| home |
| Email discussion, earliest first: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 |
| AG 17 January 2005 13:48:15
response to SS message 12/1/05 I'm sorry if you are finding us naive, uninformed, slow to respond (!). For me, however, the single most important element in peace work is PEACE. Or, to put it more simply, if we can't deal with each other in a tolerant, non-competitive, non-combative way then what's the point of any of it? What I love about this group is not only the immense learning in terms of these kind of issues - opportunities to guide each other through the maze of figures and issues and info - but ALSO the warmth, companionship, gentleness, mutual respect and positive energy generated. Personally our work would cease to have meaning without either of these simbiotic halves. Looking forward to working with you and learning with you in the future, in solidarity, Alice Dear all, Absolutely. Who needs politics? Let's have more cake stalls and amateur 'street theatre'. Better still, let's parade through Exeter in Nazi uniforms shouting "Death to the Jews" as a consciousness-raising exercise. R could run a workshop. Prince Harry could lead the march. We could always say it was "ironic" or we didn't really believe it. If Shamir and his Nazi/KKK friends succeed the biggest winner will be Israel. Millions of US and European Jews will have to flee there for safety – whether they support Israel or not. How would that help the Palestinians? With the Jews out of the way Shamir's white supremacists can concentrate on their many other enemies: Muslims, blacks, gays, lefties, the disabled, etc etc. But I'm not interested in rocking a boat that's going nowhere and makes an anti-Zionist Jew unwelcome. It's a long time since I encountered such wilful stupidity. M Dear all, I would like to add my voice to what C and S said about this issue, I absolutely agree with Steve and would like to say well spoken and excellently stated. I was rather astonished and frankly shocked by the sweeping statements (accusations) that M has made about ExeterPSC. I can only remind M that the offending article had absolutely nothing to do with EPSC, and that members of the EPSC can read and discuss any thing they like without it being seen as the OFFICIAL opinion or line of the group!!! Our group, I am glad to say, is not a party or a regimented organization, individuals have the freedom to forward articles without referring to 'headquarters'. and when any one person does so that does not mean that the person agrees with what is in the article (many articles has been circulated and described as 'interesting' when they were defending or explaining Israeli or American policy towards the Palestinian people') After the passionate and sometimes frantic e-mail discussions between various members of the group in the last 4 weeks, i would like to remind everyone that we ARE ABOUT SUPPORTING THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE! Hope to see you soon in the workshop! A Dear All I agree with S - very well put! Let's concentrate on the practical things we can do like organising events for the public; checkpoints; writing to MPs; helping people like E to go to Palestine, to help Palestinians as much as possible. 2003 – Marseilles branch of the French Palestine Medical Association (AMFP) was expelled from the Association France Palestine (France's PSC) for publishing the following by "Israel Shamir". Check it out. 2004 – his French publishers withdrew his book 'L'Autre Visage' from sale because of its racist content. The inside-story is amazing. 2004 – PSC groups in Sweden disassociate themselves from "Israel Shamir". 2005 – Exeter PSC circulates material by "Israel Shamir" on the 'net, calling it "interesting" – and then defends it. Midas Ears Les oreilles de Midas A new spectre haunts America. It enters the well-protected boardrooms of newspapers and banks, shakes the deep foundations of its towers. It is the spectre of glasnost: the dark secret of Jewish power is out. Just recently it was ‘third rail’, touch-and-die, deadly dangerous to mention, certain end to a career. Just recently, Joe Public snapped his TV from an eminence with an Israeli passport to a member of a Jewish think-tank, and muttered to himself: Surely it is just a coincidence that so many important and largely unelected people in our country happen to belong to this small minority group. Surely it is just a coincidence that they belong to different parties but reach the same conclusions. Surely it is just a coincidence that ninety per cent of American foreign aid goes to their cousins in prosperous Tel Aviv. Surely it is just a coincidence that they run our newspapers, television, cinema, universities. Anyway, we are not allowed to notice this elephant in our sitting room. Only rare desperados comment, as Edgar Steele did on Rense.com: “The silence in America concerning Jews is simply deafening, isn't it? The old adage has it that, when visiting a foreign country, to ascertain who really runs things, one need determine only who is spoken about in whispers, if at all.” Judged by this measure, the Jews rule supreme. Indeed, when I referred to ‘Jewish media lords’ during a UNESCO conference in the summer of 2001, the audience’s hearts missed a beat. The yet-unfought War on Iraq changed this. The American Ultimatum date was set on 17 March, the Jewish feast of Purim. Purim, 1991 saw destruction of Iraqi armies and death of 200,000 Iraqis. Too many coincidences for a purely American war. The Americans peeped into the bottomless abyss of World War Three and woke up from their generation-long stupor. Thus the first victim of the Iraqi War is not truth, but the strongest taboo in the West. A Democrat member of Congress, usually a most docile specimen, one James Moran, dared to tell his supporters: "If it were not for the strong support of the Jewish community for this war with Iraq we would not be doing this." He was immediately slapped by a Jewish overseer: "It is simply stunning to The secret is out, and like the secret of King Midas and his long ears, it is being sung now from coast to coast, despite the frantic efforts of the organised Jewish community to clamp the lid back on the boiling cauldron. Kathleen and Bill Christison,[i] two ex-CIA experts, exposed the link between right-wing American Jews and the Bush Administration. Edward Said, the most celebrated American thinker of Palestinian origin, stated the cause: “An immensely wealthy and powerful republic has been hijacked by a small cabal of individuals, all of them unelected and therefore unresponsive to public pressure.”[ii] He was seconded by courageous Herman, Neumann and Blankfort. These Americans of Jewish origin object to the un-elected, anti-democratic Jewish power as they would object to any disproportionate minority power. Their presence, as they were not afraid of the anti-Semitic label, was instrumental in turning the tide and saving the intimidated majority from its browbeating. Edward Herman, the author of Manufacturing Consent (together with Noam Chomsky), wrote of “the powerful pro-Israel lobby in the United States, which advances Israeli interests by pushing for U.S. aid and protection to Israel, and, currently, by pressing for a war against Iraq, which again will serve Israeli interests. This lobby has not only helped control media debate and made congress into `Israeli occupied territory’, it has seen to it that numerous officials with ‘dual loyalties’ occupy strategic decision-making positions in the Bush administration…” Jeffrey Blankfort, the Californian who defeated ADL in court and made Foxman pay heaps of dollars for his espionage against activists, took an important next step and rejected the views upheld by Noam Chomsky, Joel Beinin and Stephen Zunes, for these older radicals play down the crucial importance of Jewish power. Jeff Blankfort noticed the roots of the Rupture Evangelicals’ meteoric rise in the US. This obscure sect would never have left its lair in remote Dixie, but for the Jewish media lords. Jeff noticed that when Black Entertainment Television was taken over by Viacom, whose owner, Sumner Redstone (né Murray Rothstein), was recently described in the New York Times as the world's biggest media owner, he eliminated BET's news program and began running evangelical Christian infomercials for Israel. Blankfort’s list of ‘Jews in media’[iii] enables an understanding of the secret of Jewish charm, and it can be compared with a similar extensive list by Prof. Kevin MacDonald of California State University. The Iraqi War, and even more its linkage with Palestine, became the litmus test of Jewish power. Organised Jewry pushed for war and at the same time denied its involvement. Thus in New York City, the City Council rejected an anti-war resolution, and only 12 of its 51 members were for it. This is not strange for heavily Jewish New York. Indeed, a Democrat, Rep. Robert Jackson, said it in a most straightforward way: "New York City is the home away from home for most Jews; and many members of the Jewish community think [the war is] in the best interests of the state of Israel." According to Jackson, several of his council colleagues have been intimidated into silence by the pro-Israel crowd: “People are not talking about this." Jackson was certainly right, but a Jewish newspaper[iv] (surprisingly or not, all newspapers in the New York area are Jewish) condemned him for … racism: “[He claimed that] not only do the Jews run New York City, but they've cowed their opponents into silence. Jackson could as well call New York Hymietown.” This response is remarkable for its typically Jewish logic. First, the opponent’s