detritus of any large organisation: memoranda, requisition forms, purchase orders and blueprints. A million Jews were murdered at Auschwitz and all had to be taken there by train in the middle of a war in which the railways were the lifelines of the German army. The Zyklon B gas to kill them had to be paid for. And the ovens that disposed of the bodies had to be specially built, by Topf and Sons, a firm that patented the design. For each Stück - piece, as the Nazis referred to a Jew - processed, items had to be accounted for: money, dental gold, hair. Hilberg mapped this bureaucracy in three volumes, but the essential facts are in a series of tables. Deaths by cause shows that more than 800,000 Jews died from "ghetto-isation and general privation," more than 1.3m by "open-air shootings," and up to 3m were murdered in camps - as many as 2.7m in specialised extermination centres such as Sobibór, Treblinka, and Belzec; 150,000 died in other camps, including concentration camps such as Dachau and Buchenwald.
In deaths by country, Hilberg's list ranges from the 3m Jews of Poland to the fewer than 1,000 from Luxembourg, and in deaths by year charts the genocide's rise and fall. But the total is the same: 5.1m Jews. Other historians dispute Hilberg's arithmetic, arguing for 6m. Scholars remain divided on when and why the Nazis shifted from encouraging Jewish emigration (which saved half of Germany's Jews) to extermination (which murdered 90% of Greece's Jews). They argue about the role of the camps in the German economy.
Irving used these disagreements to get into the debate. But his arguments were of a different order. He filed for libel in September 1996; that spring, his US publishers, St Martin's Press, had cancelled the publication of his Goebbels: Mastermind of the Third Reich. Given his history, controversy was to be expected, even courted. Publishers Weekly pronounced the book "repellent"; Jewish organisations expressed outrage; Deborah Lipstadt was quoted as saying that St Martin's would hardly sign up a white supremacist for a book on race relations.
St Martin's at first stood firm, but between a March Daily News report about the uproar and Frank Rich's April New York Times column calling Irving "Hitler's Spin Artist," it lost nerve and cancelled publication. The principal effect of this, as Christopher Hitchens pointed out in Vanity Fair, was to transform a man with "depraved ideas" about the Holocaust into a poster boy for free speech. This lent the book the cachet of suppressed literature. and gave rise to Gordon Craig's declaration, in a review in the New York Review of Books, that "silencing Mr Irving would be a high price to pay for freedom from the annoyance that he causes us". Craig continued: "He knows more about National Socialism than most professional scholars in his field, and students of the years 1933-1945 owe more than they are always willing to admit" to his research. "Such people have an indispensable part in the historical enterprise, and we dare not disregard their views." On Tuesday, Mr Justice Gray found otherwise.
The argument is familiar. In the late 70s, French intellectuals were convulsed over l'affaire Faurisson. Robert Faurisson, professor of literature at the University of Lyons, wrote in Le Monde the "good news" that the gas chambers had not existed. "The alleged Hitlerian gas chambers," he said, "and the so-called genocide of the Jews form a single historical lie whose principal beneficiaries are the State of Israel and international Zionism."
Hitchens described Irving as "not just a Fascist historian, but a great historian of Fascism". He also assumed that what Irving really wanted was a debate with his critics. If that had been Irving's objective, all he had to do was bide his time. "Someone," Hitchens asserted, "will no doubt pick up where St Martin's left off." Instead, Irving blamed Lipstadt for his troubles in the US and sued her and her publisher, Penguin Books, for libel in England. At which point it became more difficult to defend the proposition that what was at stake was Irving's freedom of speech.
Faurisson's chief antagonist, French classicist Pierre Vidal-Naquet, argued : "To live with Faurisson? Any other attitude would imply that we were imposing historical truth as legal truth, which is a dangerous attitude." Vidal-Naquet opposed his government's use of torture in Algeria and supports the rights of Palestinians. Perhaps because both his parents were deported by the Nazis (his mother died in Auschwitz), he felt it just as important to expose Faurisson's distortions as to support his right to distort. His scepticism about the role of the state has no echo in Lipstadt, unlike his argument against debating the Holocaust.
