Are Jews White?

In his latest radio segment Rabbi Yaakov Shapiro brings down compelling arguments on the topic “Are Jews White?”.
Here is a summary of the Rabbi’s show. In case you missed it you can listen to the recording below.

Tune in December 22nd from 9:30-10pm to Rabbi Shapiro’s latest segment “Is Jerusalem the Jewish Capital?” live on WSNR 620 AM or by calling 616-597-1984.

“Are Jews White?” with Rabbi Yaakov Shapiro

Recently, in Texas, a “Rabbi” representing Hillel (a Zionistic Jewish campus organization) lost an argument with a Neo-Nazi… about Judaism. Richard Spencer, the leader of the National Policy Institute (a USA-based white supremacist organization) was giving a speech about his desire for the United States to become a white supremacist nation, one that excludes Black people, Jews, Mexicans, and any other racial minority.

The “Rabbi” stood up in the middle of Spencer’s speech and said to him: “You are teaching radical exclusion, I teach radical inclusion, let’s learn Torah together.”. Spencer quickly replied: “Do you really want radical inclusion in the State of Israel? Be honest… Jews have continued to exist because of radical exclusion; they refused to intermarry with the gentiles. I respect that, you have a culture and that is what I want for my people (white people)”. The “Rabbi” stumbled and did not have a rebuttal for Spencer.

Basically what Richard Spencer argued was that the State of Israel does not want Jews to be a minority. They want to have a Jewish majority to keep their culture “pure”. If you believe that there should be a Jewish state in Israel then why can’t the white supremacists have a WASP (White, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant) state over here? The Jewish people are their model as they have succeeding in creating a State for themselves.

The “Rabbi” did not have an answer for Spencer. The next day he told reporters that he simply isn’t an experienced debater. He squashed his argument in 30 seconds- The Neo-Nazi destroyed the “Rabbi’s” argument using a coherent argument.

The Rabbi was not actually talking to the Neo-Nazi about Judaism- he was talking about Zionism. Jews and Nazis agree on one thing: Israel represents the Jews and the Jews are a religion/nation/race. What does Israel have to do with Torah Judaism? The Jews did not create the state, the Zionists did. Jews are members of a religion – Zionists are members of a political movement. When one of Rabbi Shapiro’s student’s was in law school, a professor said that in Israel they allow torture. A religious, Jewish student argued that torture is against Judaism. Everyone was confused and thought that Israeli law is Jewish law. It’s not.

Many articles have been written recently by various Zionists claiming that the Jewish people are not white- they are an ethnicity called Jewish. The truth is that Jews are not an ethnicity, you can’t convert to an ethnicity. Jews can be Black, White, Asian, etc. The Jewish people are only a people because of the Torah. If we didn’t have the Torah we wouldn’t be Jews. The only reason we exist as Jews is because of our religion. For thousands of years this is how the Jewish people understood themselves.

Then came the Zionists who said that the Jewish people are not a religion. They wanted to be atheists but we still want to be “Jews”. Herzl had an idea that in order to fix the Jews he will convert all the Jews to Christianity. He quickly realized that it was easier to assimilate then to stage a mass coversion. Assimilation didn’t work because the non-Jews persecuted them anyway, even though they weren’t religious. When the assimilated saw that it didn’t work, they came up with Plan-B: Zionism.

Zionism means that Jews are going to become a nation with a culture. However, Torah Jews don’t have a culture, there are all kinds of different Jewish cultures. Yemenite Jews, Hungarian Jews, Moroccan Jews, etc. We don’t even have a common language as most Jews do not speak biblical Hebrew. The only thing that we have in common is our religion. We don’t even have a common land as we are in exile.

The founders of Zionism created a language, which is a national characteristic (Ivrit) because they wanted to create a culture. They created a land- “Israel”. They rewrote Jewish history and said they are now the real Jews; the nation of Israel.

Many people (Zionists included) don’t realize that you can’t be an atheist Jew just like you can’t be an atheist Muslim or Christian. However, if you asked an atheist what makes you a Jew they may say “I’m a national Jew” – do you live in Israel “no” they what makes you a Jew? “Well I’m an ethnic Jew” but there are Chinese Jews. Jews have no ethnic characteristics. There are Zionists that say Judaism is a tribe. That can’t be though because tribal affiliations go by the father. But if that’s the case then why does Judaism go through the mother?

The Nazis also wanted the Jews to be a race, not a religion. Nazis are racist antisemites and they want to exclude Jews from their countries. They view them as an ethnic minority. The Zionists and the antisemites have common ground. They say that Judaism is a race. Torah authorities say that those who believe in Jewish Nationalism are idol worshippers. You could even eat kosher, put on tefillin, you are still an idol worshipper. It’s a terrible thing. The nazis where nationalists. We learned how horrible it is because of the Jews who were the victims of this. It is treason against the Jewish people and Hashem (G-d) to believe in Jewish nationalism. The Zionists rewrote history.