rational argument is perverted and distorted, then it is aligned with opprobrium; and at the last stage, the opponent is destroyed forever. That is one of the secrets of Jewish might: the Jews enter a dialogue berserk- like, with great vehemence, quite foreign to the Socratic style. While sane people are satisfied with quoting their opponent and fighting his arguments, madmen (for berserk is a temporarily-mad individual) go for the jugular. David Mamet, the Jewish American playwright, provides a good example of this vehemence as he notices a “Volvo of old, the vehicle of my brethren, the congenitally liberal. It was festooned, as are its kind, with every sort of correct exhortation: Save James Bay, Honour Diversity, and so on. A most interesting bumper sticker read: Israel Out of the Settlements … a slogan which could best be translated as Hook-nosed Jews Die”. I wonder why Mamet stopped at this, for with equal adequacy the slogan can be translated as Torture Babies, Denounce America and Burn Apple Pie. Who cares for the form of the Jewish nose? Mel Brooks noticed long ago that Jewish girls have the cutest noses, made by the best plastic surgeons… It is the racist Jewish policies in occupied Palestine that annoy good, ‘congenitally liberal’ people. But if Mamet were honest, he would not be Mamet. Now, Bill Keller of the NY Times read the Riot Act to the Americans. He kindly allows that ‘most of the big Jewish organizations and many donors are backing the war’ but insists that ‘the idea that Israel's interests are driving one of the most momentous shifts in America's foreign policy is simple- minded and offensive’. Well, Keller is certainly being paid for his convictions by a Jewish media lord, and one of the nastiest, Arthur Sulzberger Jr, the owner of the NY Times, the Boston Globe and a host of other publications. This undermines the possible veracity of Keller’s words. Let something similar be written in a thoroughly non-Jewish newspaper! But alas, there are no important media outlets in the US that are not owned or controlled by Jews … Surely a coincidence? Do not bet on it. A few days ago, in the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, an important all-Jewish conference on anti-Semitism took place under the auspicious aegis of the Sasson Centre. The talk given by the French Jewish historian Simcha Epstein dealt with pre-war France but pertained more immediately to America. This is what Epstein said: The pre-war anti-Semites said that the Jews of France organized a syndicate secretly bankrolling and subverting the press. And what did the Jews say at that time? They said: "Of course not! No, it's a lie, of course not! We are not engaged in conspiracies!" And what did the historians and the Jewish historiography coming afterwards say? "Of course not! It is anti-Semitic drivel!" But we know now from Jewish sources that before the WWII the Jews of France secretly financed the press. Since the end of 19th century, there was a secret Jewish organization, well financed, which bought and bankrolled newspapers. Sometimes it took over existing newspapers, which suddenly became pro-Dreifus because they received Jewish subsidies. New papers were created especially by the Jews. Two very important papers of the period, one was called Les Droits de l'Homme, the Rights of Man, was financed by the Jews, and L'Humanité, which was the Socialist and then the Communist newspaper of France, was also financed by Jews. I say this on the authority Jewish sources of course. And this brings us to a dramatic dilemma of historiography. Saying this, saying what I said, is something horrible and unacceptable, because it means that the Jews organized a conspiracy and secretly bought the media, or part of the media. That was precisely what the anti-Semites said at that time, and what they still say today. And we know now from Jewish sources that the allegations were true, that there was a Jewish clandestine activity of bankrolling the press. Some people perceive every suggestion that Jews are able to act together as a mad conspiracy theory. Let them read and re-read this report by a Jewish historian made at a Jewish conference. If it is proven now beyond any reasonable doubt that the Jews of France secretly bought and subverted French media for many years in order to distort the national discourse and eventually push unprepared France into the horrible and unneeded World Actually there is no need for secrecy. One of the chief Zionist ideologists, Zeev Hefetz (ex-spokesman of PM Begin), wrote in an American daily: "Disarming Iraq is only a start in Middle East" as “the Arab and Iranian (sic!) cultures” are "irrational" and that nothing can be done, short of war, to "improve the collective mental health of Arab societies". [v]Certainly this massive ‘disarmament’ will be carried out by American soldiers, though the commands will be given by the Jewish chicken-hawks roosting in Pentagon. As for reasons for the war, they were eloquently stated by a keynote speaker at a conference on anti-Semitism by Yehuda Bauer, the director of the Holocaust Memorial Institute Yad va-Shem in Jerusalem: The Jews are not a nation, neither a religion, he said. They are a civilisation, and they have their civilising mission. They cannot tolerate the competing civilisation of Islam, as they could not tolerate Christendom or Communism. That is why the war with Islam is unavoidable. But the war is avoidable. Even today, at minutes before H-hour, the war is avoidable. And if fire is unavoidable, let the Jewish advisers of President Bush be fired. Let this Purim see the great Exodus of the "Wolfowitz Cabal" from the Pentagon. Excluding the clinical possibility of his actual zombification, G W Bush should be able to understand that he has been misled by this powerful, un-elected minority. They cannot deliver what they promised. Moreover, their own days at the helm of the Republic are numbered. They over-estimated their abilities, and pushed too hard. As the frog of La Fontaine, they can blow up. Bush still can do a U-turn, and save himself and his country. In a way, today’s America reminds of Russia in 1986, at the beginning of glasnost. After the Soviet citizens were allowed to learn who rules them and how, the days of the Soviet regime were counted. Glasnost gave place to perestroika. Now, for the first time in a generation, Americans are allowed to see the men in power, the toxic combination of the Right-Wing Democrats of Lieberman, the Republican neo-liberals, the Neo-Cons and plain Con-men. The Iraqi War brought them forward and presented them in clear light. Now is the time to undo their hold. It can’t be postponed for the divisive presidency of G W Bush is perceived as the period of ‘White’ Protestant Anglo-Saxon rule, despite the prevalence of his Jewish advisers. All available contenders for the next elections - Lieberman, Kelly and even Kuchinich – claim their Jewish connections and declare their undivided loyalty to Jewry and to the state of Israel. In the present political setup of America, there will be no real alternative to Jewish ascendancy. If Bush flops, it will be construed by the media as a WASP flop. If he succeeds, it will be seen as success of his Jewish advisers. That is why American patriot forces should not wait for the next elections, or for the end of war. They must act now, by calling the war off. They have an enemy, but he is not in Iraq. What is called for is a new American revolution, on a par with the New Deal and abolition of slavery, with de- monopolisation of the discourse; that is of media and universities, for starters. In the beginning of the Twentieth Century, Americans undid the mighty Standard Oil. They created new anti-monopoly laws and terminated the threat to democracy. This achievement could be repeated now. [ An attachment, image/gif: arefrule.gif : data size 1kb, was included here ] [i] Kathleen and Bill Christison, `A Rose By Another Name: The Bush Administration's Dual Loyalties’, Counterpunch, Dec. 13, 2002). [ii] http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2003/628/op2.htm [iii] Here is enough sampling to indicate that it is not: First of all, Sumner Redstone ( né Murray Rothstein) owns $8 billion dollars worth of Viacom, which gives him the controlling interest in CBS, Viacom, MTV worldwide (Brian Graden, president), and most recently he bought Black Entertainment Television and proceeded immediately to cut down its public-affairs programming. The president of CBS is Leslie Moonves, the great nephew of David Ben-Gurion. Michael Eisner is the major owner of Disney-Capitol Cities, which owns ABC. David Westin is the president of ABC News. Although it has lost viewers, Nightline host Ted Koppel is a strong supporter of Israel. Lloyd Braun is chair of ABC Entertainment. And there is the perennial Barbara Walters. Neil Shapiro is the president of NBC News. Jeffrey Zucker is the head of NBC Entertainment and Jack Myers has some important post there, as well. Although Rupert Murdoch of Fox is not Jewish, Mel Karamazin, the president of the corporation is, as is Peter Chernin, the second in command at Murdoch's News Corps. Sandy Grushow is chairman of Fox Entertainment, and Gail Berman is president. Murtdoch has received numerous awards from various Jewish charities. Jamie Kellner is chair and CEO of Turner Broadcasting. Walter Issacson is the News Director of CNN which also has Wolf Blitzer, host of Late Edition, Larry King of Larry King Live, Paula Zahn, and Andrea Koppel, Ted's daughter. Jordan Levin is chairman of Warner Bros. Entertainment. Howard Stringer is chair of Sony Corp. of America. Robert Sillerman is the founder of Clear Channel