The Writings of Israel Shamir

Arabic Articles
French Articles
Hungarian Articles
Italian Articles
Norwegian Articles
Polish Articles
Russian Articles
Spanish Articles
Turkish Articles
Friends and Foes
Talmud Translated
Discussion Board
Feedback Form
Picture Gallery 
Site Map



From Miguel, Italy

The Palestine situation is absolutely unique. It didn't come about like Kosovo, where illiterate neighbours started insulting each other after centuries of thinking nasty thoughts about each other's cattle.

If it hadn't been for the theories and the books, Palestinians and Israelis would never even have met.

Think of the two-thousand year obsession on "our" part - meaning Western Christians - that there is a kind of million-headed, one-souled being called "the Jews", indeed often in the singular: "the Jew...".

Some of the things "we" say or said about "The Jew" are nasty, some are nice, but they are all collective: The Jew is stiff-necked, The Jew loves money, The Jew in his soul yearns for Jerusalem. This means that several hundred million people, in the part of the world which has all the military and financial might, think the Palestinians have a duty to make way for "The Jew". Of course there are a lot of practical reasons behind politicians supporting Israel; but these practical reasons can be applied because there is the right emotional and sentimental background to do so.

And the West will not cease to be pro-Israeli until "we" learn to think of Samuel and Isaac the same way we think of Joe and Michael. Pro-Judaism and Anti-Judaism are simply both sides of the same coin: a kind of Judeo-Centrism which is the opposite of a humanity-centered mentality.

The idea of "the Jew" (who has a "special relationship" with "his" land) is of course not an invention of Western Christians. It is written into a series of rather confused writings dating back to the Iron Age, which referred to a long extinct culture. For a whole series of reasons, those writings were copied, re-written and totally re-imagined by entirely different cultures of various kinds, but they still speak in Iron Age terms of collective souls of tribes and their jealous group gods.

This has created a kind of false memory. Whether or not most Jews today are the genetic descendants of those Iron Age tribes is of course no more interesting than the fact that my ancestors used to commit human sacrifices on Aztec pyramids or in the bogs of Ireland, or used to burn witches (I am partly Mexican, partly Irish, partly Anglo-US). What is important is that words created a kind of continuity, while actually taking on a completely different meaning.

The description of the lost land turned into a rather typical, and quite beautiful, myth of a Golden Age, of "another" dimension: no different really from the dreams of Christian peasants about a land where food grows on the trees, and where no one is forced to labour.

These are words again, however, and political leaders manipulated them successfully to create Zionism.

Then there is the main reason why otherwise perfectly normal people around the world are ready to do anything to support Israel, with money, activism and even their own lives. These people say "I am like everybody else, but since my surname is Cohen, sooner or later all those smiling people out there can leap at my throat, and I need a place like Israel to escape when they do so". This is another issue which appears quite theoretical, but has tremendous practical consequences. And needs to be discussed too.

Another "word" of course is "Israel". Now, whatever one wants to do practically about Palestine depends on choosing whether we accept the PA idea (maximum 20% of the original land) or not. Now, if one does *not* accept the PA idea, the main obstacle to the 100% idea - a democratic, inter-ethnic state -, if you really think of it, lies in the name: would "Palestinians" ever accept the idea of living in a country which the majority of the population wants to call "Israel"? And would the Jewish inhabitants of the place ever accept living in a place called "Palestine"?

I am not saying that one should just sit back and theorize. I am only saying that *one* "theoretical" list should exist, alongside a dozen practical ones, in order to discuss these issues.

Good luck

Miguel Martinez


When I first stumbled across the writings of Israel Shamir on the Net, what struck me was not just his excellent style. What struck me most was the avalanche of ideas and associations his words set moving inside me.

The Palestine issue is of course an issue of ethnic oppression, and by no means the only one in the world. This could link it to other ills; however it is also true that we tend to look with much greater detachment at situations like that of the Kurds in Turkey: it is hard to feel directly involved unless we have some personal connection to one of the ethnic groups at stake.

This is not the case with Palestine: the Palestine issue has absolutely unique features which make it unlike any other issue. Paradoxically, it is this uniqueness which links it to all the other ills. Palestine involves nearly every mythological issue of the West.

Of course I believe that strategic interests and resources and all that are important; however, people also think along mythological and emotional lines. Symbols and dreams can also be used to mobilize people behind practical, strategic matters. And, in certain cases, myths can take on a life of their own and even determine quite important choices.

In the case of Palestine, we simply cannot do without analyzing the mythological issues at stake, however painful it may be do to do so.

History has two faces: for a very small minority of scholars, it is something to investigate objectively. For the great majority, it is a series of significant tales which give meaning to our identity as a group.

Palestine is steeped in this very special kind of "history". Starting with Moses: we all know about him, whether we be Christians, Jews or Muslims. We all know the story of the man who led a people across an obliging sea to rescue them from slavery. Apparently the whole story was made up around the time of the first Exile to console the intellectuals of Judah by saying, "it already happened once, we'll get back this time too". But that is history in the abstract sense; History in the emotional sense takes the shape of a ship called Exodus. And just think how important the film with that title was: it struck everybody who had already seen the great Biblical films of the previous decades. It spoke to the average white American Christian racist through the blue eyes and fair hair of an Aryan-looking Jew; it carefully used the image of a young American Baptist who first hesitates to be on the side of Israel (as does the viewer), then takes the plunge...

This is just an example. But think again how much "our" Western identity has been defined against the "hordes of the East", all the way since the Tartars. The "hordes of the East" can be Russians, Chinese, Communists, Muslims, Arabs (in the US, at one time, of course they were also the Ashkenazim from Russia): and in Palestine we see people with faces like ours, who speak languages like ours, with clean fair-haired kids, facing an indistinct mass of dark, howling people, the men masked and the women veiled, with dirty kids who look like Gypsies and who throw stones instead of going to school.

One often reads that Christians have been "anti-Semitic" for two thousand years. There is some truth in this, but there would be a lot more if we simply said that Christians have had Jews on their minds, in one way or another, for twenty centuries.

The obsession with the Jews is something quite peculiar, and different from the dislike "Western" people may have for Blacks in the US or for the Rom ("Gypsies") or for immigrant workers from other countries in Europe. Such people are simply enemies or slaves or "foreign".

On the other hand, the Jews - we have been told - were chosen by God as his only beloved children, unlike us; then for centuries we were told that they were so proud of being special that they killed God's very son. And these strange, bearded creatures dressed in dark clothes, much richer than us, our priests used to tell us, would sometimes murder our own children to make up for the fact that they rejected the sacrifice of the mass. At the same time we learned to admire a stubborn race which never converted, while suspecting that it was secretly governing the entire world. Now, we are told, that the Jews were as special as we had always been told they were, only they were good. We are told that they are our "elder brothers", that God thinks more about them than he does about us. And of course the land the Jews have taken over is a special place for a special people. Even when we criticize what the Israelis do, we often ask ourselves, "how could such a very special people do something so much like the things we do?"

Christianity stole a block of self-laudatory Jewish tribal stories, and has been trying ever since to make sense of these stories. Of course, it is not the Jews' fault that they wound up in somebody else's mythology, but it is time we all realized that what is really behind the atrocities committed in the past against the Jews is the notion that "the Jews" are somehow a special collective being. And this is something each of us must deal with. The Rome rabbis most definitely did *not* deal with it when they praised John Paul II for having stated that the Jews were the "elder brothers" of the Christians, but also criticized him for not mentioning the special relation that these "elder brothers" had to the land of Israel.

I strongly sympathize with the Palestinian who complained the other day that he does not care very much exactly who is to blame for all he and his family have had to go through. However, I believe that if so many identity factors had not been involved, he might not have had to go through so much in the first place.

A warm embrace to everybody on this wonderful list

Miguel Martinez


From: Ghassan Ghraizi

Dear friends,

In relation to the question of this group's goal, I am of the opinion that ideas constitute powerful action. Ideas have conquered the imagination like no army has done.

We all translate ideas into physical action in our own way, whether in our diction or in our daily activities. Ideas influence almost every thinking person into action, so there is a very small separation, in my opinion, between sharing ideas and translating such ideas into action.

Sadly, the Palestinian struggle hasn't focused its campaign on a consistent idea. I anticipate this forum might inspire at least one participant to verbalize a concept that might win the hearts and minds of most people who matter-therefrom effective and focused action would follow.

Many of the ideas currently being discussed warrant support, if not by members of this group perhaps by members of other activist groups.

Speaking of other groups, I contributed the following excerpt from my upcoming novel, "Israel, By Any Other Name" (sorry Israel, it's not about you) to the Global Network of Arab Activists in the past. I'd like to share it with this group since it addresses some of the themes being discussed, including the exclusivity of the Jewish experience.

I apologize to those who might feel that I am merely promoting my upcoming novel, I just don't have enough time to reinvent my ideas at this time.

"Incorrect universal usage of anti-Semite, for example, had focused a murderous national hatred for Jews. Bad language, however, isn't necessarily a precursor to human tragedy. Nevertheless, exclusionary sentiments are first expressed by words, and anti-Semite's universally accepted racist designation in the second half of the twentieth century conversely equaled the racist connotation of the Semitic label from 19th century Germany.

I suddenly laughed. Even I initially had difficulty identifying the absurdity!