When the Zionists started their movement they changed the definition of Judaism. Unfortunately both the Rabbi in Texas and Neo-Nazi Richard Spencer believe in the concept as Jews as a nation.

At the end of the day this is what we have: this new neo-Nazi movement wants to take over the United States and exclude Jews and other minorities. Never mind that the movement is disgusting, the idea that Jews are not white, but are a specific nationality is a racist idea and a Zionist idea. Neo-Nazis quote that in the 1700’s, the beginning of the United States, only free white people were allowed to immigrate. They fail to mention that Jews were included in the founding fathers definition of free white people.

thanks to: True Torah Jews

Advertisements

The Business of Anti-Semitism

Every good marketer will tell you that one of the first steps in selling a product is convincing a prospective buyer of their need for a product and/or service. If the consumer feels no lack in living without this particular object, then the entire impetus to buy is lost. Selling a country to people is no different. With a nation such as “Israel”, whose international reputation leaves much to be desired, they must create an impetus for people to take them seriously on the world stage. The answer – immigration. Though many libels have been directed at the Jewish People throughout their history, idiocy has not been one of them. If there is mass immigration to “Israel” by educated Jews from stable countries then, so the logic goes, there must be something to it. Now another problem rears its ugly head. How does one create an incentive on the other side? How do you persuade Diaspora Jews to move to such a…ummm…peaceful country?

Luckily for those in the Israeli immigration business, there is a solution. Media exposure. By adding their commentary to every minor incident that could possibly be interpreted as anti-Semitism, they create a feeling of uneasiness in Jews everywhere. A recent example is Israeli Knesset member Isaac Herzog’s (Zionist Union Party) statement last week where he expressed outrage, “… over the wave of anti-Semitic incidents and threats in the United States and said Israel should be preparing for the worst – a wave of Diaspora Jews fleeing to the Jewish state. I call on the government to urgently prepare and draw up a national emergency plan for the possibility of waves of immigration of our Jewish brothers to Israel.” Translation to Diaspora Jews: “you’re in grave danger, come over to us before it’s too late!” A decent impetus if there ever was one. Buy or die.

Isaac Herzog is only following tradition. The architect of the Zionist Dream/Nightmare, Theodor Herzl, wrote:

“It would be an excellent idea to call in respectable, accredited anti-Semites as liquidators of property. To the people they would vouch for the fact that we do not wish to bring about the impoverishment of the countries that we leave. At first they must not be given large fees for this; otherwise we shall spoil our instruments and make them despicable as ‘stooges of the Jews.’ Later their fees will increase, and in the end we shall have only Gentile officials in the countries from which we have emigrated. The anti-Semites will become our most dependable friends, the anti-Semitic countries our allies.” (The Complete Diaries of Theodor Herzl. Vol. 1, pg. 83-84)

“Israel’s” first prime minister, David Ben-Gurion, proudly preserved Herzl’s tradition. In an April, 1963, New York Times article he claimed that,

“Jews are in truth a separate element in the midst of the peoples among whom they live – an element that cannot be completely absorbed by any nation – and for this reason no nation can calmly tolerate it in its midst.” Delightful.

When those waiting for an excuse to release a bit of pent-up anti-Jewish feeling strike, then their point is authenticated and they take to the stage to trumpet their premonition of imminent disaster. The cycle becomes ever more vicious till many Jews feel no other alternative than to immigrate. As one French couple, Yohan and Yael Sahal, who moved several months ago to the West Bank settlement of Brukhin, said, “There are terror attacks and anti-Semitism in Paris as well, so it’s better to be in your own land, where at least you’ll have someone to protect you. If you have to be afraid, then at least you should be afraid somewhere that’s your home.” With “Israel” having a violent death rate over 9 times greater than France, the Sahal’s claim that there is “someone to protect you” falls a little flat. Not so strangely, the recent rise in French Jewish immigration to the Zionist State was followed by a sharp rise in anti-Semitic activity in France as a result of “Israel’s” Gaza offensive, Operation Protective Edge. As an aside, the worst year in terms of violent incidents against Jews around the globe in the last two decades was 2009, directly following Operation Cast Lead.

With the anti-Semitism stew bubbling away on the burner, what is the next step? Step in Nefesh B’Nefesh. No can deny that organizations such as Nefesh B’Nefesh are among a select group of marketers. When they recently held their annual “Israel” Mega Event in Manhattan, they drew a larger than ever crowd of more than 1,500, all interested in leaving the hazardous environment of America for the safe shores of “Israel”, where one can live in peace without constantly fearing for ones life (insert sarcasm). The NYC Mega Event isn’t the only one. Nefesh B’Nefesh plans to hold events this year in Toronto, Montreal and Los Angeles.

