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


FOR One Man, One Vote



Page 1 2 3


By Israel Shamir

At the height of the Great Cultural Revolution, the Chinese had the temerity to embark upon a monumental, nature-changing enterprise: they decided to exterminate ALL flies. The spirit of their solidarity was so powerful that they succeeded. For a while, they enjoyed peaceful summer evenings without this great annoyance. No buzz, no fuss: life was great without flies!

But soon they discovered that mighty eagles weren't seen anymore in the welkin. Big noble salmon much favoured by connoisseurs died out in their rivers. And soon the opulent palace of Chinese nature began to collapse as a house of cards, for it had thrived on flies as much as on eagles. Every species is a precious cornerstone of the world. Remove it, and the consequences are unpredictable. The Chinese understood this, laid off the remaining flies, and soon they had salmon again for dinner and eagles to compare their helmsmen with.

This story comes to my mind when I note the vehemence of good and progressive folk confronted by ethically doubtful tendencies. One may doubt the inherent goodness of Traditionalists, Nationalists and Nativists. But should one exclude them from discourse? People often react to any reference to David Duke or Roger Garaudy or Abbe Pierre as our grandmothers to obscenity. This appears to be the good and correct approach to avoid causing undeserved distress to Jews. However, the equally extreme opinions of Jewish supremacists are being spread freely by the mainstream media. Thus, slanted discourse comes into being.

The problem is not only (not even mainly) in deflating the sacred freedom of speech. There are worse consequences. Joe Public, a silent participant in the discourse, is a sane, normal and good person. He does not choose one of the proposed extremes but seeks the middle ground on their spectrum. We all do it instinctively: when presented with differing tendencies, we try to capture the middle ground between the extremes. Good people slant discourse and pervert our judgment. TOP

For instance, the media debates whether Iraq should be bombed right away, frisked first or left in peace. A good sane man, Joe Public, takes the middle ground and opts for the frisking. Our position - 'stay out of Iraq for good and even forget its name' - loses, for it is an extreme opinion, much like the 'bombing' one, and not the middle ground. In order for us to occupy the middle ground, discourse should include opinions as extreme as those of Muraviec and Perle, but together with their polar opposites.

It is very possible that these opinions will be as unpleasant to us as those of the Jewish chicken-hawks in the Pentagon. As an Israeli citizen, I wouldn't enjoy an appeal to nuke Israel or to remove all Jews from positions of influence in the US. However, these unpleasant opinions would provide a much needed balance to the present assault of philo-Semitism. Joe Public, while exposed to these opinions, will take his middle ground. This good man will say: 'Oh no, we should not nuke Israel! Maybe trade embargo and naval blockade will be sufficient'. Or: 'Oh no, not our wonderful Jewish mayor, but Perle and Wolfawitz can go'. TOP

An extreme position will usually lose. The adversary knows it and ensures the presence of his own extreme voices in discourse. David Duke is forever barred from participation in discourse for he was a KKK leader, but Yossi Halevy, an ex-member of the Kahane Band (surely racist) writes for the New Republic, and torture-promoting Dershowitz writes for the NY Times. In order to ensure they are not extremists, they bring in Nathan Lewin and Amitai Etzioni. Etzioni is a tenured professor at George Washington University and a friend of Elie Wiesel, Simon Wiesenthal and Abe Foxman. Lewin is a candidate for a federal judgeship. They call for the execution of the family members of suicide bombers.[1] After their prime appearance, Dershowitz comes in as a moderate and says, 'the same level of deterrence could be achieved by levelling the villages of suicide bombers after the residents are given a chance to evacuate', and the extremist Lewin disparagingly likens this to "using aspirin to treat brain cancer"). David Duke never reached this level of bestiality, but he is excluded from discourse while they are not.