In other words, since the pejorative label of Semite as popularized during 19th century Germany carried the same connotation of the word nigger, and since those who expressed hatred towards blacks have been known as racists, why were those who exclusively hated Jews known as anti-Semites? Shouldn't those who hated Negroes and Jews be equally labeled as racists? I couldn't find any justification for an exclusionary status in victimization, and through victimization I identified my first separation from Adinah's identity as a Semite.

The universal acceptance of anti-Semitism as exclusively anti-Jewish therefore created its own form of absurd racism. This racism would appear inverted if illustrated by a three-dimensional model. It could, on the other hand, be more precisely expressed by a converse mathematical relationship.

Not to be confused with reverse racism, which described a reversal of roles, this conversely inverted racism protected an exclusionary status for victims of racist bias. Its product was expressed by an absolute value. Some Jews, for instance, claimed anti-Semitism with its entire negative connotation as positively their burden, their own separate ordeal from the rest of humanity, and denied other Semites, Arabs in this instance, their status of victim using its terminology.

Arabs, it seemed, should be content with defending references, by Jews and all, to camel jockey, sand nigger, and WOG, to name a few, as racist. Whereas a reference to Jews as kikes invited the universal wrath of anti-Semitism! As largely self-evident, what happened to all Semites being hated equal?

For goodness sake, though an anti-Jewish Wilhelm Marr coined the term anti-Semite in 1879, it was a political ruse to make hatred a scientific practice while promoting his anti-Jewish party: Arabs were not included in his anti-Semitic platform because Arabs did not live in Germany as German citizens. Ironically, in its incorrect yet universally accepted meaning, how was the use of anti-Semite any less political today?

After all, the word Semite did not identify a religion. It was a linguistic and racial attribute that could have conceivably excluded a native English speaker like Adinah and a native Russian speaker like Arebus, yet it became the exclusionary identity that propelled Zionism into the world's sympathy! The term was thus bastardized to accommodate an exclusive religious profile as a basis for an exclusionary national revival at mythical proportions. And in Zionism's political exploitation of the word I identified my second separation from Adinah's identity as a Semite.

Suppose the term had been accepted universally, albeit incorrectly, because anti-Semitism was deliberately intended to have only meant anti-Jewish in the West, shouldn't its harmful politicization have stirred enough concern among intellectuals to inspire correcting it? What was the cultural and historical value of invoking the image of mankind's most brutal documented moment in the twentieth century with a misnomer? In other words, hadn't mankind suffered enough from accepting the political goals inherent in anti-Semitism to correct its usage?

The Jewish state's often-brutal abuse of its non-Jewish citizens and non-citizens under its control epitomized this converse racism. The Jewish state's discriminatory policies were thus protected from the misnomer, anti-Semitism, due to the universal acceptance that Jews couldn't be anti-themselves. The Israeli policies against non-Jews hadn't also been identified with racism since, on balance, Israeli Jews comprised of most races, and Arabs comprised of most religions.

Regardless, the hate that bred anti-Semitism's universally accepted misnomer should be stripped of its euphemism. The time was ripe for words to embody their true meaning and for hatred of Jews to be unveiled and categorized accordingly. Render to Jews what was Jewish, to Arabs what was Arabic, and from both what was anti-Semitic!"

Faithfully, Ghassan Ghraizi, Author 


From Muna Hamze

The idea of a bi-national state

Imagine, if you will, that Israel signs a permanent peace agreement with the Palestinians which fully relinquishes Israeli control over the territories occupied in 1967 and allows for the existence of a Palestinian state on every inch occupied in 1967. And imagine that the Palestinians no longer have travel, economic and other restrictions imposed on them and are able to concentrate on building a truly democratic civil society.

What would be the result of such an agreement?

It would lead to political stability and economic prosperity. In time, perhaps in 15 to 20 years, such a condition of stability and prosperity would naturally lead to a bi-national state. It would be the natural result of real peace. And the country would become one state for two people.

I propose that this is precisely why respective Israeli governments don't want to make genuine peace with the Palestinians. For if such peace were to exist and if a bi-national state were to be the end result, wouldn't this completely shatter the entire concept of a Jewish state for a Jewish people?

Anyone who has visited the country and has traveled around by car knows that physically speaking, there is room for the refugees to return. Of course, we refugees are always being asked, both by the Israeli and western press, what kind of return are we talking about? Do we want to throw out Israelis who live in our homes?

The answer, in my opinion, is no. I don't want the family who lives in my father's house in the German colony in Haifa to leave, nor the Israeli family who lives in my mother's house in Jerusalem. But I want to be compensated for the loss of property, in addition to attaining my right to return to live in either city. Right of return means, for me, the right to rent an apartment in Haifa, buy a house in Haifa, work in Haifa and live in Haifa for as long as I want. And this return is possible, physically possible I mean. and frankly speaking, a Jew from Brooklyn or from Latvia isn't in any way more entitled to Palestine than the Palestinians are. Simply being a Jew doesn't give him/her the right to Palestine, regardless of what promises god made to whom.

But the Israelis know that should they allow for the right of return to happen, in no time at all, there would be a majority of Palestinians in the state and only a minority of Jews - simply because we have ahigher birth rate. And this isn't what they want. For how then can they claim it as a state for the Jews?

Events on the ground in the Palestinian Territories today indicate just how much Israel has begun - in this intifada - to dig its own grave. An all out war and with the type of weapons available in the region today would have devastating ramifications on the entire area and would lead to much death and destruction of sizable proportions.

The alternative is for Israel, and the Jews around the world, to rethink the whole idea of a Jewish state for a Jewish people. It is obvious that this idea cannot work. It cannot last, specifically because the original inhabitants of Palestine aren't going to disappear, no matter how many of us get killed.

It is time for Jews around the world to realize that Israel cannot exist without Palestine and that the Palestinians aren't the ones responsible for what Europe did to the Jews in world War II. To continue to shy away from calling Israel an apartheid state is no longer acceptable. To use te guilt of what happened in Europe as an exucse to remain silent is no longer acceptable. To continue to make excuses for the Israeli occupation forces is no longer acceptable. No matter how many more years it is going to take, the Israeli empire will come tumbling down. For the sake of the Israelis, and not the Palestinians, real peace remains the better alternative. Otherwise, there will come a day when the grave that Israel is digging for itself will be so deep, it'll find itself buried in it for good. There are no cases in history that show an ever-lasting condition of opression.

And yet here we are in the year 2001, and still trying to convince the world that Israel has become worse in its apartheid than South Africa ever was. It takes courage to speak up, and the need to speak up has never been as vital. One day, not far from now, it is going to be too late to speak, let alone take any action.

Muna Hamzeh


From Bob Green

The world, I agree, owes safety to all the beleagured peoples everywhere. The problem of addressing the question of a sanctuary for Jews arises in the confusion as to whether we Jews are a religion or a nationality. Certainly, Bahais share a religion, are found in many countries, have been subjected to horrific persecutions in various places. Noone, as far as I know, is trying to constitute them as a distinct nationality and establish a geographic homeland in which, armed to the teeth and at war with their outraged neighbors whom they have forcibly displaced, they will then be safe. Human rights organizations and activists who pay attention to Bahai issues advocate their rights no matter where they live. The same can be said for Muslims: what country must be seized to ensure their safety and create a "homeland" for them? Indonesia? Michigan? Of course not: their sanctuary must be wherever they live. Christians and Jews lived for centuries in Muslim countries under the explicit protection of Islam; the Jews of Egypt, Iraq, etc. WERE at home. They were, and are, Arabs, free to practice a minority religion. I can't believe that we Jews needed a separate country. The very construction of the Jews as a supposed "foreign" nationality serves to justify and facilitate their forcible exile from the countries and locales in which the Jewish religion has been practiced. We must guarantee the safety of all the members of the precious human family, as well as their freedom and their right to their homes and livlihood.

Bob Green


From Shamir

I wonder whether G. Westburg is right, and 'an emphasis on the virtues of the Jewish people AND a portrayal of their morally corrupt, vile, and lying leadership would be a better tactic in the continuing media war with the Zionists'. The leadership is awful allright, but I doubt the virtues of the Jewish People per se (as opposed to those of individual Jews or descendents of Jews). One hears names of 'good Jews' mentioned here and there (from Jesus and St Paul to Marx to Joe Slovo to Leo Trotsky to Chomsky etc) in support of this thesis, but these people (almost) always broke with the Jewish People and were anathemised by The Jewish People. It is esp. true in respect to artists and poets: great poets of Jewish origin like Heine, Tuwim or Pasternak etc rejected the Jewish People and their belonging to this body, sometimes by a religious act of baptism. The Jewish People, in my opinion, is a medieval construct that should be undone, and the descendents of Jews should integrate with their host nations. Those in Palestine - with Palestinians, those in the US - with Americans. The Jewish People is like a gang: a good man could leave the gang, and it would be counted as his merit only. But it would be silly to consider his merits as the merits of the gang! Talmud tells us a story of a brigand, Resh Lakish, who gave up brigandage and became a great teacher. He is a positive example, but his past is not seen as glorification of merits of brigandage. The Jewish People, in my opinion, should be treated as the omnipotent Catholic Church was treated by Voltaire: by strict denial of its virtues, without any racist overtones. As for traditional Judaism espoused by our good friend David Goldman, it is a small religious sect like Amish, nobody minds them and let them live peacefully ever after, wherever they are. Looking for virtues of the Jewish People, Mr Westburg claims: The Jewish people have a long history of being a counter-force in the U.S. to the right-wing of the political spectrum, of pushing for human rights for the under-privileged (not Arabs), and of contributing prolifically to the cultural and intellectual advancement of the human race. All these claims are doubtful. The Jewish People in the US are the mainstay of the real right wing globalist and imperialist trend, whether Podgoretz or Tom Friedman. As for human rights for the underprivileged, the struggle for the rights of Blacks in 1960s brought the Jewish People to a position of power without improving the position of the Blacks. Look at Emory University in Alabama, in the centre of Afro-American community: this best local university has, as the result of the struggle, some 40 per cent of Jewish students and 10 per cent of the Black students. As for the cultural advancement, as I said previously, the good guys were rejected by the Jewish People and rejected it. The Jewish state is a means to keep the Jewish People alive. While I wish happiness and tranquillity to every member of human race including my Jewish brothers, I think some structures should not be encouraged and supported. I doubt they could be transformed by means of liberalism, reformism or restructuralism. In plain words: speak good of an individual, but do not support the structure. This is my opinion, but Allah knows better, as they say at the end of weather forecast :-)