He wrote: "Confronting an actual Eichmann, one had to resort to armed struggle and, if need be, to ruse. Confronting a paper Eichmann, one should respond with paper... In so doing, we are not placing ourselves on the same ground as our enemy. We do not debate him; we demonstrate the mechanisms of his lies and falsifications, which may be methodologically useful for the younger generations." We need only set this passage from Assassins of Memory, his restrained, yet devastating, response to Faurisson, beside a similar passage from Denying the Holocaust to see the extent of Lipstadt's indebtedness. "Not ignoring the deniers does not mean engaging them in debate; it means not doing that. We cannot debate them for two reasons, one strategic and the other tactical... The deniers long to be considered the "other" side. Engaging them in discussion makes them exactly that. . They are contemptuous of the very tools that shape any honest debate: truth and reason. Debating with them would be like trying to nail a glob of jelly to the wall." Though she relies on his arguments, Lipstadt is no Vidal-Naquet. She lacks his intellectual breadth, clarity of thought and expression, and, sadly, his stature as a Jew who has never confined his political engagement to Jewish causes.
In Israel, as you might expect in a country where in the 40s the slang for Holocaust survivor translated as soap, the battle over representing the Nazi genocide has always been bare-knuckled and open. The arguments go back to the war, when supporters of mainstream Zionism sought to discredit the Emergency Committee to Save the Jewish People of Europe (agitating noisily for rescue) as a vehicle of the right-wing Zionist terrorist group Irgun. As indeed it was. David Ben-Gurion and other Zionist leaders were not thought lessly "writing off" European Jewry, Peter Novick says, but just making a "chilling... appraisal of what was and was not possible".
Though it is impolite to mention it, there are still live questions about the Holocaust. The dispute between intentionalists, who say that genocide was always part of Hitler's plan, and functionalists, who argue the Final Solution evolved in response to changing conditions and fortunes of war, is far from settled. Another open, though stifled, question is about the number of survivors. Irving's claim that Jews inflated the number of victims to extort money from Germany merely demonstrates his ignorance. The payments to Israel were for resettling refugees, and it would have been in Israel's interest to exaggerate the number of survivors, not the number of victims. But that doesn't mean there weren't individuals who, to qualify for payment, claimed to have spent the war hiding in Poland when they had been living, in relative safety if not comfort, deep in the Soviet Union.
More delicate is the question of survivor testimony. According to Elie Wiesel: "Any survivor has more to say than all the historians combined about what happened." Would Wiesel censure Lipstadt for saying: "Lots of survivors who arrived at Auschwitz will tell you they were examined by [Dr Josef] Mengele. Then you ask them the date of their arrival, and you say, 'Mengele wasn't in Auschwitz at that point'." Would he censure her, or any historian, for daring to ask for evidence, documents, corroborating testimony? That is what historians do. And when they are prevented from doing it, either by Jewish groups who feel that the Holocaust belongs to them or by Zionists seeking to preserve Israel's "moral capital", the result is a blurring between memory and propaganda that serves only the interests of the Nazi perpetrators and their political legatees.
Yet time and again those who insist on the truth in all its complex, unsentimental, paradoxical, and ambiguous detail are shouted down. It isn't only anti-Semites who, in T S Eliot's phrase, find a "large number of free-thinking Jews undesirable". The many obstacles thrown up by the history of our understanding of the Holocaust make Judge Gray's ruling all the more remarkable.
But his reasoned arguments are unlikely to make an impact on either the Holocaust deniers or their opponents. Holocaust deniers, as the latest incarnation of a paranoid tradition, are by nature impervious to fact. For them, Irving's defeat confirms his martyrdom; the scale of his undoing proves the power of the forces against them. For the growing Holocaust industry, victory over Irving is more likely to be a stimulus than a restraint.
In her statement after the trial, Lipstadt described the struggle against denial as unending. Let me be clear: Lipstadt deserved to win. But the encouragement that her victory will give to some groups supporting her - such as the Board of Deputies of British Jews or the Anti-Defamation League of the B'nai Brith - in their efforts to police public discussion of the Holocaust and of Israeli policies, is no cause for celebration.
Thanks to the efforts of her lawyers and their experts, we now know a great deal about what is wrong with Irving's scholarship. But the trial did not contribute to our understanding of the Holocaust. There was one aspect of Judge Gray's decision that, left unchallenged, will make greater understanding of the Holocaust even less likely. Time and again, he referred to what an "objective historian" might do. But if judges aren't historians, historians shouldn't be expected to be judges. Irving's problem wasn't detachment but dishonesty. The Holocaust has always had a political as well as historical meaning; in America, that meaning has shifted a great deal from the days when conservatives saw a Communist behind every mention of the 6m.