Consider Israel. The full spectre of opinions in our country stretches from Jihad extremists who would like to expel all Jews to Marzel extremists who would like to expel and kill all Gentiles. In this spectre, my own position is but the middle ground: no expulsions, no killings, but peaceful life together for all the communities. In normal discourse, my position would win, and united free Palestine would come into being. But the discourse is slanted: at first, extreme Arab opinions are blocked. Then, moderate Arabs find themselves 'extremists' and are effectively blocked. Eventually the softest non-Jews - Ahmad Tibi and Azmi Bashara - take the place of extremists and are excluded from discourse.

The exclusion of one extreme causes the drift of the middle ground when the other extreme is not in place to plug it. Thus, instead of being in the dead middle, the supporters of equality for Jews and Palestinians find themselves at an extreme end. As extremists they are excluded from discourse. Though 30% of Israelis and Palestinians support the idea of one state with equal rights for all, according to a pre-Intifada survey by Haaretz, their opinion gets zero representation in discourse. TOP

On the other hand, leaders of Jewish terrorist organisations regularly write for Haaretz. Haggai Segal, who was sentenced (and later pardoned by the President) for the murder of Palestinians, is a frequent writer on its liberal pages. But the opposite opinion, that of Hamas and Jihad, is carefully excluded even from the Palestinian mainstream. Thus, the drift of the middle ground continues unchecked. Likud politicians are not extremists: they ensure they are not by including extremists of their kind in discourse. Ariel Sharon is not an extremist, for he promotes his right-wing opposition of Liberman and Landau. Now, these thugs do not want to be extremists either, and they promote a new voice, Baruch Marzel, a man-eating ogre from the Jewish settlement of Hebron. Next to Marzel, Jack the Ripper is a soft guy. Marzel's people have a tribune in the liberal Haaretz; they are included in discourse.

Their Western counterparts, the Jewish chauvinists Conrad Black and Mort Zuckerman, are active participants in discourse by virtue of their ownership of a large chunk of media. But their mirror opposites, Horst Mahler or Nick Griffin, are excluded. Without these extremists, the moderate voices of the anti-globalisation and anti-Zionism are excluded as well, for they find themselves on the extreme. The founding fathers of American democracy were ready to die for the right of their opponents to express their opinion publicly, for they intuited that in order to promote one's ideas one should ensure the presence of more radical voices on the spectrum.

In balanced Palestinian discourse, the opinions of Hammas and Jihad should be presented. We can productively argue about suicide bombings only if the voices of their fervent supporters are included and considered. Otherwise, a dynamite-loaded belt is their only way to express their opinion. What is worse, without them Edward Said is glossed as an extremist.

Germany is a classic case of the 'no flies, no eagles' policy. After its defeat in WWII, Nationalist opinion was excluded from discourse. Now, the meek spirit of Germany is crushed. Germany spends every extra pfennig it has on paying Zionists and arming the Jewish state. It imports every willing descendent of Jews from the former Soviet Union and allows the local Jewish leaders to brainwash these disoriented refugees into hatred of Germany and separatism. I have met these unfortunate people who arrived in Germany with a very weak Jewish identity, if any at all. Their children are pushed into separate Jewish schools protected by hard men with machineguns and paid for by the German taxpayer; they are taught that Israel is their home, while Germany is a hated place they should keep a wary eye on. It creates many psychological problems for the children who seek solidarity and identification with the country they live in but are brainwashed into rejecting it. TOP

I wrote about the recent visit of Israeli President Katzav to Berlin: "the German Left betrayed its duty to demonstrate against the supplying of the apartheid state with nuclear-bearing submarines". My friend Ingrid K wrote from Berlin:

I did not want to stand with very few others, lost between the police-protected Neo-Nazis and the stupid fraction of anti-anti-Semites feeling eternal warm-solidarity-with-Israel even as a third and more desperate party a half-mile away chanted "weapons-for-Israel". In Germany, the Left has come to a sad level of powerlessness and disorientation. Its disorientation culminates in the growing praise of a group of 'Left' political writers (part of them connected with New Kach!) fighting the upcoming 'new anti-Semitism' in Germany. Young people who are engaged in anti-racism or against neo-Nazism are feverishly obsessed with discovering the hidden anti-Semitism in the Left and in their own souls. (It's like we Germans stop thinking when it comes to anti-Semitism.) TOP