From Bob Green

Shamir, once again, you have freed me! For as long as I can remember, I have questioned my parents, reflexive Zionists though they may be, about "What does it mean that we are Jewish?" My mother, outspokenly atheistic, has always responded with jokes, references to food and, more tellingly, with disparaging comments about those who are NOT "Jewish." So, in our family, being Jewish apparantly IS simply a bad mood, or an ideology of the inferiority of others. Yiddish speakers (Yiddish=a surviving form of Old High German, close to Afrikaans, with vocabulary words and grammatical constructions admixed from other languages)know that the way to call someone stupid is to call them a "Goyishe kopf," literally, a "non-Jewish head." Conversly, a smart person is a "Yiddishe kopf," a Jewish head. I agree that the Amish-style Jews (they even wear the same coats and hats!) are a religious sect, harmful in that way to no-one. But what of the rest of us? Each and every cultural flavor I have been raised to recognize as distinctly Jewish, to my great suprise but not dismay, as it turns out, is simply Eastern European, particularly Germanic-Rumanian in the case of my family. In fact, my mom has often characterized my father's family as "kikes", and "not like our family", in a visceral rejection of their more Slavic folkways, as distinguished from her family's Austro-Hungarian origins. If Jewishness is an ideology, one must consult Helen Green to discover its tenets.

Bob Green


From Shamir

Dolores wrote: "I personally do not feel that One state is the best solution. I think that peace and "togetherness" can better be achieved in a manner in which each group preserves its integrity and right to self-governance (as an organized Right of Return is simultaneously implemented)''. Well, Palestine is too small for separateness, and the differences are too big for non-apartheid self-governance.

But there is an extra reason why One state is better. It appears to be the least painful way to dismantle the Jewish state. I think it has to be done, not only for the sake of Palestine, but for the sake of the world. The Jewish state acts like a magnet and creates something that was on its way out of history, the world Jewry, a supranational formation, comparable with the Catholic church in the zenith of its power. Then, the Catholic Church was undone, at first, by Reformation, later by Voltaire and his contemporaries. A previously much smaller and weaker Jewry rose on the ruins of other demolished ideologies.

Bob asked whether Jews are a nation or a religion. Now, Bob's conclusion is a perfectly good one, but on the way of getting to solution of the problem, I propose a different reply: it is an ideology.

As ideology, it contains a belief in superiority of Jews, and denial of equal humanity of non-Jews. It is an ideology that wishes to create a Brave New World of masters and slaves. The priests of this ideology promote hatred of Jews to non-Jews, like a dog is trained to hate all strangers. That is why you can read daily the holocaust stories in NY Times, and stories of Palestinian terrorists, and of Russian pogroms etc. Jewish ideology is strongly anti-Christian, as it was born to fight Christianity. Before Joachim corrects me, I'll say, that modern Israeli historians date the beginning of Judaism in 2 c. AD. Jewish ideology disregards environment. It is also a result of certain historical development. Not by chance, Israeli mainstream considers Greens a sort of crypto-Nazis. Jewish ideology contains greed worshipping, as Marx wrote in his Jewish Question. Marx actually prophesied in 1840s (!) that America will become a Jewish state, will embrace the Jewish ideology of greed and alienation. I saw last week on TV a new American movie, Lansky, about the late American Jewish Mafioso. It is a horrible Zionist propaganda B-movie, that starts with a pogrom, and showing Gentile hatred to Jews, and a good guy Lansky who saved Israel and was good to Jews. There is a line, when Lansky speaks of difference between himself and Italian Mafiosi: they care about honour, he said, but I care only about money. I would add: and power given by money.

Now, who would care what is the law and the creed of the Jews? There are Yezids, Satan worshippers, there are many strange sects, but the problem is the power of the Jews. As long as our ancestors were tailors and Talmud scholars, they could believe in absolutely anything, and nobody would care. But when we speak of owners of the mightiest propaganda machine in the world, I am worried.

I doubt our ability to reform it, as Luther reformed the Church. I prefer an approach of Voltaire, who said, Destroy the infamy. Voltaire spoke of the Catholic Church he was born into. He also proposed to strangle the last King by the gut of the last Catholic priest. It is as if Bob or I would propose to strangle the last Jewish banker by the guts of the last Jewish media lord. Hell, Bob, we are still not up to Voltaire!

Such wonderful people as Bob and many others are the result of hundred years of emancipation, of getting away from this tribal hatred stuff. But let us skip illusions: the power, formidable power is in the hands of the evil guys. They want to have the Jews behind them. Only the best succeed to break from the indoctrination grip, and that is why I love Bob and Ellen and many others so much: they got out of mental ghetto. A lot of other people of Jewish ancestry also go away quietly, and we can help them, by giving fight to the very concept of Jewish ideology, not only a Zionist one.

I would like to compare us Jews with the descendents of Assassins, this dangerous sect of the Crusade days. Nowadays they are called Ismailites, and they are perfectly harmless folk. When the ideology is destroyed, there is no problem with the people. That is why I do not care for racist stuff, whether anti-Jewish or anti-German as preached by Goldhagen.

That is why we need this list, to discuss some very unorthodox ideas, well out of the mainstream discourse on this stage.


From Bob Green

Dear Naomi,

I think you may have mis-read a previous post, adding to your discomfort here. In post 119, the question was asked "where in the world are anti-Jewish groups considered anything but a fringe-pack of mental defectives?" It looks as though you think Jews were referred to by this epithet. In general, I think that the critics of Zionist behavior must examine whether it is an abberation of Judiasm, or a natural outgrowth of its tenets and folkways. I agree that Judaism is evolving, or attempting to do so, as represented by those reformist movements you mention. Listening carefully to the leading lights of those movements, is, with some exceptions, however, very disappointing. They offer Zionism Light, Israeli Hegemonism Light, It's The Palestinians Own Fault Light, Justify Aggression using the Bible Light, etc. Those who speak out against the occupation of Palestine, if identified as Jewish, face accusations of: 1)self hatred, 2)not really being Jewish and 3) treason. What do you make of this? I think that it is indeed true, at this juncture, that those of us raised as Jews who speak against Israeli crimes may really be outside of Judaism as it is now constructed. I wish it were otherwise. I work for it to be otherwise. If it is to be otherwise, then we must see things as they really are, and not as we wish them to be (to paraphrase K.G. Jung.)

Bob Green


Hey folks,

My name is Alex Chaihorsky from Reno, Nevada. Israel Shamir invited me to join the circle. As an introduction of my views on the subject allow me to post one of my letters to Israel Shamir.

---------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Israel, I have received recently several articles from you and I am very interested in your way of thinking. I feel very much in-sync with you on analysis of what life serves us, but my solutions are different. I agree that Israel treat Palestinians badly, but in a different sense. I, myself is half Jew half Moslem. I feel like a Jew and my system of beliefs both Cosmic and Religious is very Jewish, but I do have a feeling that I understand Arabs better than average Ashkenazi Jew. BTW, it is my mother that came from old Dutch Jewish family and my Dad from Azeri Russian aristocracy, so I "belong" on both sides. I think that Jews will be forced to finally decide if they are victors or victims. Both roles have positive and negative strategic sides, and for a long time Israelis tried to play both. But, "you can only fool few people for a long time or all of them for a short time". Israel tries to get cherries from both trees (victor's and victim's), leaving Palestinians without benefit of any. I will explain. A victor rules by force and justice, he says "I conquered and what yours is mine and my law is the law". 99% of the world lives by these rules today. But the conquered are free to resist, rebel, have sympathy from outside and help from supporters. Nobody blames them for wanting and trying to get back what they lost. Israel tried to tell Palestinians that although Israel won, Palestinians are not victims and they DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO WANT AND FIGHT FOR WHAT THEY LOST. Israel wants peace where the side which lost voluntarily loves the winners. That can only be done if the losers lose the hope to win one day. Arabs are much more "down-to -earth" folks when it comes to simple things. They know how to be victors and how to be victims - they have seen both during their long and glorious history. Arabs, because of their "untwisted minds" will never succumb to that game when they are dealt loosing hand from both decks. Israelis, with their Talmudic and Communist "twisted" minds (not necessarily a bad thing, per se, BTW) are hoping to win a very complicated strategic chess game, forgetting that their opponents are not interested in chess at all. So, you both play chess if you opponent agrees or you both fight if he doesn't. But bombing your opponent into a chess match is ridiculous. This whole exercise since 1948 was an attempt of chess-players to have a country to play with. And now they aged and are tired and want peace and to be left alone. But then you have to give back all the toys you took from others or defend these toys as your own. Hoping that you can keep all the spoils and that the losers will love you for your nice smile uncovers national immaturity as coutryowners. The country will be owned by people who value the land beyond their lives and to who the existance without it is worse than death. I do not think that Jews are able to sustain this attitude for a long time. We value ourselves too much.