Communications, Ivan Seidenberg is chair of Verizon Communications Terry Semel, former co-chair of Warners is CEO of Yahoo. Barry Diller, former owner of Universal Entertainment, is the chair of USA Interactive. Joel Klein is chair and CEO of Bertelsmann's American operations, the largest publishing conglomerate in the world. Mort Zuckerman, the Chair of the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish American Organizations, owns US News and World Report and the NY Daily News. Arthur Sulzberger, Jr. publishes the NY Times, the Boston Globe and a host of other publications. Marty Peretz publishes the New Republic, which is unabashedly pro-Israel, as is William Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard. Donald Graham, Jr. is the chair and CEO of Newsweek and the Washington Post. Michael Ledeen, of Iran-Contra fame, edits National Review. Ron Rosenthal is the Managing Editor of the SF Chronicle and Phil Bronstein is the Executive Editor. David Schneiderman owns the Village Voice and a number of other "alternative" weeklies. Columnist William Safire, Tom Freidman, Charles Krauthammer, Richard Cohen, Jeff Jacoby, are among the most widely syndicated columnists. There are a number of widely syndicated talk show hosts such as Michael Savage (ABC) on more than 100 stations, Michael Medved, 124 stations, and Dennis Prager who has an Israeli flag on his website. Others include Ron Owens, Ben Wattenberg, and former ZOA official Jon Rothman, all in San Francisco on ABC. In Hollywood, which was founded by Jews, there is of course, Stephen Spielberg, David Geffen, and Jeffrey Kranzberg of Dreamworks, Eisner of Disney, Amy Pascal, chair of Columbia, and many, many more. For the intellectuals, we have NPR, with pundit Daniel Schorr and weekend hosts Scott Simon and Liane Hansen, Robert Segal, Susan Stanberg, Eric Weiner, Daniel Lev, Linda Gradstein (a well-known speaker at pro-Israel events) covering Jerusalem, Mike Schuster (whose soft-ball interview with Ariel Sharon after Sabra and Shatila should have brought him before the court of Hamarabi). Brook Gladstein. And that's just for starters. From the boss to the delivery it's an impressive list. While they certainly can't be put in the same box when it comes to Israel, they more or less guarantee that there will be limits to any criticism they may make of Israel”. [iv] NY Post 22.02.03 [v] November 12, 2002 The New Haven Register Dear M, You are clearly very passionate about the issue of whether or not members of the Exeter PSC support Israel Shamir. I have to confess that I had never heard of him before these series of E-Mails and whilst I found them interesting, I did not find the issue particularly central to my involvement. To my mind it goes without saying, that it is rediculous to blame all Jews and Judaism for the crimes committed against the Palestinian and other people. I am involved with the group because I want to do what little I can to support the Palestinian people and that, I continue to do what ever I learn about this man - it will make no difference. I write to members of Parliament at Westminster and Brussels, I look out for examples of unfair press, I take part in 'Checkpoint simulations' and other events to raise awareness of the plight of the Palestinian people and I will do what ever else I feel I can do well enough to make a difference. I would rather spend my time concentrating on practical ways to advance these activities. I see no reason for, nor do I understand the 'change' you advocate. SB Dear Exeter PSC Re: Support for “Israel Shamir” It seems the group has little appetite for resolving a key policy issue, i.e. whether it’s acceptable or productive to blame all Jews and Judaism itself for the shameful racist crimes committed against the Palestinians, Lebanese and many others in the name of Zionism – a political movement which I rejected 30 years go and have opposed, sometimes at great personal risk, ever since. I had assumed I was helping the group when I pointed out that “Israel Shamir” is actually “a notorious Swedish fascist” and that his writings have been widely condemned by progressive supporters of the Palestinian struggle of all religions and ethnic backgrounds. So I was stunned and saddened to receive emails from members of the group defending the man. I prefer not to split hairs about the precise definition of fascism. Instead, for the sake of progress, I’ll amend my comment to read, “Israel Shamir is a notorious Swedish white-supremacist and racist writer called Joran Jermas”. I have now provided you with conclusive proof from Swedish government files that they are indeed the same man. This isn’t a simple matter of a writer using a pseudonym. At least one the identities must be false. I had the pleasure of exposing the Zionist version of “Israel Shamir” many years ago when I was on a speaking tour of New Zealand. I was the first Jew ever invited to speak in the mosque at Christchurch. To counteract my presence New Zealand’s Zionists had imported the UK-based pulp-writer, Dr John Laffin, to stage a rival speaking tour. Laffin is the author of the unbelievably racist book, “The Arab Mind”. He met his demise on a radio phone-in whose host had been primed by local Palestine solidarity activists. The host read out quotes from Laffin’s books but substituted the word “Maori” for “Arab”. The switchboard went into meltdown; Laffin stormed out of the studio, cancelled his speaking tour and speedily fled the country. I wrote up the story for Middle East International. The Palestine activists then sued the national TV station, NZBC. It had interviewed Dr Laffin as an “expert on Arab affairs”, an opportunity he used to claim New Zealand was “a soft target” riddled with “terrorist Islamic sleeper cells” and to stoke up anti-Muslim sentiments. Back home in the UK I helped the activists win their case by uncovering the truth about Laffin. He’d bought his “doctorate” from some PO Box in Oxford and his first degree was a complete fabrication. He had no academic or “expert” status whatsoever. As far as I’m concerned anyone who believes the racist trash produced by “Israel Shamir” is just as misled as those on the other side who lapped up the vacuous bullshit about Arabs being peddled by “Dr” John Laffin. They are both red-neck phoneys. I wish I could simply walk away now saying, “Exeter PSC supports that racist, Israel Shamir, and so I don’t want to be involved with them”: but of course that isn’t an option. Exeter PSC has to change or be changed. M E-mail: SERIOUS CONCERNS ABOUT ISRAEL SHAMIR From Ali Abunimah & Hussein Ibish (acting solely in his private capacity) Dear Friends: In recent months, many people have been reading the writings of Israel Shamir, who describes himself as a Russian-Israeli journalist. Many have been impressed by these writings, and Shamir has been embraced in many places in the US on his current speaking tour. From early on, some of Shamir's writings struck us as straying beyond criticism of Israel and Zionism, and crossing into the territory of implicit anti-Semitism. We have discussed this with many people privately, but now feel compelled to raise some of these objections publicly. While there are many passages in Shamir's rhetoric that cause serious concern, it is sufficient to cite these three: 1) Yesterday we received an "Easter Message" from Shamir in which he repeats the most odious characterizations of Jews as "Christ killers," the staple of classic European Christian anti-Semitism. In the message, which originates from Shamir's own email address, he writes: "Jesus taught, love your neighbour as yourself, even if he is a traditional enemy of Jews, a Samaritan. That is why he was hated by the Jewish supremacists of his time. He said: you can not worship God and Mammon, the god of greed, you have to choose. That is why he was hated by supply-side economists and bankers of his day. They sentenced him to death and the Empire obliged and carried out the execution, in order to keep peace with these all-important forces. Our fathers did not dare to speak against their leaders. The spirit of domination scored a victory, but the spirit of brotherhood did not vanish." Shamir continues: "The Jewish supremacy forces and the greed worshippers united again to crucify Christ. The US, this New Rome, again gives hand and agrees to become the executioner. Now it is our turn to decide." Palestinians, Shamir argues, are today's Christ, and history has given the Jews a "second chance" i.e. a chance to redeem their earlier crucifixion of Jesus by not crucifying the Palestinians. "If we keep our mouth shut," Shamir writes, "we deserve to be called 'Christ killers.' If we stop it, we shall change history. The scarlet as blood sins of past will become white as snow. [sic]" We cannot agree that Jews "deserve" to be called "Christ killers," or that this kind of rhetoric has anything whatever to offer of value to the movement for Palestinian liberation and human rights. All this sort of rhetoric does, no matter who it comes from, is paint the Palestinian movement as one which includes, requires, or embraces a discourse which vilifies, or threatens to vilify, Jews as "Christ killers." What could be more counterproductive to building the community of conscience, the powerful moral stance, which is and must be the goal of those of us in the United States who support Palestinian rights, than the introduction of this kind of rhetoric into our conversation? How could we do more to discredit ourselves than by allowing such ideas to proliferate in behalf of a movement that has no need whatever to stoop to vilifying others to justify itself? 