Haaretz published[2] an extensive interview with a German 'left-wing journalist, human rights activist and intellectual', Thomas von der Osten-Sacken, 'one of Germany's leading authorities on human rights in Iraq'. This 'left-winger' calls for war on Iraq, pledges his support for the Jewish state, for Globalisation, for America and for banks, while describing himself 'a Marxist'. Such freaks are a direct result of the slanted discourse that excludes the German nationalist tradition. If this tradition were included, Hans Publik would find his middle ground between calls to expel Jewish immigrants and calls to give them their present exalted status; he would integrate them into society and firmly stop the attempts of Jewish leaders to promote their alienation and create a fifth column inside Germany. Ingrid K concludes her report from the German scene:

To stand up for Palestinians is a kind of courage test and risks one's being cited an anti-Semite. Sad but true, the little political group I'm working with feared to post the ingenious essay of Michael Neumann 'What is Anti-Semitism' (that I translated into German) on our Homepage. No courage. But one must not give up.

Ingrid still does not understand the reason for German meekness. Otherwise she would call for true freedom of speech and full participation in discourse for the people she hates, the German extreme anti-Globalist right. The sheer presence of Horst Mahler in discourse would make the publication of my friend Michael Neumann's well-thought piece the non-controversial intellectual exercise it was meant to be.

In France, Roger Garaudy is excluded and ostracised. The French sainted Abbe Pierre, who dared to express some modicum of support for the old ex-Communist, found himself excluded as well. For sure, the opinions of Garaudy are not to everybody's liking; but his absence from discourse has turned very moderate people and friends of Palestine into extremists. TOP

The post-WWII exclusion of the Nationalist Right was done for the best of reasons. But that was the case with the flies in China. The Jews always had strong influence in Europe, and in my opinion, not always a beneficial one. Still, before the war their influence was counteracted by the Church, by the non-elitist Left, by the Nationalist Right. The 'no flies' policy turned this strong Jewish influence into a decisive one, and the edifice of European and North American civilisation began to crumble like a house of cards. Globalisation, neo-liberalism and the withering of European culture are the results of lack of balance.

Christianity is one of the victims of bias, and it is the cornerstone of European art. A recent French film, The Brotherhood of the Wolf, demonises the Christian Church without much subtlety: a half-human monster wears a cross that flashes at us relentlessly, the gang of murderers is led by a priest, its lair is full of crosses and crucifixes, church devotees perpetrate a long chain of ritual murders of innocent women and children in order to bring France back to the faith.

A mirror image of the movie would substitute a Rabbi for the Priest, make the monster brandish the Star of David and have a bunch of observant Jews commit ritual murder for their nefarious needs. For sure, such a movie would never be screened in France after 1945. (Although this sounds similar to the book on ritual murders published in Syria to a chorus of universal condemnation.) But the French movie producer Samuel Hadad was not condemned or criticised. The French audience is so used to attacks on Church and Christianity that they did not even consciously notice its not-so-subliminal message; it sank directly into their unconscious.

This film did not horrify the French, as at the same time they were treated to The Body, produced by Rudy Cohen. My reader and friend Francois B. describes it:

The Israeli soldiers are like the cowboys, brave and immortal, and the Palestinian terrorists like the Indians, stupid and cowardly. The villain of the movie is a Catholic very high up in the Vatican hierarchy, like No2 or No3 after the Pope, and the very honest, pretty and unreligious Israeli archaeologist calls the Holy Shroud from Torino 'a vulgar fake'.

This film did not horrify the French either, as they are used to films like Amen, which attacked the late Pope Pius XXII. Suggestively, the Cross on the movie's posters turns into a Nazi swastika.