Perhaps with Irving safely consigned to the dustbin of history, the rest of us can join the debates that, in scholarly circles, have raged for some time. This may mean giving up comfortable certainties about the distinctness of Jewish suffering, the exterminationist nature of German anti-Semitism and the redemptive force of Zionism. But if the effect of the Irving decision is to strengthen the hand of those who wield the Holocaust like a totem, or a truncheon, then truth and history might as well never have had their day in court.
• DD Guttenplan is currently writing an account of the trial for Granta Books, to be published next year. A longer version of this was first published in Atlantic Monthly.
This really will be my last say on this page!
Look, Eugene, Paul Eisen's article "The
Holocaust wars" is on the Zundel site. Zundel
is a full-blown Holocaust denier. He is
currently on or awaiting trial for Holocaust
denial in Germany, having been extradited from
Canada. Eisen writes a passionate defence of
Zundel, describing him as a "gentle, good-humored man, kind and honest" etc. etc.
This is the man who was involved in a book
called "The Hitler We Loved and Why".
Eisen's eulogy is here:
http://www.zundelsite.org/zundel_persecuted/may20-05_eisen.html
I rest my case m'lud.
You rest your case Sue?
And what case would thast be?
You don't want to be associated with "deniers" and "anti-semites",
would you care to define what you meant by those terms?
And what narrative of the Holocaust are you going with?
And just because Zundel links to Eisen, then you assume Eisen is a denier?
This is your argument?
Wow am I tired. I had a few days vacation, then I fell ill for a few days. I used these days to a large extent right here. NO. the sick days were for real. I have the kind of a job that a sixty year old man cannot do while he's actually sick, it's tough tough tough tough tough, not like blogging.
My job is at night and it's taxing a hell. Sometimes, like today, I have an errand or two to do in the daylight hours. then I come to my computer, rub my eyes, and go for it. Like most night workers I sleep in fits and starts; two hours here, three hours there, unless I take some Niteall or Valerian. Even then it tends to be fits and starts so it may seem as though I'm always here!
Anyhow,it seems we really are rapping up this Sue B adventure.I think I pretty much took her position apart and so she runs to Zundel. She runs to Eisen's defense of Zundel. I recommend everyone read that article. I'm going to put a link up to it.
Eisen is defending Zundel's right to speak.Also as a fellow anti zionist he is closing ranks in the face of the enemy.
Zundel is sentimental about Hitler. A lot of Germans are. Why? Well you don't have to be a nazi or even like them to want to understand how they came to power. Hitler and the nazis played on a vast antipathy for communism in Germany. Germany had been sundered by the revolutionary upheavals after the First World War,led largey by Jews. I like Rosa Luxemburg! But as in moist revolutions, it's a determined minority who support it until it's won. Rarely is it a majority even of the working class. Well, if a revolution loses, you know the story: "nobody likes a loser." Sadly the reds lost. Those then determined to finish off Bolshevism had the momentum and the result was Hitler.
To get this traction Hitler not only pushed fantasy and mytholgical supremacism (like the zionists and Judaists do), he also delivered for a lot of people.
And guess what? Not a few subjectively good Germans, who were kind to children and animals, who honored their parents and gave to charities were motivated by love for their neighbors and culture liked Hitler, and werent particularly angry at Jews, either. In fact in the elections running up to Nazi power, the played down the whole Jewish Card. They were more about "Law and order" as well as "us (Germans) against them" (the world), not unlike Jewish paranoia also.
That kind of stuff sells. Anyhow not for nothing did millions of Germans, including some really nice guys and gals, stupidly follow Hitler to the gates of hell, just as Jews who are charming and have great senses of humor and love children and animals are also zionazis.To fight this stuff you have to understand it and not simply trash the confused. Of course in war it's different. You demonize every soldier on the other side no matter how stupidly naive and idealistic he is. After all, you are tryint to get other nice guys worked up enough to go out and try to kill them at the peril of their own lives.
So Zundel is another of these nice guys who happens to be a non zionist racist and non zionist anti communist who has spent years of his life attacking a mytholgy that demonizes his own people.
NAzis did lots of horrible crimes in WWII. So did allies. Except for the Soviet people, the Chinese revolutionaries and the antifascist fighters in the underground movements no one was really on the side of the angels in that scrap. Except for those above mentioned the war was a vicious scramble to redivide and suck the life out of most of the world and its resources, people included.
The imperialists who were last at the table, like Germany, Italy and Japan, were no worse for wanting "their fair share" of the booty than were those who got there first, Britain, France and the United States, for not wanting to allow them to the table.