2) Shamir recently gave a speech at Tufts University. He is quoted as saying at that speech: "Palestinians are perfect mammals; their life is deeply rooted in the ground...Israeli people represent a virus form of a human being because they can live anywhere." ("Israel at fault for Middle East violence, Jewish journalist says," The Tufts Daily, April 10, 2001) The quote appears to be verified and accurate. This is, if anything, even worse than the "Christ killers" language drawn from traditional European Christian anti-Semitism. The "Jew-as-parasite" analysis recalls the even more vicious political and racial, rather than folkloric and religious, anti-Semitism which emerged during the 19th century in Europe and culminated in the Nazi genocide of World War II. This description of Jews as 'parasites' or "viruses" cast them as immutably alien to all societies in which they lived, and contrasted the 'international Jew' with the supposedly 'authentic' volkish people, who have deep connections to the land of the nation and who are the creators of social and economic value. The 'inauthentic' Jews were always 'foreigners' and "viruses" because, as Shamir puts it, "they can live anywhere," and are not rooted to the land as the non-Jewish population supposedly is. They are cast as parasites and diseases that feed off of the productivity and creativity of the authentic people, without ever contributing anything themselves. It is disturbing to see the Palestinian people cast as the 'honest volkish people' of what is, in effect, racist rhetoric about why Jews are a fundamentally different and dangerous type of human being. Palestinians are not "perfect mammals," they are human beings like everyone else. No better, and no worse. Israeli Jews are not "a virus form of a human being," they are a human form of a human being, whose government and state is engaged in a brutal oppression and dispossession of another group of human beings. Our battle is for human rights and human dignity, and against racism, colonialism and oppression. It should be obvious to everyone that this statement by Shamir crosses all lines of decency, and could not be better designed to damage, denigrate and bring into disrepute the movement for Palestinian human rights. 3) On March 30, the Jerusalem Post published an op/ed that reported: "Two weeks ago, Russian-language journalist Israel Shamir told a largely Jewish audience: 'Jews only exist to drip the blood of Palestinian children into their matzas.'" ("The Jewish student - a minnow among sharks," March 30, 2001) If this is an accurate quote, it is another example of the repetition of the worst kind of anti-Semitism. Shamir has privately denied saying this, but does not appear to have taken any action to correct the record publicly or to be in any way upset about the attribution. Obviously, we have no trouble believing that the Jerusalem Post might have mischaracterized someone's words. However, if the report is not accurate, one has to ask why Shamir has allowed such a gross misquotation to stand unchallenged. If he is indeed working in the interests of Palestinian liberation, surely he has an obligation not to let such a mischaracterization go uncorrected. Moreover, given the "Christ-killers" and "Jews-as-viruses" statements, the Jerusalem Post quote seems increasingly less out of character. Many people have welcomed the contributions of Israel Shamir in good faith, but we feel they may not be paying close enough attention to what he is saying. Perhaps this is because many of us welcome criticism of Israel from someone who appears to be an "insider," that our hunger for validation from Jewish Israelis sometimes allows us to proceed without the requisite skepticism or overlook excesses we otherwise would not tolerate. Perhaps some are ready to overlook statements that appeal to anti-Semitic sentiments because the person making them identifies himself as a Jew. But the identity of the speaker makes such statements no less odious and harmful. We do not have any need for some of what Israel Shamir is introducing into the discourse on behalf of Palestinian rights, which increasingly includes elements of traditional European anti-Semitic rhetoric. Such sentiments will harm, not help, the cause. We urge all our friends in the movement for Palestinian rights to seriously consider the long-term effects this rhetoric will have on the cause, and act accordingly. Ali Abunimah (http://www.abunimah.org) April 16, 2001
As an outside obesrver of the correspondence, my feeling is that the EPSC is in danger of becoming the Palestine Debating Society. I agree that it's important to make sure of the people we identify with, and I appreciate the comments on both sides, particularly the great care and time taken by R in his arguments. But please don't let's become an acrimonious debating society. Do none of you have any comment to make on this? This is conclusive proof, for the first time, that these men are the same person. The place and date of birth are also the same as those claimed by "Israel Shamir". The picture is the result of my long experience working as an investigative journalist. It comes from the Passport Registry Office in Sweden from which anyone can legally obtain and copy such information. Writers often use pen names. I use the nom de plume Roxon. However, unlike Mr Shamir I don't have another country's passport in that fictional name. M MR 10 January 2005 14:10:54 Here is a copy of Mr Jermas' Swedish passport, and two pictures of Mr Shamir. "Israel Shamir" is "Joran Jermas". (picture attachments) Dear R Gosh. Such a lot of denial. By the way, am I included in your final-line apology to "anyone else" you've offended? Please clarify. As for primary sources, what better than the racist's own website? There we find articles in praise of the KKK and learn "Why Zionism is racism but anti-semitism is not", &c. http://www.israelshamir.net/english/JohD.shtml It's a white-supremacist site. He did fool some people for a while, but for non-racists that ended in 2001. We may not be able to run background checks on every website or article, but we can learn to recognise racist sentiments and ideas when we see them and warn one another about them, not circulate and promote them as "interesting". Personally I don't wish to be associated with or flirt with such 'thinkers', their sympathisers or their defenders, no matter how many crocodile tears they shed for the Palestinians. They have their own objectives – and Muslims aren't far behind Jews on their hate-list. "Mr Shamir/Jermas" is thought to be a former KGB operative, in which case his 'past' will have been fixed by professionals. Who he really is and whose interests he's serving at the moment are open questions. But we can judge his ideas and his friends on their own merit. You have circulated some inaccurate statements about me, e.g. "flinging the charge of Anti-Semitism around" – I'm afraid that's entirely your invention, R. I described "Shamir's" rubbish as "anti-Jewish", and the man himself as "a notorious Swedish fascist" (not a "well-known Fascist", as you say in your endless email). My original mail included a link to and sections from an expose of this notorious Swedish fascist, and so it is false to describe it as an "unsubstantiated assertion". I can only assume you don't agree with me because you agree with "Mr Shamir". I'm attaching links which bring us closer to a definitive position on this racist spook. M [ An attachment, image/pdf: Roland on Israel Shamir.PDF : data size 220kb, was included here ] Hi everyone, In a recent email, someone who frequently writes in support of the Palestinian struggle (Israel Shamir) has been branded as a "well-known Fascist". (See M's Email, 'Tsunami Gaza') I think we should take this charge seriously. If we conclude that indeed someone is a Fascist and is supporting the Palestinian struggle I for one would like to make very clear our distance from that person. Not to do so would not only weaken the public solidarity work in support of Palestine, it would also sow confusion and attract the wrong kind of support. However, we need to be very sure of our evidence before coming to such a conclusion. In my eyes the charge of 'Fascism' is probably the most serious accusation possible to make against any person and especially so against someone from a Jewish background whose culture is steeped in the history of the Nazi Fascist holocaust. I think, therefore, the charge should be substantiated by the strongest, clearest and fullest possible evidence drawn from primary sources, not simply promoted and left as an unsubstantiated assertion as M did in the original Email. In addition, I think those who feel certain that Shamir is a Fascist should not only demonstrate it with primary evidence but also through their research try to help us to understand how someone from a Jewish background could become a Fascist and the process which led to it. Maybe this would shed some light on the mentality of the Israeli Zionists for those Jewish people who wholeheartedly support collective capitalist colonial forms (as Fascism is a form of) normally become Zionists. To become a part (a Fascist) of what had been the instrument for the annihilation of European Jewry, I would hazard a guess, would be a tortuous intellectual and political journey for any Jewish person. This point aside, it is of course possible that someone could enthusiastically support the Palestinian struggle from a fascist position of opposing everything Jewish. But of course being a Fascist is about a lot more than being opposed to everything Jewish. Fascism is not just being against something, it is about being for something as well. A Fascist usually exhibits an authoritarian and