'One evil thing does not justify another one', good people usually say. 'Jewish racists are bad, and anti-Christian films are perhaps unpleasant, but it does not mean we should welcome anti-Jewish racists and support anti-Jewish movies. We shall speak against them all.' TOP

The problem is, good people are quite unable to stop the anti-Christian and pro-Jewish tendency, for the Jewish supremacists today control a major chunk of world media and wealth. Besides, the tendencies are unstoppable: they can only be counterbalanced. What good people can do is stop the opposite thought, and they do that very efficiently. In my essays I have frequently noted the advantages of Christian and Muslim universalism over Jewish particularism. The editor of La Fabrique, the good Jewish leftist Eric Hazan, refused to publish my essays, for "despite their literary qualities they include some ideas which are difficult to promote in France, namely, the superiority of Christianity". I am sure Eric Hazan would not publish a treatise on the vast superiority of Judaism either, but it would be printed in millions of copies by the publishers of Goldhagen and Oriana Falacci. This has the look of job-sharing: Jewish supremacists promote Jewish supremacy, while the Leftists' job is just to stop the balancing attempt by appealing to universal values. Thus good people participate in slanting discourse as much as bad ones.

The attempts to find anti-Semitism in the gentle writings of the friends of Palestine are enabled by the lack of real and explicit enemies of the Jewish paradigm in all its aspects from Soros to Sharon, from Judas to Maimonides, from Freud to Popper, from Podhoretz to Gusinsky, from Lubawitscher Rebbe to Sulzberger. Such people exist but their voices are silenced. We do not have to love them, or agree with them, but we need them as active participants in our discourse, as otherwise the middle ground of the Western world will remain somewhere between Peres and Soros.

For as long as Richard Perle sits in the Pentagon, Elie Wiesel brandishes his Nobel Prize, Mort Zuckerman owns the USA Today, Gusinsky bosses over Russian TV, Soros commands multi-billions of funds and Dershowitz teaches at Harvard, we need the voices of Duke, Sobran, Raimondo, Buchanan, Mahler, Griffin and of other anti-bourgeois nationalists. If we accept their exclusion from discourse, Jewish bigotry will be tolerated while anti-Jewish bigotry is removed. Then, the middle ground for Joe Public will be 'a little bit of Jewish bigotry', or 'Zionism lite', in the words of my dear friend Bob Green.

Millennia before the Great Cultural Revolution, the Chinese knew the secret of harmony: the non-Manichean balance of opposing ideas, the principles of Ying and Yang. Properly balanced, Jewish ideas can be beneficial: anti-Christian zeal would limit Church excesses, just as materialism and egoism can keep the feet of Man on the ground while his head is in heaven, feminism can balance male chauvinism, and the sex obsession of Freud can balance the asceticism of spiritualists. Balanced, even Zionism will shrink to the humane proportions of Jewish love for Palestine. But balanced it should be. TOP

The Martial Arts of Discourse

(Response to the article 'In the Same Camp as Hamsun?' by Haakon Kolmanskog[3] in the Norwegian newspaper Klassekampen.).

Usually, newspaper polemic is akin to epee fencing: one tries to keep the opponent at arm's length, avoid his thrusts and draw his blood. The thoughtful and friendly query of Haakon Kolmanskog deserves a quite different attitude and a most sincere reply. Haakon poses a question:

We can't be indifferent if friends of the Palestinians are branded anti-Semites. Who will benefit in allowing the Zionists to have a free go playing the anti-Semite card against anyone who criticise them?