Anyhow I ramble. Goodbye Sue it's been good to know you. You hae not rested any case and it's past my bedtime.
I deny that the Jews are the people who have suffered more than all others. I deny that the Jewish people were helpless victims. I deny that Hitler was primarily about Jews - he was about destroying the Soviet Union, just like the zionists and Pat Buchanan were together. G'night.
Obviously Israel should be moved to NYC to pay for the crimes of Bloomberg.
Hey there, jewish dude. You don't look all that fat or old in your pic. :)
Anyways, I'm a semi-young, trim jewish dude that doesn't think Israel owes displaced Pals anything more than the US owes the Indians, or the Poles owe the Ukrainians, or the Ukrainians owe the Poles, or the Russians owe the Poles and/or Ukrainains, or some inter-African pit owes another. History is all about one group over-running another, and the jews succeeded with this Israel thing because they are a better class of people than their Arab neighbors. I know, it's tough to grasp that concept with you being a union-loving socialist and all, but such is life. Furthermore, I suppose Israel could have been expected to throw out a few bones if the Palestinians and their fellow Arab agitators toned down the sabre-rattling. But, since they haven't and don't, I say fuck 'em in regards to this repatriation thing (your writing's point, no?) Incidentally, your stats about pre-Israel Palestinian numbers are misleading. There were something like 3 million Arabs living in "Palestine", that term encompassing present-day Israel, Jordan, parts of Syria, the West Bank, and Gaza Strip. Just because a bald dude has a dozen hairs on the dome of his head, it doesn't change the fact that he's bald. Apply same logic as able. Toodles for now.
btw, sorry, I have nothing to link you to, but did get a kick out of reading your blog.
I came across this blog in a fit of widly-undisciplined internet surfing. I found it both informative and entertaining and wish to thank Fat Old Jewish Guy for it. As someone who is in no way connected with any of the parties involved (be they political, ethnic, or religious)I just wanted to share a thought that is always with me whenever I read about the situation in the Middle East: I can't help recalling the medieval Crusader States, artificial western European enclaves in a Muslim "ocean"... sooner or later, sooner or later.
You may well be an anti-Zionist Jew: but see how anti-semites *and their unwitting friends) are using you, you idiot.
Jim Denham
Uhhhhh was that asterisk supposed to mean something Jim?
While I don't totally agree with anon, he certainly has a valid point.
"I just wanted to share a thought that is always with me whenever I read about the situation in the Middle East: I can't help recalling the medieval Crusader States, artificial western European enclaves in a Muslim "ocean"... sooner or later, sooner or later."
Sooner or later, what? The world will regress to isolated city states? Get real, dude.
Hi.
I am a fellow fat old Jewish guy. Could be your twin brother.
You have a nice blog.
You have the Right of Return.
This country, Israel, was made for you.
Should you feel despondent about the inborn antisemitism of the people you work for and love, should you understand the quixotic sacrifice you are doing, you are welcome to find your own people.
Any time you wish to care for Ethiopian children here, you can come. You and your family.
Your Zionist alter ego.
Dear "Alter":
Maybe we can call you "The Fat Old Jewish Guy Who Lives In Someone Else's House."(Without Permission).
I'm going to recommend a bit of reading for you by someone whose name probably makes you see red, Israel shamir. I am not a "Shamireite" he and I do not agree on lots of things, but he gets right to the heart of your slander against six billion people. I know you really believe this stuff about how the six billion inherently cannot give you a fair shake, so sit down, take a chill pill and read this:
http://mediamonitors.net/shamir15.html
THE THIRD DOVE
Now, Mr. Lives in someone else's house, I won't stand here and lie and say that I never met a Jew hater, but I've met those who hate so many kinds of people, and who may say terrible things about this or that group and then befriend indviduals of that group, that I know it's not "all about the Jews" and that problems of bigotry are pretty mundane, and more complicated than meet the eye.
Just as Polish Americans of the Third generation are not going to shove people in Poland out fo threri homes to escape "Polish Jokes" I'm not joining you in someone else's house, and someone else's country.
"I've met those who hate so many kinds of people, and who may say terrible things about this or that group and then befriend indviduals of that group..."
How does becoming a buddie to a jew negate the fact that this someone may be a raging anti-semite? Pre-civil war southern children commonly grew up with a 'buddie' companion, a slave child assigned to him by his slave-owning parents. And yet these children with a lifelong black friend grew up to view negroes as only good for subservient work.