violent personality along with, a superior race mentality and a desire approaching totalitarian control of a military power with which to conquer and subject other lands and other peoples. Fascists seek to unite 'their' people irrespective of their location and their class and weld them into a force in order to conquer and subject others. German Fascism certainly played the anti-Semitic race card with regard to all Jews but also projected the ideology of 'Aryan' or 'Germanic' superiority and a plan for Germans to rule an expanded and colonised Greater Germany. Italian Fascism, according to Mussolini, initially saw the Slavs as "nests of infection" and Germans as a 'vipers' nest, so racism was evident there along with their own desire for territorial expansion. Spanish Fascism was Anti-Semitic but, from what I have read, to a less extent than Germany. But all notable Fascists were not just racist (Anti-Semitic, Anti-Slav, etc) but para-military, elitist, pan- nationalistic, opposed to parliamentary democracy, anti-communist and violent. Someone who was really an Anti-Semitic Fascist would be unlikely to advocate support for Palestine simply to oppose Jews, but would be eager to broadcast and advocate much more. He or she would have a programme of action in support of some or all of the above characteristics. However, much they might mask aspects of their programme, (to disguise any objectionable intentions) some things inevitably would leak out in their pronouncements. Over a period of time, we would undoubtedly find suggestions of pan- nationalism, anti-democratic, authoritarian, violence and notions of racial 'superiority' or ethnic belonging. So it should be possible to demonstrate these characteristics if they exist. I have tried to check it out myself and have read a number of articles by Israel Shamir, but I have detected none of the characteristics required of a Fascist. I have not agreed with everything he has written, nor have I read everything he has written, but so far I see no evidence to support the emphatic assertion that he is a "well known fascist". Indeed if he is he fooled Edward Said, (who called him an intrepid journalist) Gillad Atzmon (Musician), William Hughes (Writer for CounterPunch.) Of course the clearest possible evidence may be available somewhere, but so far I haven't seen it. The charge of being Anti-Semitic is also a bit problematic since he vigorously supports other Semites - his support for the Palestinian Semites struggle against Zionist aggression appears to be intense, vocal and consistent. An additional problem with to readily flinging the charge of Anti- Semitism around at this particular time is that the definition of what constitutes Anti-Semitism is contested ground from within the Jewish Community as well as elsewhere. Since the Zionists have asserted that all criticism of Israel or Jewishness is Anti-Semitic, and Anti-Zionist Jews have challenged this, there is now no clearly agreed definition. Anti-Semitism is clearly a form of prejudice, and prejudice means 'an adverse judgement is made beforehand without knowledge or examination of the facts'. It also means 'unreasonable pre-conceived convictions' or 'an irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular group'. So it is easy to see why so much is difficult to pin down and each case - in my opinion - needs to taken on its merits. Using these criteria we need to ask was a judgement made beforehand without knowledge or examination of the facts? Are unreasonable preconceived convictions being brought to bear? Is there an irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular group operating? The areas presently being contested in the case of Israel and its Jewish supporters will I guess lie in discussing 'what is irrational suspicion' or what preconceived convictions are irrational, or was a judgement made beforehand without knowledge or examination of the facts. The above suggestions toward a definition would seem to imply that if a judgement is made with knowledge and examination of the facts, then it is not prejudice. If preconceived convictions are not unreasonable in the circumstances then it is not prejudice. If there is a rational suspicion due to previous patterns and current patterns of behaviour, then again it is not prejudice. Such questions would only move the debate on to examine the correctness and interpretation of the facts, to consider what is unreasonable, and what is irrational. That is why I believe each case would have to be taken on its merit with all the circumstances considered. That means more work of course but it is the only way of not being prejudiced in considering prejudice. That is to say that making your mind up to call someone prejudiced (ie Racist, Anti-Semitic, Fascist etc) on the basis of someone saying so, without knowledge or examination of the facts or if it is based upon an unreasonable preconception or if it is done so on the basis of an irrational suspicion, is itself a form of prejudice. So we need an agreed definition (not necessarily that offered above) before we can seriously make such a charge or else it will be left to each individual (or group) to decide their own definition and apply it where they individually see fit. This I suggest will not help clarity or solidarity work - it will only lead to confusion and disgust. In reading Shamir, I provisionally think an accusation of Judophobia could be much nearer the mark but even here we should take extreme care before branding someone beforehand without sufficient examination of the facts. What I found particularly interesting in the article I sent round, and thought others might find so (along with the content), was the fact that someone with a Jewish background was not afraid to point out - on a sensitive issue - what he considered as the anti-humanist activities of a section of his own people, in a situation of intense humanitarian crisis. In this context, if he is still a Jew, then he may well consider himself a 'whistle-blower' from within the Jewish tradition. If he has lapsed or converted he may be exhibiting the frequently observed characteristic of being a very angry and vocal opponent lashing out at his former faith. We don't know his personal history or all his motives - we can't get to know everyone. My general approach (on any material received from sources unknown to me) has been, and continues to be based upon; (whatever the 'tone' seems to me personally, i.e. agreeable/disagreeable, mocking, ironic, amusing, sarcastic); does what is written reveal real aspects and problems or imaginary ones? So the question for me is - does Shamir's article/s reveal real problems or imaginary (irrational) ones or even does it contain both? What is factually accurate and what is factually innacurate! I properly left those questions for people to judge for themselves. I did check out that part of the story was run on Haaretz and it was. Shamir had clearly put his own interpretation on it. Incidentally, if we had to agree with the tone of everything we hear or read before we listen to the content of the message, I think our understanding of the diversity of life and opinions would be very restricted, and our lives very lonely ones. The 1970's feminists directed some very insulting criticisms my (and other male activists) way but a lot of what they said was essentially correct. If you dismissed them as lesbian, men- hating gender fascists - as some men did - you missed the point. That is not to say we should not be sensitive to the feelings of others, but being too sensitive would prevent criticism of nearly everything. Capitalists will no doubt be very hurt by what Anti-Capitalists write about them and the exploitative/destructive system they uphold. As a revolutionary humanist my views and criticisms of all religions would be (will be when published) resented by many people of faith no matter how carefully I word them. Oppressors as well as the oppressed everywhere are human and have feelings, but if we are against inhumanity and unfairness, we and other people are entitled to speak out against those who are considered to perpetuate those characteristics even at the risk of upsetting them. Having read more since M's 2nd Email, I think Israel Shamir is in some ways considerably mixed up as he also writes somewhat apologetically of Joseph Stalin (!) and seemingly enthusiastically about Christianity - two almost opposite ideologies. The fact that Hitler admired Stalin's ruthlessness in dealing with opponents is insufficient evidence, for me to jump to the conclusion Shamir is a Fascist, for many socialists and communists practically worshiped Stalin. He allowed some garbled stuff about Nationalism to be posted on his site, but in the time available I have still discovered no clear and unequivocal suggestion of Fascism in his writings! Let me again make myself clear so no misunderstanding can be made. I am not defending Shamir here (or anywhere else), but I am for defending his right to a fair trial if we are being asked to judge him - and we most certainly are! In a further Email to me personally, M intimates I might need race awareness training for circulating Shamir's article to our restricted Simm group. Is this an extension of the judgement by what you read and suggest others read reflex I ask myself? Now it seems I am to be considered slightly 'suspect' as a supporter of Palestine by at least one of our new members. I suggest that is a very good way to sow doubt and break up cohesion in our solidarity work. Well it may be true that I would benefit from more race awareness training. I am for thoroughness in most things - except perhaps in tidying my study! But in