The sad answer is that we have no means of stopping their playing it. For years, the friends of Palestine tried to evade the label by saying:

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

 While the time of Hamsun and Ehrenburg is over, Elie Wiesel is still very much with us. In his book, Legends of Our Time, this Jewish writer wrote: "Every Jew, somewhere in his being, should set apart a zone of hate - healthy, virile hate - for what the German personifies and for what persists in the German". Not 'the Nazi', but 'the German'. For this sermon of hate he received the 1986 Nobel Peace Prize from the Norwegian Academy, in company with the Cambodia-destroyer Henry Kissinger and the Kana-murderer, Shimon Peres. Armed with this recognition of the Norwegians, Elie Wiesel called (at Christmas Eve!): War [with Iraq] is the only option".[4] If you need to feel guilt, feel guilt for this Nobel Peace Prize.

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


 The third question of Haakon was:

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

 In the Gospel, the Disciples of Christ acclaimed him as 'the King who comes in the name of the Lord'. The Pharisees demanded: Rabbi, rebuke your disciples! But Jesus replied: If they keep silent the stones will cry out.[5]

 This prophecy was fulfilled in Germany. The German Left betrayed its duty to demonstrate against the supplying of the apartheid state with nuclear-bearing submarines, the most fearsome weapons of mass destruction of our age, for it to target the peaceful cities of man. The German Left accepted the thoroughly racist concept of 'Jewish property' and transferred billions of dollars to Sharon and his American Jewish partners.[6] 'Fear of the Jews'[7] befell them, and caused them to forget their ideals. The Left is the salt of the earth by virtue of upholding the values of equality, mercy, humanity. But if the salt has lost its taste, it is to be thrown out and walked on by the people.[8] The Left kept silent, therefore the stones cried out. Whoever demonstrated against the monstrous decision to arm Israel is surely blessed. TOP

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

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

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

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

  Philo-Semitism is Racism

 (Norwegian daily newspaper Nationen (Oslo) on 28.11.02 published an op-ed attacking me.[9] Here is my reply. I used contributions of our comrades Dave Kersting and Michael Neumann.). TOP

 I do not like philo-Semites, i.e. people choosing to fight anti-Semitism, of all ills. In this world, so full of trouble and real suffering, there is something deeply pervert in persons preferring to protect and support - not the poor, not the refugees, not the oppressed, but the wealthy, influential and well-connected group actively engaged in ethnic cleansing of Palestine. The Chief proponent of this well-endowed movement is an American Jew, the head of ADL, Abe Foxman. Two years ago he was caught taking large sums of money from the super-thief Marc Rich, a crook who cheated American tax-payer and found refuge in Switzerland. For years Foxman and his organisation collected dossiers on people who objected to apartheid and sold them to Mossad and to South Africa of Forster. They broke into houses, stole documents, run professional surveillance of the left activists in California. Last year, Foxman and ADL were found guilty in the US court of law, and paid millions of dollars to people they intimidated and smeared. Foxman's best chum is Ariel Sharon, the mass murderer of Sabra, Shatila, Kibie and Jenin. A new book by Gordon Thomas and Martin Dillon, "The Assassination of Robert Maxwell: Israel's Super Spy" confirms the professional philo-Semites have permanent ties with Mossad, the long arm of Israeli apartheid, memorable to you by Lillehammer murders. In brief, the philo-Semites are sleazy guys taking money from sleazy crooks in order to cover up the creeping genocide of Palestinians.

 It is not strange, as the very emphasis on "anti-Semitism" is disgustingly racist, as if it were worse than racism against anyone else. People who decry "anti-Semitism", instead of "racism" or "ethnic-prejudice", are actually saying that there is something really special - and particularly bad - about discrimination against this one particular group. In other words, they are racists.

 Your average Norwegian does not hesitate to say he dislikes Swedes. Sometimes he corrects himself and says he actually hates Swedes. Older Norwegians freely speak of their hatred to Germans. So do Jews: recent bestseller by a philo-Semite Goldhagen called all Germans 'willing executioners of Hitler'. 'Every Jew must maintain in his heart holy hatred to Germans', quoth Elie Wiesel, another professional philo-Semite. Somehow nobody is worried about these racist statements; Wiesel even received Nobel peace prize from the Norwegian Academy.