Fat Ol' Jewish dude, do everyone a favor and DON'T move to Israel. They have enough 'free thinkers' there as it is.
Chow for now,
Gene, the anonymous dude of the last few comments (except for that last one).
Hi, It´s "The Fat Old Jewish Guy Who Lives In Someone Else's House"(Without Permission) here. No, Israel Shamir makes me see no red at all. The Dir Yassin web site makes me see no red. It is natural that American Jews want to dissociate themselves from Zionism. The first reaction to Herzl´s Altneuland feuilleton was a vehement public condemnation by German and Austrian communal leaders. Herzl´s project casts doubt on their loyalty to their fatherlands, they said. One hundred years after, where are they?
I have no argument with you. I for one was a card carrrying Communist - 40 years ago - and actually studied Marx. I would love to say that I got disillusioned after reading the Acts of the 1934 Congress of Biological Sciences (where the Weismannian theory in genetics was condemned as idealist and Lysenko was elected president of the Academy) but in fact I went to the Hashomer because of the girls.
All I am trying to do is to point out the grotesqueness of your participation in Durban style jamborees.
Be well.
Dear Fat Old Jew of the Projects,
It´s me again. I read Israel Shamir as indicated. The man is not talking to me, he leaves me indifferent and a bit amazed how "desubicado" (cueless) he seems to be. He invites me to open the door and walk out to fresh air and see that antisemitism has evaporated. What, he doesn't know?
There never was an antisemitism such as he seems to assume.
The ghetto was not imposed from outside, any time a Jew wanted to be accepted, he could do it easily. Henry Heine went to a Protestant priest for a "passport to European culture" and had it made out in ten minutes no questions asked nor dipping required. Did Marx ever complained of antisemitism? No. Judaism exists and survives because Jews want it to, not because of antisemitism. Regarding Israel, any idiot can see that this is not a safe refuge for persecuted Jews, in fact it is the most unsafe and dangerous place to be. Always was. From where I stand, Israel Shamir's good news that humanity welcomes us is meaningless. Ancient Greeks were the first universalist people, but they hated Jews not less than the others who came after them. I was always fascinated by their writings about Jews, they accused us of misanthropy of all things, hate of humanity. Shamir's restrictive antisemitism existed only for very limited periods and only in certain places. Mostly it was us who rejected the world because wanted to be Jews. I could do what Kerry's grampa did, change my name and travel to another country and forget the whole Jewish business. I would be more than welcome everywhere, a hardworking intelligent person with a trade in good demand. Even without changing anything, being what I am, am welcome everywhere. I could go and teach in the Gulf countries for a very good salary. But I do not want to. Thus Shamir is meaningless for me.
PS. Tierra para el que la trabaja is a slogan of the Reforma Agraria, meaning that land belongs to those to work it, who live on it.
Dear La Tierra: "Me Again?" Which "Me" is that?
I smell zionist justificationizing here though, with that remark about land belonging to those who work it. You're taking a slogan of the Cuban Revolution and perhaps (if you're the so called "illegal immigrant" and if I read you right (maybe you're a different "Me") you're staking claim to the land stolen from Palestinians, people who are still alive and kicking and walking around with the keys to the house you're living in. (If you're not "illegal immigrant", a thousand pardons).
Dear "Illegal immigrant":
You're no "illegal immigrant" you're a colonialist zionist usurper. There's a big difference between people who travel from poor countries in order to do the drudge work at subminimum wages of the rich countries. That just doesn't fit the description.
Had the Jews come to Palestine as immigrants and refugees in stead of colonizers and conquerors maybe all this mess wouldn't be going on. Have your kids start learning Arabic and have them practice it well. Learn to appreciate the customs and at least respect the religions of the people who will, one way or another, sooner or later, be back. Maybe they'll let you stay. If not there's always
http://www.usgovernmentinformation.com/land_62.html
and
http://money.cnn.com/2004/12/22/real_estate/buying_selling/thursday_freeland/
and
http://www.motherearthnews.com/library/1970_May_June/Locating_and_Buying_Low_Cost_Land
...all places where y'all can find free land to live on.
It's me once more, the happy colonialist zionist usurper. Thanks for the real estate pointers, but really you should have not bothered, we already own land in Birobidjan, Eastern Siberia. Regarding teaching my daughters Arabic, they do in school and the Army. You may be surprised to learn that I speak some Arabic (I have a knack for languages). In fact, the majority of Israelis speak Arabic as first language, as they or their parents were born in Arab countries. They know exactly the meaning of Muslim tolerance.