Fight or flight, so to speak. As it was for thousands of years.

Alex Chaihorsky Reno, NV 


From Manfred-C. Stricker:

When some people said that the University of Human Sciences of Strasbourg had no name and that a name should be given it, there were several proposals. The winner was almost Gutenberg, who worked on his printing system in Strasbourg. Without the printing press, perhaps there would not have been the period of Enlightment. Then came a professor of Jewish origin, Deyon. He pushed Gutenberg out of the nest and put in the name of Marc Bloch. When the French reconquered Strasbourg in 1918, the best German professors that the Kaiser had attracted there were driven back over the bridge of the Rhine, with one piece of luggage per person. Amongst them was Harry Bresslau, a great Jewish historian who had been at the university of Berlin before accepting a function in Strasbourg. His place was taken by another Jew, Marc Bloch, who had not even finished his doctorate and took the place in expectation of a place at the Sorbonne. In 16 years at Strasbourg, he directed one doctorate.

But with Gutenberg out and Marc Bloch in, the battle was not over. I created an "association pour l'université Albert Schweitzer de Strasbourg". Albert Schweitzer, a theologian and physician from that université was the right name in our eyes. I made a visit to prof. Isch, former dean of the faculty of medecine and chairman of the association of the French friends of Albert Schweitzer, to ask him, if we could do something together. He told me that he had tried, but had been told that to persist promoting another name against Marc Bloch would be considered as an antisemitic behaviour. Result : on the day of vote, there was only one name left : Marc Bloch.

Yet the Strasbourg university had been created five centuries ago by the protestants and was for a long time very famous in the German cultural space. But it faltered under French domination. After 1870, the German Kaiser decided to make it great again and succeeded.

The way that had been taken to give this university the name of Marc Bloch had very negative effects and promoted an antisemitism in the cultural classes of Alsace which will be lasting.

When all this happened, I published it in a communiqué which I faxed to the press and different personalities having cultural and political responsabilities. I send arount 20 faxes. I was denounced to Licra (ligue international contre le racisme et l'antisémitisme), brought to justice and condemned for provocation of hatred against Jews to 6 months in jail and around $10 000 in fines, damages and publication of the judgement in the local press, at my expense.

I had protested sayaing that if such methods were used just to give a name, they would certainly be used too to appoint the staff (the international impact of French publications in human sciences lies near 0.80, whereas the American index is leading at around 1.40).

In the court the Jewish lawyer said that I was paving the road for the next holocaust.

Now my affair is in the "cour de cassation" the last resort of the French judiciary system. If I should be definitely condemned, I'll go to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

This affair demonstrates that amongst the benefits of the holocaust there is not only immunity againt critic, but much more negative, the promotion of stupid layers of the Jewish community who are not aware that they are sawing the branch on which they are dwelling. The Holocaust has been the cause of a new antisemitism that has never existed before : stupid Jews coming to rule in politics, culture and mass media. Untill the beginning of this century, a Jew had to be very good to be accepted, like Harry Bresslau (Albert Schweitzer married his daughter). Jews got the general reputation of being intelligent. Now, after the holocaust, if you find a Jew in a high position, people will ask if he has got this position as a profit of the holocaust.

As Rachi predicted, the Wiesel, Goldhagen, Kosinski are up, and a Finkelstein can only survive where the Wiesel, Goldhagen and Kosinski have not concentrated all the power.

Yours sincerely



From Prof Bodi:

Information correction

An author in the togethernetwork group affirmed that there were no archaeological data to confirm the presence of Israel in the Ancient Near East in the 2nd nor in beginning of the 1st millennium BCE. Persian i.e. Zoroastrian religion was suggested as the main background for the formation of the Hebrew Bible. 1. The first mention of Israel in an extra-biblical source stems from the Victory Stele of the pharaoh Merneptah, dating from 1220 BCE after his military campaign in the land of Canaan. In line 27 of his inscription the pharaoh affirms: "Israel is annihilated and has no more seed, i.e. descendents". With this mention of Israel, unique in ancient Egyptian texts, the inscriptions offers the first extra-biblical evidence of the existence of Israel by the end of the 2nd millennium BCE. According to a Paris Egyptologist, Jean Yoyotte, "La campagne du pharaoh Merneptah," in E.-M. Laperrousaz, La protohistoire d'Israel, Paris, 1990, pp. 109-119, this Israel does not yet represent the coalition of twelve tribes. Rather it stands for a tribal group that eventually joined several other tribes that went out from Egypt. 2. The second mention of Israel coming from an archaeological source stems from a stele discovered in 1993 in Tel Dan in the region north of Galilee. The stele was written in paleo-Aramaic by a Syrian king who fought "The king of Israel" and against the "king of the House of David" (mlk bytdwd in the consonantal text read: Melek Bayt Dawid). The stele dates from 850 BCE according to the surrounding potsherds found on the site. If this date is correct, the "King of Israel" would be king Omri of Samaria, the famous founder of the Omride dynasty whose name is attested several times in Assyrian Royal Annals, cuneiform texts now in the British Museum. The Assyrian Annals beginning with 12th century down to 612 BCE, date of the fall of Niniveh, contain several references to the Kings of Jerusalem like "Manase shar yaudi" ("Mannaseh king of Judah") Walter Dietrich, "dawid, dod und bytdwd," Theologische Zeitschrift 53 (1997), pp. 17-32; Andre Lemaire, "Epigraphie palestinienne: nouveaux documents I. Frag ments de stele arameenne de Tel Dan (IXe av. J.-C.), Henoch 16 (1994), pp. 87-93. 3. The Persian aristocrats practiced incest as a supreme religious duty. The sons of Perisan royalty were marrying daughters of conquered peoples for diplomatic reasons but Perisan royal daughters were never given in marriage to non-Perisans. For Persians marrying one's mother or sister was seen as a way out from the endless battle between good and evil. The females were dipositories of what was considred as supreme good in the religious sense of the term. It is widely admitted by historians of religions that Zoroastrian dualism, with its battle between good and evil, light and darkness had influenced Qumran Judaism in the 2nd century BCE as attested by their "Battle Scroll" 1QM i.e. the "Battle Between the Children of Darkness Against the Children of Light". Elements of this dualistic worldview are also found in the Judeo-Christian sect whose founder Yeshuah Ha-Notsri (Jesus of Nazareth) also spoke of the "Children of Darkness" and "Chidren of Light" i.e. the Christians. The Book of Revelation is replete with dualistic and apocalyptic visions of the final Battle between Children of Light and Chidren of Darkness (cf. the Judeao-Christian idea of Armageddon, Hebrew "har" = "mountain" and mageddon from the plain of "Megiddo", the proverbial scene of decisive battles, Revelation 16:16). It is also widely admitted by historians that the Persian Period was the time when Ezra the Scribe put together ancient patriarchal and tribal traditions and gave the Torah its first written shape. The most striking evidence that the Torah had to distance itself from Zoroastrian religion is found in the Book of Leviticus ch. 18 containing a very detailed list of laws against incest. While 5th century Judaism practiced endogamous marriages, it refused to go as far as Persian Zoroastrianism and condone incestuous relationships. Some Persian elements like dualism found its way in the Hebrew Bible and in the Christian New Testament but other elements like institutionalized incest was rejected.

Daniel Bodi Professor at the Paris School of Oriental Studies (


I have problems with my Jewish and my Gentile friends about my views on Israel/Palestine problem.

I am very surprised by their attitude. They think that one side has to be right and another - wrong. That is so stupid and primitive that my teeth ache.

I admire both a Jewish settler who brought farming to Negev and a Palestinian fellach who tended his garden for hundreds of years. I respect any one on each side who died for what he believed to be his people's right and his true legacy. As a son of a Jewish mother I shrug when I hear another story about innocent people who were killed by the bus bomb, but I will lie, if I will tell you that I do not respect a martirdom of self-sacrifice of a young Palestinian man. My friends tell me that this is cowardice. The difference between us is that they spent most of their lives in warm offices and I was for the most of my life field geologist in Siberia and Kamtchatka and spent 2 years in Russian Army fighting oil field fires. This is not cowardice, this is heroism. You may think of it as misguided heroism, but anyone who think its a cowardice I would like to pose a question - what is the most brave thing YOU did in your life? Is there a cause for which YOU will be willing to sacrifice YOUR life?