 Germans are not exclusion. A Jewish scribe, Daniel Pipes, wrote a piece together with a Dane Lars Hedegaard in the Canadian daily National Post (August 27, 2002), published by the Jewish media lord, Israel Asper, a great friend of my country, saying:

 "Predominantly Muslim immigrants constitute 5% of the population but consume upwards of 40% of the welfare spendingÖ Muslims are only 4% of Denmark's 5.4 million people but make up a majority of the country's convicted rapists, an especially combustible issue given that practically all the female victims are non-Muslim". I am not sure one can be more racist than that, even if one mobilises Der Sturmer. But somehow nobody is worried about it. TOP

 The racist talk of anti-Semitism is used to protect Israeli racism. It is amazing that some people still pay attention to it, and their crocodile tears drip into newspapers. I wonder why the Third Reich did not try to stop the Allied forces by claiming they are led by 'anti-German prejudice'. One imagines Russian soldiers at Stalingrad listen to such a broadcast and drop their weapons in shame. Or is it only anti-Jewish prejudice that is objectionable? Apparently, it is the case for philo-Semites: the Guardian wrote about assassinated Dutch racist leader that though he hated Muslims and Arabs, he was not a bad guy, as he liked Jews. Can one be more racist than that?

 The piece by Christine Mohn is true to its racist genre. She described me as 'an ethnic Jew who defines himself as a Christian'. Like Adolf Hitler, she thinks 'once a Jew, forever a Jew', baptism notwithstanding, he can only 'define himself as a Christian'. However, non-racists are of different opinion. A philo-Semite is a potential Jew, as he considers Jews being more equal than other people. A Jew by birth can leave Jewry if he believes in equality of Man as did St Paul, Marx and Trotsky. Here the opinions of the Church and of the Communist party coincide.

 Indeed, that was the vision of Abram Leon, a young follower of Trotsky, who perished in Auschwitz in 1944. In his important book, The Jewish Question: Marxist Interpretation (I am grateful to Noam Chomsky who introduced me to this author), this communist of Jewish origin described the Jews, "people-class", historically attuned to exploitation of others. A man of Jewish origin always could leave 'the Jews' and join mankind, wrote Leon.

 But Ms Mohn is totally ignorant of Judaism. She writes: "The phenomenon of 'Chosen-ness', as understood in Jewish tradition, has nothing to do with closeness to God or superiority versus non-Jews". We can believe her, or we can believe the late Chief Rabbi of Israel, the greatest modern proponent of Judaism, Rabbi Kook, who wrote: "The difference between a Jewish soul and souls of non-Jews is greater and deeper than the difference between a human soul and the souls of cattle"[10] TOP

 Philo-Semites would like us to speak 'good, or nothing' about Jewishness. But this is the prerogative of dead. In the modern discourse, we freely discuss shortcomings of Islam and Christianity, of capitalism and communism, and indeed, Jewishness should be discussed as well. It is not a racist discourse: leading modern debunkers of Jewishness are people of Jewish origin from Karl Marx to Israel Shahak. It is not a right-wing discourse either: The First International of Marx condemned, after long and lively debate, philo-Semites as well as anti-Semites.

 Racists are often nasty and stupid. Indeed, Christine Mohn succeeded to concoct a nasty piece proving her inability to read and understand the text. For instance, she writes, "The most important content in Shamir's political agenda is that Jews are best characterised as Christ-murderers", while I write just an opposite: "There is no collective guilt over many generations. The Jews should not be blamed for killing Christ anymore than French blamed for sending Joan of Arc to the stake".[11]

 To conclude, I would quote an American socialist thinker Dave Kersting: "We should feel offended by this dramatic concern about anti-Semitism - at a time of openly racist horrors against the NON-Jewish population of Palestine, who are suffering from the undisguised ethnic-supremacy of the Zionists. Disproportionate concern about "anti-Semitism" is a key weapon in the most brazen actual ethnic violence of our time and place"  NEXT