fact for me to accept a charge of Fascism against someone of Jewish background - from someone I hardly know - without substantial proof would to me be much closer to being Anti-Semitic, than circulating his material to our restricted group for information and comment. Even if Shamir were not from a Jewish background I would still be very much against quickly or automatically branding any supporter of the Palestinian Struggle as Fascist, again until very strong primary evidence was revealed to support this accusation. And this would be the case - no matter what quarter the accusation came from. In the West Bank on one journey I met a young Palestinian man who clearly hated what the Israeli's were doing to him and his people, he then went on to say that Hitler was right in regard to the Jews. I disagreed with him and said so, but in that short acquaintance did I have sufficient evidence to conclude he was a Fascist? I don't think so. He was certainly angry and deeply prejudiced. There are Zionists who wish to weaken and divide the struggle for justice in Palestine, by alleging that Palestinian Solidarity groups harbour Fascists, Anti-Semites and even help and support Terrorists. That accusation came up when I was in Palestine with the ISM in 2002. In this way they hope to undermine and even split our campaign. Let us be very sure that we are not doing their work for them. So lets first get plenty of first hand evidence of what he is saying and what he stands for, and then make a considered judgement and decide what, if anything, to do. (Anyone with the time and inclination can check out Shamir's web site on www.israelshamir.net) Why such extreme caution? Well in addition to the points made above, the long history of what I call revolutionary humanist activism is littered with people unfairly branded in order to negate their opinions or to silence them. From the trials of heretics (males and females) on assertion and hearsay by medieval Catholicism and Protestantism, through the show trials (of former comrades) by Stalinism and on to the modern distorted sectarian polemics on the left, the history of unfairly labelling and branding outspoken critics is a long and distasteful one. Once we allow branding by association, assertion and hearsay to go unchallenged for those we don't know, sooner or later the method will be used against us personally. Not deterred, however, until I see clear evidence of his being a Fascist I personally will continue to peruse his material and even then I would probably try to monitor some of it. For as indicated above, I would be considerably intrigued to understand how a Jew (or ex Jew) can become a Fascist and at the same time severely criticise Zionism, which as I have pointed out elsewhere parallels almost exactly the early stages of German Fascism. If he has become a Fascist, why didn't he just become a Zionist? Incidentally, I don't think we should allow ourselves to be censured or put off reading or circulating material from many alternative sources because of who wrote them. I have just read Hitler's 'Mein Kamf', Herzl's 'The Jewish State', and written about the parallels between the ideas and practices contained within them. I did so not because I am a Fascist, racist, Zionist or Anti-Semite, (in my definition) but because I think in activism it is important to understand ones opponents viewpoint as well as the variety, intentions, contradictions - and even the limitations - of one's supporters. Personally I do think it is very important that we listen attentively to the often ferocious debate going on between those of Jewish origin or background over the question of Israel and Palestine. In my view to miss out on this in developing solidarity work would be quite remiss. However, if anyone on the Simm group list, objects to having any material forwarded from ANY source, do let me know and I won't send it on even if I think it is interesting, revealing, challenging or thought provoking. So finally, I am sorry, if forwarding this particular article has offended anyone else - that was certainly not my intention. R Dear All regards, Here's a report on "Shamir" by my good and trusted friend Roland Rance (PDF file). [ An attachment, image/pdf: shamir.PDF : data size 220kb, was included here ] Also a copy of "Shamir's" response (in which he incidentally confirms his address in Sweden). Not Cricket By Israel Shamir In its September 2004 issue, the leftist American magazine Socialist Viewpoint published a ferocious attack entitled “Israel Shamir: Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing”, a personal libel against me by a Roland Rance. A minor British trade union functionary, Rance is a leading member of a leftish group Jews against Zionism. Despite their name, The Jews against Zionism produce mainly complaints against “antisemitism” and indulge in apology of Judaism and Jewishness. Rance hits below the belt (probably because he can’t reach any higher). Instead of dealing with my ideas, he launches a personal attack: “Shamir’s resume[1] reads like a work of fantasy: grandson of a rabbi, Israeli paratrooper, translated Agnon, Herzog, Joyce and the Talmud into Russian, parliamentary spokesman for Mapam, worked for the BBC. I don’t believe a word of it”. Rance is free to believe what he wants. He may believe in Flat Earth theory and disbelieve Galileo and Copernicus. However, the Socialist Viewpoint, if the magazine wants to be considered trustworthy, can’t publish such rubbish unchecked. * My Russian translations of Agnon and Joyce were published and re- published in Russia and abroad, see ISBN 45-85220-487-0 and ISBN 5-05-005113-4 and are available on a number of websites, see http:// www.israelshamir.net/ru/agnon.htm and http://www.israelshamir.net/ru/ ulysse.htm ; my translation of Herzog was published in London by Nina Karsov in 1986 <http://hedir.openu.ac.il/kurs/pol-bibliogr.html > and republished in 2004 in Moscow < http://oz.by/books/more1010690.html >, my translation of Talmud-related texts is also available on the web http:// www.israelshamir.net/talmud/indexoftalmud.html . * As for my paratrooper’s past, one can read another vicious attack on me published by the extreme-right Maariv newspaper with title: “Israeli Paratrooper became a darling of antisemites”. Ben Dror Yamini, the author of this eight-pages-long ‘expose’ met with many people who know me, collected all the ill rumours about my modest person; but even he did not try to take away from me my hard-earned red beret. * One telephone call to the BBC Personnel would confirm that I had a pleasure to be on their staff; the Mapam party activists remember me as their parliamentary group’s spokesman and shared it with the Israeli journalist bent on exposing me and my leftist views. * My saintly ancestor, not a grandfather -- my grandfather, a professor of mathematics, (probably another “work of fantasy,”) was quite irreligious -- but my great-great-grandfather, was a well-known rabbi in Tiberias, and his son established a synagogue in his name in Stockholm, Sweden. The plaque is still there to be seen. * For reasons of space and time I won’t go into debunking of his other preposterous claims taken verbatim from the right-wing Zionist sites Camera.org and Masada2000. Rance is notoriously dishonest. He writes: “Shamir’s son was deported from Israel to Sweden”, without mentioning that he was deported for breaking an Israeli army siege and for bringing food to Palestinians locked in the Bethlehem Church of Nativity. Rance is unfair. He writes: “Shamir forwarded an email from Birmingham University academic Sue Blackwell, including contact details [and it constituted] a serious threat to the physical safety of activists”. However, he did not hesitate to publish the address and a telephone of my Swedish family, though this act clearly endangers them. Would he like to see his address and telephone[2] published? This is just not cricket! Why does he play so rough? Rance’s article can be summarised in a few words: “Shamir is not a Jew”. He writes: “Shamir is a right-wing Russian who pretends to be an Israeli Jewish leftist… I am sure he was a Christian but found it useful to pose as a Jew”. This line is upheld by the editor in his introduction to the libel: “Shamir presented himself as a Russian Jew”. A non-Jew – worse, a Christian, - does not deserve fair play, one does not have to observe the rules of engagement dealing with a Goy - according to Rance, or according to the Socialist Viewpoint, the “revolutionary Marxist magazine” edited and published by Weinstein, Weinstein, Seligman and LeClair. The title of the libel carries the same racist message: a Russian Christian Wolf hides under a Jewish Sheep’s clothing. * I resent the insinuation of subterfuge, but this racist insistence on racial character of Jewishness is equally inadmissible. For the record: following Marx and Simone Weil, I object (and objected) to perpetuation of the Jewish identity. In an interview published in the Socialist Viewpoint in 2001, I have said: “I am against existence of a Jewish state per se. In my opinion, Jews in Palestine should become Palestinians, while Jews of France should be French.” This attitude is not exclusively Marxist: Sir Carl Popper refused to be included in the Judaic Encyclopaedia for, as he said, he “severed all ties with the Jewish religion and community”. I willingly ceased to be a Jew when I entered the Orthodox Church of the Holy Land, but this is not the only way out: hundreds Israelis petitioned the Supreme Court of Israel demanding their ‘Jewish nationality’ being stricken out and replaced by ‘Israeli’ or ‘Palestinian’. Two million Israeli citizens – Palestinians, Russians and Ethiopians – are not considered ‘Jews’ by the Jewish state and do not wish to. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Israelis (many of them hail from the USSR with its internationalist upbringing) are considered ‘Jews’ but nevertheless want to give up their Jewish exclusivity. They want to be Israelis, or Palestinians – but not Jews. This is not an academic point. The Israeli soul is the scene of struggle between two forces, between two loyalties: that to the land and that to the world-wide Jewish People. The loyalty to the land can eventually form a basis for complete unity with the native Palestinian people. The loyalty to world Jewry (Am Israel) is the basis of our xenophobia, of the Wall, of the apartheid state. The Palestinians are denied equal rights in order to sustain the ‘Jewish character’ of the state. The ugliest crimes of Zionism are perpetrated in the name of the Jewish People; ‘Jewishness’ is the engine of ethnic cleansing in our country. Thus our struggle against ‘the Jewish character of the State’ is an important spiritual element in the struggle for democracy in Palestine. But World Jewry fights back for their hold on our souls. Roland Rance is a foremost agent of Judaic influence; he wants us, Israelis, to be Jews. Indeed, as a member of the Socialist Workers' Party he stood for “replacement of the Jewish state of Israel by an Arab-Jewish democratic, secular Palestine”[3]. His motion was rightly dismissed, for ‘Arabs’ and ‘Jews’ are not two nations. ‘Arabs’ are a linguistic and cultural group of peoples which includes Palestinians, Syrians, Egyptians of all religions; the Jews are a religious caste, ‘class-people’ as Abram Leon has termed them. Roland Rance wants to perpetuate this caste; I want it undone. Roland Rance wants Israelis to remain Jews and preserve their separateness, I want them – us! - to become Palestinians of whatever religion or of no religion at all; to renounce all connection to the Jewish People abroad, to cut off ties with Abe Foxman and Morton Zuckerman, and even with Ronald Rance. All this talk of “Not in My Name” and “Judaism is not Zionism” is quite futile. We observe empirically: the less Jewish an Israeli is, the more likely he is to befriend Palestinians. Even General Rafael Eitan, who died a few days ago, was eulogised by many Palestinian friends; and he was an Arab-fighter, but not a Jew at all by his attitudes. There is no way around it: Israelis should be de-Judaised, or de-linked from the Jewish People overseas in order to link up with the natives. ** There is a second reason for my hostility to “Jewishness” – this concept is used to frighten ordinary Americans, Brits and Europeans away from their support of equality in Palestine by attaching the antisemitism stigma to it. Indeed, my relationship with The Socialist Viewpoint soured after publication of my essay The Marxists and the Lobby[4] where I criticised Nat Weinstein for his senseless repetition of the ‘danger of antisemitism’ mantra. As the result, if in 2001, “Socialist Viewpoint was proud to print articles by Israel Shamir of Tel Aviv[5]”; in the September 2004 issue I am described as “one, Israel Shamir”. The turnabout is explained by “Shamir’s thesis that the Jewish Lobby is primarily responsible for US imperialism’s crimes in the Middle East”. This thesis has “more than a hint of anti-Semitic nonsense”, they write. If even the “revolutionary Marxist magazine” repeats ADL- inspired dogma, what can one expect from ordinary Americans? Recently, the aldermen of Somerville, Ma decided to drop their attempt to divest from Israel. The Zionists had intimidated them into submission, and I can’t blame them – when all American media from the New York Post to the Socialist Viewpoint, when all pundits from Dershowitz to Weinstein are united in their “zero tolerance to antisemitism”, it would be political suicide to risk their wrath. Even Rabbis for Human Rights, much applauded by Ronald Rance and his kin, described divestment as an act of antisemitism. Some good Jews have tried to gainsay the otherwise united Jewish position and claimed that divestment is not antisemitism. In a similar way, the French frondeurs or the Russian Decembrists claimed they were not against the king, but rather against his ministers. Their pussyfooting could not convince the people. The really successful revolutions – 1789 or 1917 – occurred when the people sang La Carmagnole with its reckless slogan ‘Les aristocrats à la lanterne’. The tide of pro-Israeli support led us, in my belief, to the destruction of Palestine and Iraq and will soon lead to an attack on Iran. This tide will abate only if and when Americans and Europeans begin to dismiss accusations of antisemitism in the same way that now they shrug off charges of lese majesté (disrespect to the Crown). That is why we, friends and lovers of Palestine, must struggle – not only against occupation, but for making Jewishness irrelevant and Jewry broken up. The break-up of Jewry will be a wonderful development for Jews, too. The vast majority will be able to become just Americans, or just Brits, or just French; a small Ultra-Orthodox Jewish community will remain with us like the Amish or other tiny observant minorities, never again to be disturbed by hatred or power struggle. *** The third reason for my position is intra-Palestinian. Dwellers of our land can be classified by many criteria: by their height and weight, by their age or income, by their faith or land of origin. The criterion of Jewishness is the one that unites all immigrant communities in opposition to the natives. This gives huge power to the immigrant Ashkenazi elites. But if Jewishness will be as important as hair colour, we shall find ourselves in a totally different situation – the native population, plus a plethora of middling immigrant communities from different lands. Instead of Palestinians versus Jews, there will be Palestinians – and immigrants from Poland and Germany, Russia and Morocco, Yemen and France. The natives will be able to exercise decisive influence and eventually absorb the divided immigrants. Thus my position regarding Jews is not dictated by a whim or by religious considerations (as Rance claims) but by seeing that there is no other way to unite Palestine, to restore the native Palestinians to their natural position and to help the immigrants to strike root in the soil of the Holy Land. [1] http://www.israelshamir.net/Israel_Shamir_Biography.htm [2] My Swedish family intends to sue Rance for the breach of their privacy. [3] http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/554/secularism1.htm [4] http://www.israelshamir.net/english/the%20marxists.shtml [5] http://www.socialistviewpoint.org/july_aug_01/sum_01.html Hi R, We've been discussing this quite a bit on our web sites in Northern California since some of our members of various groups also forwarded this. I really urge people to go to the above link. It is very infomative both pro and con arouond Israel Shamir and gives some of his background and also discusses controversies with him in the past. Best, That's very interesting: I have to say that I, too, was struck by the peculiarly aggressive/mocking/racist tone of the article, and felt uncomfortable with Shamir's undermining of burial rites - on the grounds that we wouldn't accept condemnation of other religions' practices like this. Thanks for bringing this to light - it's helpful to know who's who (especially in the confusing world of the internet) as I suppose otherwise it could fuel the fire of those who equate anti-Zionism with anti-semitism. This article showed that it can sometimes be a fine line. Hi M, Thanks for the link to the Swedish web Site and your reproduction of it. Who are they and what is their angle? This is a very complex and somewhat murky area and we need to be extremely careful of whose opinion we trust and we should know as much as possible where they are coming from. I feel we need to read as much as we can carefully ourselves and make our own minds up rather than trust other people's assertions. Well argued character assasinations are too ready available in the arena of international solidarity, particularly in relationship to crticism of Israel or Zionism. Personally I didn't find Shamirs article anti-Jewish but certainly I did find it anti-Israel or anti-Zionist. I presumed he was Jewish himself so unless we follow the tortured example of the Zionists thinking and consider him a 'self-hating Jew, then how can he be anti-semitic? The rapid response of 'antisemitic' is a branding tool of the Zionists to obstruct of deflect any and all criticism of Israel. I also did not find his relating of Jewish burial practices as mockery as you state. Perhaps you could help me by highlighting the passages you think are mocking. I don't start from a position of thinking we need to accept views being a blanket 'anti' the whole culture if they call attention to some cultural practices which they find inhumane even though some people in that culture may be offended by this. Standing up against injustice and oppression implies a critical position based upon some notion or other of human rights. But of course some human rights may wish to trample over others. The right of some people's to cut the clitorisis off women is not one everyone would respect and there are many many practices in the world which are worthy of evaluation. R I was struck the fundamentally anti-Jewish nature of "Shamir's" mockery of orthodox burial rites (a matter important to most religions) until I remembered that Mr "Shamir" is in fact a notorious Swedish fascist. In Norway, Brendberg is known for his work as translator for the "Israeli" writer, Israel Shamir. On his web page, Shamir presents himself as a leading Russian-Israeli intellectual and as a writer, translator and journalist. According to the same web page, Shamir has occupied a string of important positions as a translator of classical works and has worked as a journalist in several heavyweight media institutions, including the big Israeli paper, Haaretz. Also according to the register, Shamir still lives in Dalagatan, Stockholm, not in Jaffa, Israel, as he publicly claims. Shamir's first wife and two sons also live in Stockholm. In July 1993, Shamir emigrated to Russia, and later to Israel, where he married a younger woman in July 1994. During the autumn of 1998, however, he and his new wife returned to Sweden where, according to public records, he still lives. Strange figure A strange time, indeed, to change his name, Justashe was being noted and just after starting to publish his works underthe name of Israel Shamir. Though Brendberg claims that Israel Shamiris an Israeli citizen, and thus cannot sue people who upset him inNorway, it is well documented that Shamir is a Swedish citizen, has acompletely different name, and has 'for long periods lived in places 'other than Jaffa, as he claims. JÃran Jermas is an eager propagandist. He appearsas a friend of the Palestinian people and claims to be promoting systemcritics against the state of Israel. Because of this several of histexts have been quoted in international debates on the Middle East. In 2002 was Shamir portrayed by Tidningarnas Telegrambyr (The Swedish news agency) in the text, that was kept to Shamirs own biography, Shamir appears as a serious jou5rnalist criticising Israel. However, prominent representatives for the Palestinians do not share this view. Ali Abunimah, prominent media critic on the website Electronic Intifada and Hussein Ibish, press spokesman of American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC), warned already in 2001 that Shamir appeared as an anti-Semite and not a critic of Israel. They claimed that his critique of Israel was nothing but classic elements in the European anti-Semitic tradition. Hi everyone, Here is an interesting article from Israel Shamir, Best regards, R http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/521450.html Tsunami in Gaza While the whole world had sent aid to the tsunami-hit South East Asia, Israel forwarded a team entrusted with unique task. Not many Israeli tourists were swept away by the giant waves – official death toll stands at three, with some twenty missing; not many comparing with hundred thousand Indonesians or even with three thousand Swedes. Still the Israeli teams were very active on the ground. The highly trained experts led by Rabbi Meshi Zahav did not go to save trapped survivors or alleviate suffering of millions; their job was to save dead Jews from fate worse than death – that is to be buried with the goyim in the same grave. The Haaretz daily[1] reported: "The Israeli rescue teams in Thailand split up Thursday: one team worked on identifying bodies in Krabi, while another worked on the same task in Phuket. The Israeli crews - from the police and Zaka (a non-profit group that specializes in identifying victims of disasters) - are trying to locate dead Israelis before they are buried". They pressed upon the Thai government to postpone the mass entombment, though it was necessary to prevent spread of epidemics; and Bangkok gave in. Every dead Jewish body should be taken to Israel, or at least buried separately from impure non-Jews. Witty Gilad Atzmon remarked: "the `altruistic' Jews … are in a state of panic, as we all know, dead Jews are precious, they deserve a special burial. The fact that 5-10 Jews might be lost forever among some other 125.000 gentiles is pretty horrifying, I am sure you can see it." This is a part and parcel of Jewish faith, the pinnacle of "The Nation Shall Dwell Alone" commandment – Jews are not supposed to live or to die with non-Jews. Their separate burial is necessary to guarantee their bodily resurrection when Messiah comes. A Jewish body defiled by gentile proximity won't be resurrected, according to the Jews. Even irreligious Jews follow this separation rule without giving it a second thought. This squeamish attitude is particularly unpleasant: whenever the Jews discover that a person of doubtful Jewishness is buried among their lot they remove the body and dump it elsewhere. It happened to an Israeli citizen Teresa Angelowitz. She was buried in the Jewish cemetery; later on the religious authorities discovered that she was a wife of a Jew, but not a Jew. They exhumed her body at the dark of the night and re-buried on the dumping ground. It happened to many Russian soldiers who died defending the Jewish character of Israel and were refused the burial. Now, in face of the huge tragedy in South East Asia, this insistence of `not being counted among the goyim" is especially offensive, bordering on denial of our common humanity. What is so bad about Thais, French, Chinese and other people who found their death in the catastrophe that you can't leave your dead lying next to them? This nasty exclusiveness has to be taken into account while trying to comprehend the long-running show of Israeli redeployment in Gaza. Sharon's government wants to withdraw its troops from within the strip to its perimeter. Fine and good: this is a reasonable (from his point of view) decision: it is cheaper to keep Gaza under lock and key, surrounded by Israeli troops. The redeployment is not good neither bad for the Palestinians – the Jews will be able to kill whoever they wish from their bases outside the narrow strip, but this act is presented as an important step on the way to creation of a Palestinian state. Now, instead of redeployment, Israelis discuss the fate of some (probably two thousand) Jewish settlers in Gaza strip. Sharon wants to evacuate them and pay them hefty compensation; they object to evacuation. The whole Israeli society discusses whether they can be removed; how much force should be applied; whether `Jews may remove Jews'; whether the ruling of the Rabbis forbidding the evacuation takes precedence over the government decision. Nobody, but absolutely nobody is ready to consider an obvious (for a non-Jew) solution: remove the army and leave the settlers where they are. If they want to stay in Gaza, let them. Do not pay a penny for their removal: they are free men and women; they knew what they did when they accepted the lands and houses in Gaza. There are hundreds of American Jews who want to buy their houses, there are Palestinians who will be willing to buy – so there is no problem, whoever wants stays, whoever wants to leave sells his house and leaves. If they will be nasty to their neighbours, they will flee; if they will be good neighbours, they will flourish. Indeed, when the British Empire left Palestine, or India, or Africa, they did not evacuate their citizens by force. Whoever felt that he caused too much grief to the natives, left for England; whoever preferred to stay – stayed. Kenya is a good case to consider. The country had a sizeable English settler community; there was also very active Mau-Mau native resistance, much more violent than the Palestinian; still, when Kenya was granted independence, the settlers stayed. I have met them in the Highlands near Lake Rudolf: prosperous farmers, strong and sunburned, similar to old-style Israelis, they speak local language, are involved in local life. Many of them have their small airplanes and pop into Nairobi for an evening drink whenever they get tired from watching pink flamingos at the lakeside. The settlers try to be good neighbours to the native people – after all, the political power in hands of native Kikuyu; and RAF is not likely to defend them. This is the example for the Israeli settlers to emulate, while the Israeli government should not tell them what to do and where to live. Their settlements won't be `for Jews only'. They will have native neighbours, not only farm hands, but native officials, native police and native judges – but this consideration did not stop thousands of Brits and French, Portuguese and Spaniards, Russians and Germans to remain in the newly independent countries. The evacuation discourse that brought Israel to the verge of civil war can't be comprehended outside of the general nasty picture of Jewish exclusiveness. Only people who can't bear the thought of being buried in one grave with a goy, can't imagine the possibility of staying as equals without the army and colonial administration to enforce their superiority. Azmi Bishara, our MP from Nazareth, was right when he refused to support Sharon's initiative; while the Labour party of Peres and Barak added another shameful deed to its long roll of shame when they joined Sharon's government to carry on the `disengagement'. The case of the Gaza settlers may be used to undermine and destroy the "Jewish character of the state". There is no reason to play into the game of Jewish exclusivity, whether in Thailand or in Gaza. It was my little daughter (9) school carol concert in a village church in South Devon this week. I was very happily surprised by the vicar. In his Xmas message he condemned the carol "Once in royal David's city" as "sentimental Victorian romanticism" and read out a poem about life for Palestinians in Bethlehem today, which denounced Sharon by name! I thanked him afterwards, in case other people gave him stick for bringing "politics into religion", etc. When I was an activist (70's-80's) I could never have dreamt of such a thing – but how many thousands have been killed or had their lives ruined in the meantime? |