The same way one cannot escape feeling deep respect when one sees the chronicle of kamikadze attacks. I discussed that matter with WW2 veterans on the US side and all of them, yes, all without exception told me that they respected the young Japanese pilots. Yes, kamikadze fought with military, but I suspect that Palestinians would rather bomb military bases, if they would have a chance. I admire Mossad agents who put their lives at stake for their cause. I admire the persistance and survivability of their coutreparts who, with minimal resources are still able to keep Mossad on their toes. See, I admire honor, noble desire to self-sacrifice for any cause that puts people hearts on fireand the pride of non-abiding to slavery. I admire dirty heroic faces of the tank crews of Golan Division as much as I admire the way that Palestinian mothers raise their boys knowing that they can die at any moment. I admire honor and chivalry and will admire them whatever anyone sez.

And I hope that if the time comes, I will have enough in me to do for the US Constitution what these guys did for their causes.

Recently I came up with a mental experiment.

Assume that some Illinois Indian tribe (I will not use the word Native Americans just to tease the PC crowd) - I repeat - some Illinois Indian tribe will revolt, raid the near US miliraty base (peacfully sleeping at their command posts), gathered a good supply of tanks (remember that guy in San Diego that stole a tank?), ammo, communication equipment, surrounded nearest towns, threw out inhabitants and dug in. They issued declaration on the abuses of promises by the US government, their native right of ownership, etc, etc, etc.

Now the next day, poor American farmers that were thrown out of their homes call Washington and the whole vortex started to come alive.

Now imagine that UN, pissed off by the US not paying them their lunch money get suddenly a chance to play hardball and RECOGNIZES the tribe as a nation, Canada and France follow, in both English and French declarations. Australia pisses in their pants and signs, terrified. Russia agrees laughing to the point of throwing up. Chinese cannot believe their luck. India declared that now all Indians can have automatic US residency because technically Indian is "Indian". English Queen was overheard saying "finally we have got a chance to finish that tea party".............. etc, etc. etc.

US Government is paralized, nobody wants to take responsibility, shuttle envoys, lawyers, Hillary Clinton discovers that she is the only direct offspring of Sitting Bull, takes a name of Chief "Nothing But Bull", etc, etc, etc.

Recognised? We have Middle East in Mid-West. Now war starts. Farmer boys with clenched teeth and volonteers from Montana, Nevada, Arizona and Idaho fight and die in skirmishes, Indians blow up their enemies Broncos with guided missiles ($2 mil a piece, but who is counting?), a yound Idaho man blows up an Indian school together with himself shouting "And the Land of the Brave!". Do you have an audacity to tell me who is right and who is wrong? The truth is - both parties have a right to fight for their lost lands or homesteads, hunting grounds or professional offices, mushroom fields or football stadiums. Certainly there will be people who will dig up tons of docs supporting both sides, lawyers will law, professors will pro, ambassadors will amb, presidents will pres.

The question - what a decent man to do? My answer - join the side you feel you cannot not join or join the Red Cross or... shut up and go to work.

What is not to do? Do not ask your government to impose sanctions, do not send peacekeepers, do not support any side unless you feel that you can put your life on line.

Otherwise, instead of bloody, but quick resolution after which both sides will come with the grips with the reality and adjust accordingly (and they will as all the winners and losers did since times immemorial and until that UN monster appeared) otherwise you will have bloody, but endless process where millions will be borne in refugee camps, adjust to criminal thinking, form "omerta" mafiosi societies, create hereditary terrorists, waste zillions, in one word - you will create Middle East as it is today. And final blow - it will end up with a nuclear explosion. See, when farmers and indians fought, they both fought for the land they loved. Three generation of that artificially prolonged war later some groups emerged on both sides that have no regard for the land, but fought because they hated each other. The window of opportunity to obtain nuclear weapons will ulimately present itself one day. At that day,(my prediction - within 5 years) at that moment, when the mushroom will bloom over Jerusalem, it will be you, false peace lovers, who would be at fault. You, who negated human nature and created monster nations out of good people on both sides, because you never left them alone to slug it out themselves. You thought that conflicts can be resolved by you, smart, elegant, educated, rich idiots, rather then the parties themselves. Now you have to accept responsibilities. But you won't. You will just board the planes, some real some virtual and leave, until the next chance to interrupt your boring existance with lectures on peace andd humanity to some other "barbaric" nations who face irreconcilable conflict. Same attitude will turn Balkans into yet another Middle East.

In the years before anti-biotics (the times when doctors were doctors, not pillpushers) people who contracted a disease if nothing helped were prepared for "crisis". This was a moment, that may have lasted several hours or even days when the human immune system would slug it out with a microbe. The victory was almost always full, whatever side won. If human won, he/she would get well very fast and no sign of the disease will be left. If microbe would win - the human most probably would die. Tragic, but creates immune heredity, develops immune system and does not create chronic diseases. The survivor would pass his/her immune knowledge to his offspring.

Later, antibiotics took over and doctors started to prescribe them left and right. That created enormous amounts of cronic conditions. This is what we have in the Middle East today and in the Balkans. This is like wrong medicine - it does not heal, but turn cronic.

People, give peace a chance - let them slug it out, for Pete's sake!

 Alex Chaihorsky Reno, NV


Very few of us (unfortunately) protest when people say "These gentiles" or "these Goys"... Jewish establishment always supported blacks in their condemnation of Whites as a whole group, so why shouldn' they see us as a coherent group? We think we are not, but what matters is how "they" think. If a farmer in Iowa sees all Jews as a coherent group this is because he was raped by a Jewish banker when he got a loan, raped by a Jewish trader when he bought his supplies and raped by Jewish lawyer when he wanted to resist. On top of that, Mr. Greespan pumped up the interest rates. I do not blame him. I myself am appalled by how much Jews occupy what appeared to be almost all visible space.

I remember three-four years ago there were a "Town meeting" on Israeli-Palestinian problems on ABC. The US was represented by:

Ted Koppel, Madam Albright Sandy Burger

How the hell a coutry that has 2% Jewish population is 100% represented by members on one group? And the group that is directly involved in a conflict?

What is it but the direct spit into the face of Arabs? What would Jews say if the US would have been represented in the same situation by three Arab-American? Do the people at ABC has any brains whatsoever? Or they did it on purpose? Or the message was - "We own this country, do not bother resists".

And then we shout about "diversity" on every corner. isn't it hypocricy itself?

Alex Chaihorsky Reno, NV


From David Pidcock:

We tend to overlook the fact that Interest, is the main cause of conflict - it was forbidden to the Children of Israel to charge interest amongst themselves, or to those "in whose lands they sojourned..."

It is the most subtle weapon of war as described by St Ambrose: The sole, legitimate purpose for inter-est/usury/riba is explained by St Ambrose, in his comments on Deuteronomy 23:19, found in the five books of Moses (AS) in the Old Testament. "From him demand usury, whom you rightly desire to harm, against whom weapons are lawfully carried. From him exact usury whom it would not be a crime to kill. He fights without a (visible) weapon who demands usury; he who revenges himself upon an enemy, who is an inter-est collector from his foe, fights without a sword. Therefore, where there is a right of war, there also is a right of usury."

A Scarcity of Money is the Root of All Evil. "The creation of Dirhams and Dinars (money) is one of the blessings of Allah. They are stones having no intrinsic usufruct or utility, but all human beings need them, because everybody needs a large number of commodities for his eating, wearing etc. And often he does not have what he needs, and does have what he needs not. Therefore, the transactions of exchange are inevitable. Allah Almighty has created Dirhams and Dinars (money) as judges and mediators between all commodities so that all objects of wealth are measured through them. And their being the measure of the value of all commodities is based upon the fact that they are not an object in themselves. And whoever effects the transactions of interest on money is, in fact, discarding the blessings of Allah, and is committing injustice, because money is created for some other things, not for itself. So the one who has started trading in money itself has made it an objective contrary to the wisdom behind its creation, because it is injustice to use money for a purpose other than it was created for. If it is allowed for him to trade in money itself, money will become his ultimate goal, and will remain detained with him like hoarded money. And imprisoning a ruler, or restricting a postman from conveying messages is nothing but injustice."

Imam Al-Ghazali (D 505 A.H.) (c11th century Christian era) recorded in "Ihya-al-Uloom" v.4, P,88-89, Cairo 1939.

In 1668, Sir Josiah Child, a banker, had this to say on the destructive role of interest on humanity which is exactly the same in the year 2001: 'All countries are at this day richer or poorer in an exact proportion to what they pay, and have usually paid, for the interest on money…The abatement of interest is the cause of the prosperity and riches of any nation.'