Have a nice day.
Hey usurper:
I see that my tax moneys are not going to waste with you Israelis buying up former Soviet lands. Well, then there is someplace for you to go to.
Why do I feel though that you're driving the
^^^^^^^^^^^^|
| BULLSHIT TRUCK | '|""";.., _.
|......__=|= ||....., ] |____|____|
"(@ )'(@ )""""|(@ )(@ )**(@)(@)
I think it would be fair to let me correct the impression the Fat Old Jew may have created by implying that we Jews bought Biro Bidjan real estate with his hardly earned tax money.
The Biro Bidjan Jewish Autonomous Republic is an uninhabited bit of frozen swampland in the Russian Far East. It was designated as the Jewish homeland by Stalin, something like an Indian reservation in the USA.
Fortunately for the Jewish people, Stalin died before the deportation project was started.
Be a good boy, Colonel and keep your word about not coming back.
I know about Birobidzhan. Most Jews never wanted to go there. I was surprised when you told me you had bought some land there.
Greeting from the city of London.
That's one level-headed, compassionate head you wear upon your shoulders. You are a credit to the human race.
Keep up the good work.
You suck. You should be ashamed, but you're not, so I'll glide past that. I hope all the Palestinian sympathisers and pushers of the Paletinian conspiracy against the Jews are pleased to find a Jew so removed from and ignorant of his own heritage and religion that he wouldn't mind trampling and spitting upon his own history and suffering of his people that they find it fit to call him a 'mensch.' Finally! A jew with his head screwed on right! Right? Wrong! Firstly- if it doesn't matter that Jews once lived there at some point in history, why should it matter any more that Arabs lived there MORE recently in history? Your argument is not consistent. Well, that might be obvious to me as a Jewish lawyer critiquing the works of a Jewish cab driver. Bravo. Furthermore, you ignore the Jews who DID speak Arabic (Aramaic) and were scattered through Pan-Arabia- Babylon, Perssia, Egypt. We've certainly had our share of oustings from the holy land. Moreover, those very Jews who were kicked out of Israel by the romans, were then kicked BACK in by the Syrians, Egyptians, Lebanese, Perssians, et al. All the while, those countries refused to re-absorb the Arabs who had migrated into the holy land and were living as isolated tribes throughout. LASTLY- who decides who has the right of return? For instance, who decides who can enter the US? That would be the US government. After 1948- ie after the Arabs committed one of their chief and many historical blunders in rejecting the partition plan- Israel had every right to determine its own immigration laws, after being frustrated for so long by the british costing the Jewish nation more lives than the number of "Palestinians" could ever count among its ranks. Israel decide who can come and go into its borders. For instance, the PA has said that Jews would not enjoy any right of return into the West bank and Gaza after their achieve statehood. Not just that, no Jew could ever live there at all. Nice. Not that any sane Jew would choose to live in an Arab 3rd world country over his own gorgeous Israel. And that is whatthis about: money. The Jews made the desert bloom and all of a sudden,neighboring Arabs want a piece of it. And they got it , for a while. But then in 2000, Jews starting tightening its borders and hiring guest workers from the Philipines to do manual labor. Now we have the (waning) second intifada, which is slowly becoming the third, which will morph into the fourth, until the end of time. It aint going to stop. Arabs always hated Jews- they butchered us at the turn of the last century, they murdered us in riots in 1939 and they have killed us, New Yorkers on vacation too, while we eat Pizza in "Big Apple Pizza" on Ben Yehudah Street in Jerusalem. You would like that shop- it's covered with NY License plates. That's the theme. And if you eat Pizza there, Arabs might kill you for your sins. Or if you dance at a hall in Tel Aviv (a city with exclusively Jewish origins) you will be killed as an occupier. An occupier of your own city- that you bargained for, in a land your brothers agreed to share, a place we fled to and were forced to flee from, a place where we have learned to fight rather than die, a place where Jews can be free from oppression. Even your NY schools had Jewish quotas until recently so don't get so comfy there in Jew York, hymie town, where Jews can be killed in Crown Heights and their murderers walk free (although it's better now). WISE UP FAT GUY- you're priming youself as victim of the next holocaust. You don't think German Jews thought they were really "Germans"? Oh they did. ANd they found ou the hard way that they were not. Just like you will find out you're not really American. A Jew is a Jew no matter what hat he wears. For your own sake, wise up brother.
Post a Comment