HOLOCAUSTS & WAR ARE THE GUARANTEED RESULT OF USURY - RIBIS - REBA - I.E. INTEREST In order to leave no lingering doubt that war is an inevitable and unavoidable consequence of interest and compound interest let us take a look at a prediction that came true exactly within the time frame specified by Silvio Gessel in 1918. At the signing of the Armistice in 1918, Gessel predicted World War II within less than 25 years unless the world changed its monetary system from one based on interest to one without. As previously mentioned, the Qur'an tells us unequivocally to: "expect war from Allah and His Messenger." It is a promise binding on Allah: The seeds of all future wars were sown at Versailles in 1919, and ratified in perpetuity at Bretton Woods in 1944. These future wars, like all their predecessors, will be caused by the congenital fault in our hideous monetary system - based as it is on inter-est and compound inter-est. And nowhere better is this deadly fault defined than in the newspaper article published by Gessell, on the eve of the Armistice in 1918. In 'Zeitung am Mitag' a German language newspaper he stated:-

"In spite of the holy promises of people to banish war once and for all, in spite of the cry of millions 'never again war' in spite of all the hopes for a better future I have this to say: - 'If the present monetary system based on inter-est and compound inter-est, remains in operation, I dare to predict today that it will take less than 25 years until we have a new and even worse war. "Government can, and does finance itself to a small extent by the issue of non-inter-est bearing money: this is the aggregate known as M0, the stock of which is currently some 19.1/2 billion. The size of the stock of M0 is limited by the demand for this form of money…The money that banks CREATE is either inter-est-bearing or renders some sort of service that costs banks money to provide"

Thus wrote Anthony Nelson, M.P, whilst acting as a spokesman for Her Majesty's Treasury, on the 22nd February 1993. He failed to point out that he, like Norman Lamont, were both from N.M.Rothschild & Co, perhaps the greatest purveyors of government debt-finance the world has ever known. And purveyors of, in the words of Gilbert and Sullivan: "monumental loans to foreign thrones". Debt is not an inevitability and it can be cancelled without injury to society as a whole. What is, however required, is the euthanasia of the rentier or the money lenders. Between 1817 & 1845 Britain's National Debt was cancelled and, to the best of our knowledge - The World Did Not Come To An End. Is it not time to cancel all debts in line with the Biblical Jubilee? Kondratiev's Curve, shows that depressions occur every 7 years, when people and communities have become choked with escalating debt and inter-est payments: confirming the wisdom of Jubilee which calls for a cancellation of all debts every 7th year. This is further confirmed in the Qur'an which states:

"Those who devour usury will not stand except as stands one whom Satan, by his touch, has driven to madness. That is because they say: 'Trade is like usury', But Allah/Adonai has permitted trade but forbidden usury.

"Those who after receiving admonition from their Lord, and desist, shall be pardoned for the past; their case is for Allah (to judge); But those who repeat the offence are Companions Of The Fire: they will abide therein for ever. Allah will deprive usury of all blessing, But will give increase For deeds of charity (and justice). For He loveth not Any ungrateful Sinner…O you who believe! Fear Allah, and give up what remains of your demands for usury - If you are indeed believers?"

Which explains Lord Acton's remark that: "The issue which has swept down the centuries, and must be fought sooner or later, is the people versus the banks ." Gladstone said about the Bank of England: "The Bank of England, from becoming the banker's bank has become the government's government."

Which is why, Napoleon abolished interest in France in 1807, with the full co-operation of Rabbi David Sindzheim. He knew that Europe would forever be at war unless it eradicated interest from its economy. Having embraced Islam in 1798, and taken the name Ali, Napoleon Bonaparte, he had the fiqh of Imam Malik translated and took it as the Civil Code, better known as the Code Napoleon which is 96% Islamic. His understanding of the importance of abolishing interest can be gauged from the following. He said: "It is amazing that this monster, interest, has not devoured all humanity, it would have done so long ago had not bankruptcy and revolution acted as counter poisons."

The French usually refer to these conflicts as the "Usury Wars". This was the real reason for the Battle of Waterloo which was the first round of negotiations for the Maastricht Treaty - Napoleon wanted a common currency - but not a single currency. The Bank of England had to prevent Napoleon from spreading Islam "the democratic faith."

Yours sincerely David M Pidcock Islamic Party of Britain


Responding to Miguel, in the words of the great actor, Danny Kaye, (Jewish) in the 70's TV movie 'Skokie, Ill.', " it's ok to say 'Jew', Marty." I have a problem with being told what to say, or think. If I wanted that sort of a society, I'd have stayed in Pakistan. I have a problem with the fact that after years of brainwashing by media and governments its ok to say 'Arab', 'Palestinian', or 'Muslim', and the automatic association with those words is 'Militant', 'Terrorist', or 'Fanatic'. And with the automatic association of 'Jew' with 'Holocaust victim', 'The Chosen People', and 'brave defenders of Israel, a plucky little country surrounded by a mass of blood- thirsty savages, fanatics and undemocratic countries'. You see the power of language? And you want to take that power away from the good guys? We are free to discuss every thing but 'Jews'? But the problem is that when we say Jew we aren't even clear about whether its the religion, culture, society, or ideology, all interchangeable, all saying it isn't the religion, culture etc. that's at fault, it's always the other. No wonder we get all tied up in knots. No wonder that the whole Arab Nation abjectly grovels before the West trying so hard to please their masters and be seen as 'good' Arabs, yessuh, massa. No wonder that a whole bunch of 'friends of the Palestinians' ganged up on Israel Shamir because he got quoted by (horrors) some right wingers and that his words might be misused by anti-semites. (!) I really don't want to do the left-wing dance about the problems of neo-nazism, white supremacy and all their liberal preoccupations. I saw jewskickwoman.jpg at and also the white survival posting which I didn't a problem opening. I appreciated the information, I didn't automatically become a white survivalist, and would really hope to be allowed to think for myself instead of having these warnings- White survivalist ahead! Stay away or civilisation as we know it will come to an end! I apologise for my hyperbole. But I want you all to step away from your way of thinking for a moment. We can't say Jew but they can say Arab. And if they're going to set themselves up as saints-on-a-pedestal, a little mud flinging is ok, it'll make them a little more human, then they can join the rest of the human race, and the Arabs can throw a party and the Jews can cater it.(joke) And if I offended any body, I'm sorry, but as long as one more Palestinian baby gets to be butchered, and another Iraqi child die dies of radiation poisoning from depleted uranium shells, I'll say it again! Sincerely, Naseer Ahmad, M.D.(MA), D.Sc. :)


Dear Naseer, As a Jew, even though I'm not 100% sure, in a scientific sense how to define or prove that term, I am more than happy to have us discuss the "Jews." When the Israelis abuse and kill Palestinians, they do so as Jews, by that exact name. They don't qualify their identity as "Zionist" or "Israeli". No, they kill specifically those they identify as "not Jewish." One of the gifts Israel Shamir has given to anti-Zionist Jews is to liberate us from our reluctance to be called "self-hating Jews," or, heaven forfend, "anti-Semitic." I often remind people that Jews rarely hate themselves, they concentrate on hating OTHERS. That is one of the main points in contention, actually. One thing is clear: a Jew is not the name of a nationality or even an ethnicity. The Jews do not share a common language, common area of origin, common culture, common tradition or history. Many so-called Jews have no religious belief or practice, or have adopted practices of other peoples, or of recent invention under the brand-name of some novel form of "Judaism." We have been falsely constituted as a colonial power, with a re-created language, somewhat like South Africa's "white tribe", the Afrikaaners. As such, the Jews are a political movement and must be discussed in any way that allows the discussion to make sense... So, Miguel, I join Naseer in making it a usable word: Jew Jew Jew Jew Jew. Bob Green P.S. I'll be happy to cater a party for Free Palestine (not a joke.)


In the argument between our friends Miguel and Nasser I fully support our moderator Bob Green! After all, this is the only 'no holds barred' discussion list in the Universe! As for the witty definition of the Jewry by Miguel, "a gigantic collective creature with a lot of heads and hands, but only one brain", it could be said about any structure, for instance, England, Italy, Catholic church, KKK, Communist (or Democratic) Party, Afro-Americans, WASPs etc. Yes, we want to cause disintegration of 'the Jewry', but it is not the same as saying that it does not exist full stop. There are forces that want the thing to exist, so it is a process, a struggle, a dynamic interaction. A normal descendent of Jews probably wants 'the Jewry' to disappear, but there are many guys (Bronfman and Foxman, not only Kahane) who want to make it stronger. I would love to be sure that the Jewry (The Jewish People) does not exist, but I am not certain. As you know, Germany turned property of deceased Jews (OK, I mean German persons considered to belong to Jewish People by these bastards) to the Jewish People (I mean the Conference for Claims of Bronfman et al). In other words, the residue (the property not collected by direct heirs) will go to Messrs Bronfman, Silver, Burg etc. It means that (at least) Germany believes in existence of the Jewish People as a legal entity. Similar decisions were taken by Italy, Switzerland, etc. Give it a thought, Miguel! Your Italian army caused a lot of damage during WWII from Ethiopia to Stalingrad. Still, you Italians paid just for one thing, for one bombing of Tel Aviv. You paid for it full market price (details by request). If the Jewry does not exist, why has Italy paid up? That is why I tend to think the Jewry exists, to the extent any other person of public law exists. Then, Israel is just a part-time occupation for this entity. Let us post it as a theoretical question: whether the Jewry exists? And I do not mean 'exists in feverish minds of Kahanists and Hitlerites'. The reply will have some practical conclusions. If we reply in affirmative, the Jewry should be pushed and prodded, so it would have less desire to deal with Palestine. The Jewry (I mean the elites of Organised Jewry from Friedman to Bronfman) should be attacked, as it was done by our good friends Robert Silverman and Bruce Katz of Montreal etc. But if our answer to the theoretical question is in negative, we should lay off.


Dear folks,

Can anyone help me to understand why the Holocaust seem to be a forbidden subject nowadays? I run into some info about very bizarre law suits against so- called "revisionists" and this business puzzled me. It seems that the revisionists deny many things that for years were never disputed about treatment of Jews by Germans during WW2. Well, some people still think the Earth is flat. However, I have never heard of people why deny the spherical nature of our planet to be attacked or criminalized the way these revisionists are. If a guy who passionately believe in Eart flaness would walk in any astronomical observatory, people would just show him (may be hiding a smile) why he is wrong. No hate, no accusations would be troiwn at him and if he would go away unconvinced, nobody would sue him, or call him a criminal or arrest him. The guy is wrong and stupid - so what? However these revisionists are not treated that way... and I am suspicious.

I was brought up in belief that 6 millions of Jews perished during WW2 and never ever I doubted this, as I have never doubted the numbers of total world population - I cannot count them myself, but since everybody saiz that that is what it is, so be it. One of the branches of our family perished during WW2 in Germany and I was pretty sure that they were victims of the Holocaust. But then I saw a film about revisionism on the History channel. The way these people were treated, the way they were attacked and beaten to the pulp during that trial (in England, I think) reminded me immediately of Soviet courts. But I was still not thinking much of this.

After a while that shameful Swiss thing happened, when Bronfman and Co. demanded that Swiss would pay them the "Jewish people's money". That made me puke. I am slightly familiar with Swiss banking history and know that a good percentage of Swiss banks are owned and/or managed by Jewish families for centuries. Some nerve that Bronfman had to make Swiss people pay for what at least some Jewish bankers never returned to their Jewish clients! I was ashamed and angry and mad. For me the tragedy of Holocaust was a human tragedy, a thing that made us all aware of what humans are capable of. It is customary to put all the blame on Germans, but I am pretty sure that if Hitler would fell in love with Jews and hated only, say, Slavs, the SS-uniformed Jews would diligently do to Slavs what was instead done to them. We, who was borne and raised in Russia know that there was no difference between what Gestapo did and what Cheka and NKVD did. And both Cheka and NKVD were, as the whole Bolshevik leadeship, unproportionally high in Jewish membership. Again, for me that was a human tragedy and a human failure. However all these "payments" - Swiss being the latest, made this tragedy being shamefully used as a cash cow. I thought that there would be a tsunami of protest within Jewish community against using the Holocaust that way, but... there were nothing like it. That made me suspicious. And I started to look for answers.

Then I found out that it is virtually impossible to find in bookshops anything written on the subject from any perspective other than the "official". Then I found that the number 6 millions was taken from Russian documents and it did not addressed Jews specifically (as I understood), but rather all victims of concentration camps. As a former Russian Jewish citizen, I know how many Russians, Roms, Georgians, Armenians, Azeris, Kazakhs, etc. were prisoners of German concentration camps. I started to look for other sources and scientfic evidence, but have found only emotional accounts. And then, I found that in France it is a crime punishable by imprisonment to cite anything but official version. That left me speachless.

Is there anything in the literature that would provide support for the Holocaust claims with scientific arguments without mud trowing? Any civilized discussions on the subject? After that Swiss case I do not believe the Bronfmans of the world anymore.

Alex Chaihorsky Reno, NV


From Genie Trone:

Eh, Roberto!

Madre mia! Que pasa contigo, hombre? Ayayay! How COME jew say dat J word so many times like dat, hombre? "Jew Jew Jew Jew Jew"! Phew! Wattsa MATTA you? Jew gonna get everybody mad now! Now day gonna say jewr anti-semiticos!!! Ayayay, otra vez !

Jew remember when our good Jewish friend he got mad when Israel Shamir say "Jewish tanks"? I assed him "Ay caramba, hombre! Why CAN'T he no say "Jewish tanks"? ~ I mean who ELSE got tanks in Palestine!!!!!?? Eh????" But no, our amigo he say jew gotta say "Zionist" tank, NOT "Jewish" tank, cuz jew not supposta say dee J word bout people doin' anyting bad, even if day ARE Jewish, or about bad tings like tanks dat blow up kids even if eets only Jews in dem! So I got kinda confused, hombre, and I assed him "So entonces, CAN I call Israel a Jewish State, or no, hombre?" and he say "No way

'P(ue)S Y tambien, hombre!! Otra cosa...Since I guess he don't like anybody using the J word 'bout anyting, eres completamente LOCO!!?? Ayayay! Now when he see jew say "Jew Jew Jew Jew Jew" he gonna hit da cielo!!! Ay Dio Mio!!

Mira! jew betta tell him jewr practicing to sing wit dat jew-wop band ova dare in the barrio, doze Zion and the Belmonts!** Uddawise jew in BIG trouble, hombre, an I tink he gonna give jew a karate chop an' den a jew-doe flip an' bust jewr head!! So tell him dat jew were jus' practicin' de song dat goes like dis:

Jew-wop! Jew wa-wa-wa-wa-wa! Jew-wop! Jew wa-wa-wa-wa-wa! JEW~LY!!! ........................................... Jew Jew Jew Jew Jew Lee Lee Lee JEW~LY BABY! .................................... JEW~LY! Won't jew come out tonight? Jew-wa, Jew wa-wa-wa-wa- wa! Jew-Jew, Jew wa-wa-wa-wa-wa!!

Eh hombre, watcha tink? Es bueno, si? If he don like dat one, maybe jew can sing him dat old Chattanoga-JewJew song.....

Anyway, if he don believe jew bout all dis, never mind, amigo, I visit jew in dee hospital...... an after jew get betta an jew are in one peace again we can have dat fiesta jew were talkin' about!

Buena suerte, Adios, Jose

RE: From Roberto: ... So, Miguel, I join Naseer in making it a usable word: Jew Jew Jew Jew Jew. Roberto Verde (aka Bob Green) P.S. I'll be happy to cater a party for Free Palestine (not a joke.)

NB *** Jew know what ? Roberto, he did wat I say, an' den he got famous singing dat Jew-wop stuff with dat band!! Jew can hear him here singin' dat famous Zion and the Belmontes song "The Chosen Few" below! Es Verdad! Eet's no joke! Jew just go down to the "Listen to de Samples" place, click on dat song "The Chosen Few" and dares Roberto singin' dee song wit Zion!


From Liz Lalor:

I'm on the ground here in the West Bank working for a development agency. I must tell you that I'm afraid of saying too much on this email system, not for myself, but if it got into the wrong hands it could affect relief and development attempts here. Sometimes I think it is safer in the clashes here then to speak out about Israel publicly. However here is my little piece. Palestinians are tough. The toughest and most patient people I have ever seen. Enduring suffering is in their blood, they don't enjoy it but if it is required they are damn good at it. They need more support in (for now) stopping the expansions that are taking place now in the West bank and Gaza, whilst they are all locked away in their villages. People should not be blinded by the military actions taking place in Palestine now, it is an excuse for what Israel is doing behind the scenes. Israel has a very sophisticated and long term strategy for this intifada.

In the last two weeks a major by pass road has been built around one of the villages I work in, boulders have destroyed crops and water channels, the dynamite used by construction workers is going off all the time. In another village a huge 9 ft fence has been errected which in the words of a famous European Journalist mirrored the fences of the townships of South Africa. The fence will allow for the expansion of Betar Illit settlement on land confiscated from the newly enclosed village. Maybe the fence is a test run for unilateral seperation I don't know. Yesterday Sharon proposed a military zone on the East side of the green line (West Bank) to be 200meters to 2 km wide, any Palestinian not living in the area caught in that area (the West Bank ) can be shot, this is already happening... if it is an enclosed military zone it will also require that journalist, foreign development agencies etc obtain a special pass from the military to enter.A new buffer zone is required between Israel and Egypt to be built on the land of Rafah etc ... All security strategies here on the ground involve a slow transfer of the population right now.

Back to Israel's (shamir) ideas of exposing funders, it's important because little victories over there (Outside of Palestine) against these people will boost the morale here for villagers to stand their ground. To be honest I'm terrified to do it and I think those of you who are Jewish should concentrate on this. Some examples In Australia Joseph Gutnik is a major sponsor of the Hebron settlers (and who knows what else) what pain and misery his funds are creating. Whoever funds Betar Illit settlement I know the story from farmers who lost their land there, lets show what his/her funds are doing. Hey why we're at it lets send some villagers over to sue them. I heard that some American Palestinians were going to sue the American govt who proposed to build the new American embassy in Jerusalem on their land. Who are the legal experts out there???

Shaming doesn't have to involve a law suit it can be simple eg Jo Blow funds the settlement of blah blah the management of this settlement have done this and this, what does Jo blow have to say about it.

I agree with Shamir that the settlements are also a diversion but they are a good place to begin dismantling the donors because their evil is obvious to those unfamiliar with this conflict... and when the money stops coming in I'm sure many people are going to start booking flights for Florida! If anyone knows how we can find out about who is funding what I'd like to know.


Dear Israel:

If the congresswoman from Nevada feels that Israel is her state, then she's welcome to it. I, for one, no longer believe that our battle for liberation is going to be won in the United States, but on the ground in Palestine. If Amercian congresswomen/men and the US media wish to go down in history as being such promoters of apartheid, ethnic cleansing and genocide, then history will one day redicule them and this will be the only way that they'll deserve to be remembered.

Yes, it is in the US congress that aid to Israel is approved, but I have no faith or hope that our battle is to be fought here. How to empower people on the ground in Palestine, arm their children with education, rid ourselves of the current leadership and replacing it with one more befitting to lead an honorable people, and trying to implement the south Lebanon reistence experience in Plaestine is the priority.

As for deligitimizing all support of Jewish supremacy, I think the Jews are the ones who need to stop using the Holocaust as an excuse to be supreme. The draft of the final statement at Durban speaks of the Holocaust - remindig us of it again - but fails to blast Israel for the racist state that it is. I hardly think of this as a success.

It is time for Jews to recognize that the Palestinians must not continue to be used as the excuse for "never again". Funny how atrocities committed in Europe must be paid for by another people. So long as the Jews hide behind the Holocaust to justify what Israel is doing, they will continue to think of themselves as supreme. I don't, as a Palestinian, think that they are. They are not different than others.

Believe me, it is not our future as Palestinians that I am worried about. Justice eventualy previals, no matter how long it takes. But since I am not a racist and have nothing against the Jews, it is THEIR future in Palestine that I worry about. Because the brutal way in which the Israelis are insiting on maintaining their occupation, they are digging their grave with their own hands and the future, for them, looks very bleak indeed.

Muna Hamzeh


Both Muna and Ahmad make extremely important points. I often remind my Jewish brothers and sisters that the Palestinians are very capable of saving themselves; after all, didn't the European Jews prevail over the formerly powerful Nazi Germany in the long run? One reason for Jews to stop the Israeli crimes against the humanity of Palestine and the world is to save their OWN souls. Those of us who do not actively engage in this struggle are actively abetting the atrocities. Only by admitting the crimes and beginning the impossible but necessary task of making restitution will the responsible parties ever be able to rejoin the human community. This is why I support an undivided, secular, democratic state. Only when all have equal rights and power will justice be possible and therefore real peace as well. There will need to be trials, Truth and Reconciliation Tribunals, open elections. If there are two states, it will be a strong, armed Israel dominating a small, barely armed "Palestine" Bantustan, and the Judeo-fascists in Israel (and their international allies) will simply continue their expansionist, genocidal war against the Palestinians and against the entire region. A good beginning gesture, a small show of good faith, might be a Jewish-funded memorial to Deir Yassin. Bob Green

Maan makes some points about Edward Said that I have a few questions about. First, what do you mean by "deconstruct?" Is it the terminology of the Continental philosphers that you use, or do you mean that Edward Said has analyzed the role of media and intellectuals in a manner that shows how they serve the interests of power? These are two separate issues. "Deconstruction" is philosophical concept that calls into question the basis for meaning, and, aside from his examination of the idea of the "Oriental," I do not see this influencing his scholarship greatly.

Said has written an afterward in the new book "The War for Palestine" (Eds Rogan and Schlaim) which addresses the failures of the Arab political establishment in the Middle East to encourage citizenship and development among the people in the face of Zionism and Israel. How the Arab regimes are to be "deconstructed" is beyond me; they are dependents on US, British, and French power, and would not maintain their authorities in Saudi Arabia and Egypt without the backing of these powers. Much of Said's earlier analyses, especially the afterward to Orientalism addressed the intellectual and political malaise of the Arab world due to these tyrants.

Now, I think Said has shifted the onus for Palestinian independence to the Arab citizens themselves, finding that the the PLO and the Arab regimes have spent there credibility. This is apparent in the afterward in the new book and in his criticisms of the Arab American leadership.

I think our challenge now is: How do we build economic, political, social, and intellectual institutions in Palestine, Israel, and the US to address independence, whether for a binational state or for partition. I have seen read or heard very few analysis for the development of a Palestinian economy that is self-sufficient, that is, one that develops independent of Israeli capital, foreign investment, the IMF, and the World Bank. How can we finance Palestinian cultivation of land, to prevent further confiscation by Israel for settlements? What military and political organizations must we help the Palestinians develop internally, so that, in the event of an Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories, the Palestinians can defend their villages against future incursions? Who shall be responsible for care of the sick and elderly? What about Water? I do not have the answers to these; some are simpler questions than others. These are questions we must discuss and answer if we wish to avoid another Oslo when the war ends. Otherwise, whether we favor a unitary state, or a settlement based on the green line, or one based on the 1947 UN plan, the Arab citizens of the state will have no real social and political power. Nor can we work toward that power without answering these questions. These questions form the basis for the institutions Palestinians shall live with after a peace; they have been absent or undermined by the PA during the Oslo fascade, and this cannot happen again. And we need a new Palestinian leadership, especially in the US, that can address these questions in a thorough and comprehensive manner. What we have now are dolts and James Zogbys who like photographers to snap pictures of them standing beside officials.

Caise Diab


My problem with Edward Said is that he shows two faces: 1. That of the Intellectual who is involved in post-modern efforts at deconstructing the role of the media and the role of the intellectual in the West; 2. But that of the Intellectual who is at loss to deconstruct the Arab role of the Arab intellectual himself or herself and to deconstruct the role of the Arab political establishment. He is at odds to add up the two faces, and he ends up refering to non- existent categories when it comes to the Arab role. As in calling on the Arabs to do this and that. Which Arabs exactly Edward Said?

I do not wish to give a literary analysis of his essay as to show the closed alley that someone like Edward Said has constructed for himself. My belief is so great that a formulation of Liberation will have to reverberate through Arab capitals - one would expect Said to define the role of the intellectual and a set of expectations that sketches this role. On this later. It is quite late at night. So this will have to continue. Maan I am very glad to see Porter Notebook pick up the idea I started out with on this network Drop the Zionist faction row, the heroics about who will kill who;to concentrate on the ultimately basic reasons for the secrets of Israeli power plans as discussion of them and sueing them under International Law is the only headway you can make with mind-sets of bigotted people.We also have to realise that the Israelis are already at war with the Palestinians and are conducting a television war in "real time". Palestinian leadership is divided because over 35% of Palestinians are Christians, not Muslims. That fact has evidently worried Israel from way back and they feared international christians would interfere in the easy solution of polarising Jews to Muslims in world opinion.There is also their scientific research to consider which re. heart treatment is way ahead internationally and the USA are not going to allow that sort of thing. Re single state ideas one only has to read how Israeli employers malt reat the workers, (a letter from chinese employees can be found on IndyMedia,)they have imported to replace the Palestinians, to know that the Israelis arrogant attitudes are.not going to change - and how the Israel state supports the old is another disgrace; & their infrastructure ,where many crimes go unchallenged because of police corruption; A protest worker,Liz Lalor, wrote recently, why not sue??; indeed why don't concientious jews in America cohere with the Palestinians to financially mount a court case under International Law?? I attended a lecture in Dublin two days ago where David Jacobson from London sought to establish Jewish history as from 8000 BC for the erection of Solomon's Mount and the creation of David's city. We were also informed that the Israeli authorities have purchased both the Temple/Mount of the Rock and the Tomb of the Prophets "from the original owners "- This last a member of the audience in a position to know confirmed to me that this is the very first time such land purchases have ever been mentioned. Any comments? jocelyn braddell. <It's the Water Stupid:Re Porter Notebook. In the meantime, the IDF can still bulldoze a few more Palestinian orchards, reducing the water needs of the West Bank in increments.

A Wall with a Water Pipe in it

One thing should be clear from the above. The Israelis are not going to leave the West Bank and they are not going to give up that water. If they did so, without developing one of the above plans, they would be reduced to using only twice as much as the Palestinians use today, and I don't think they would be able to handle it. All this talk about giving up 90% of the West Bank has always cleverly disguised the fact that the arrangement of Jewish settlements and "security zones" is closely linked with all identifiable catchments and aquifers in the region.

Yet, any of the above plans would take years to implement, and wouldn't address the problem of population growth in the region, which projects to be mostly Arab. So an Israeli abandonment of "some" settlements and a retreat behind a wall should be seen for what it is: a wet dream, at least for the foreseeable future.

Nor can the Israelis hunker down behind some magic wall that will keep out suicide bombers and other Arabs lusting after a cool glass of water. Simply put, if the Palestinians controlled the West Bank, there would be nothing to stop them from busting the pipelines and using the water for themselves. In fact, they would have every right to do so. At least in the West Bank, it's their land, and their water.

In short, Israel can't do anything about the Occupied Territories, except to continue to play terror bean bag with the armies of - probably very thirsty - young Arab males who for all we know may be suffering from water deprivation psychosis.

I do not agree that nationalisme entails hatred. The nation is a level on which a group of human beings has decided to live and is able to do it. There are other levels, like the family, the parish. Or the Italian borough in NY, or the Chinese. Once a group has been able to manage its life on one level, it can try and live on a larger level, e.g. a federation, like the USA, or a union like the European community, which has become a European Union. Hate has nothing do with a nation. A nation can have the virus of hate as an individual. Or it can fight it. I suspect a group of fierce nationalists to have declared war to nations, pledge to destroy nations, and celebrate it publicly. It is like the greatest racists who have declared war to the racism of others, esp. the racism the super-racists generate with people which were no racists before meeting the superracists. I think that a coherent nation, with high collective achievements is healthy for its members and that individuals who gradually are ashamed by their nation and have the growing feeling no longer belonging to it are in a very deplorable situation. Manfred-C. S






Home  English Articles  French Articles  Hungarian Articles  Italian Articles  Norwegian Articles  Polish Articles  Russian Articles  Spanish Articles  Friends and Foes  Talmud Translated  Discussion Board  Feedback  Picture Gallery  Search  Donations  Site Map

Send web related mail to   and send mail with questions or comments about this web site to

 Last modified: November 23, 2002