The constant media exposure which insinuates that the terms “Israel” and “Jew” are somehow synonyms only fortifies the position of both Zionists and Anti-Semites.

Our Sages knew for thousands of years that keeping a low profile is the best defense against bigotry. Over-exposure only gives license to those seeking an excuse to wreak havoc. Out of sight out of mind. True Torah Jews wishes to say this:

Just as our forefathers throughout the long years of our exile wished only to unassumingly serve G-d, so this is our wish. We don’t wish to be headlines on the worlds newspapers or top stories on the evening news. And we don’t wish to be associated in any way, shape or form with the State of “Israel” and their yes-men. This is the sentiment of the hundreds of thousands of Anti-Zionist Jews throughout the world. To “Israel” – leave us alone.

thanks to: True Torah Jews

THE ROLE OF ZIONISM IN THE HOLOCAUST

THE ROLE OF ZIONISM IN THE HOLOCAUST
Article by Rabbi Gedalya Liebermann – Australia
——————————————————————————–

“Spiritually and Physically Responsible “

From its’ inception, many rabbis warned of the potential dangers of Zionism and openly declared that all Jews loyal to G-d should stay away from it like one would from fire. They made their opinions clear to their congregants and to the general public. Their message was that Zionism is a chauvinistic racist phenomenon which has absolutely naught to do with Judaism. They publicly expressed that Zionism would definitely be detrimental to the well being of Jews and Gentiles and that its effects on the Jewish religion would be nothing other than destructive. Further, it would taint the reputation of Jewry as a whole and would cause utter confusion in the Jewish and non-Jewish communities. Judaism is a religion. Judaism is not a race or a nationality. That was and still remains the consensus amongst the rabbis.

We were given the Holy Land by G-d in order to be able to study and practice the Torah without disturbance and to attain levels of holiness difficult to attain outside of the Holy Land. We abused the privilege and we were expelled. That is exactly what all Jews say in their prayers on every Jewish festival, “Umipnay chatoenu golinu mayartsaynu” – “Because of our sins we were expelled from our land”.

We have been forsworn by G-d “not to enter the Holy Land as a body before the predestined time”, “not to rebel against the nations”, to be loyal citizens, not to do anything against the will of any nation or its honour, not to seek vengeance, discord, restitution or compensation; “not to leave exile ahead of time.” On the contrary; we have to be humble and accept the yoke of exile.

(Talmud Tractate Ksubos p. 111a).

To violate the oaths is not only a sin, it is a heresy because it is against the fundamentals of our Belief. Only through complete repentance will the Almighty alone, without any human effort or intervention, redeem us from exile. This will be after G-d will send the prophet Elijah and Moshiach who will induce all Jews to complete repentance. At that time there will be universal peace.

THE UNHEEDED CRY

All of the leading Jewish religious authorities of that era predicted great hardship to befall humanity generally and the Jewish People particularly, as a result of Zionism. To be a Jew means that either one is born to a Jewish mother or converts to the religion with the condition that he or she make no reservations with regard to Jewish Law. Unfortunately there are many Jews who have no inkling whatsoever as to the duties of a Jew. Many of them are not to blame, for in many cases they lacked a Jewish education and upbringing. But there are those who deliberately distort the teachings of our tradition to suit their personal needs. It is self understood that not just anyone has the right or the ability to make a decision regarding the philosophy or law of a religion. Especially matters in which that person has no qualification. It follows then that those individuals who “decided” that Judaism is a nationality are to be ignored and even criticized. It is no secret that the founders of Zionism had never studied Jewish Law nor did they express interest in our holy tradition. They openly defied Rabbinical authority and self-appointed themselves as leaders of the Jewish “nation”. In Jewish history, actions like those have always spelled disaster. To be a Jew and show open defiance of authority or to introduce “amendment” or “innovation” without first consulting with those officially appointed as Jewish spiritual leaders is the ideal equation to equal catastrophe. One can not just decide to “modernize” ancient traditions or regulations. The spiritual leaders of contemporary Judaism better known as Orthodox rabbis have received ordination to judge and interpret matters pertaining to the Jewish faith. These rabbis have received their rights and responsibilities and form a link in the unbroken chain of the Jewish tradition dating all the way back to Moses who received the Torah from Almighty G-d Himself. It was these very rabbis who, at the time of the formation of the Zionist movement, foresaw the pernicious outcome that was without a doubt lined up. It was a man possessing outstanding Judaic genius, and a level of uncontested holiness who enunciated the Jewish stance regarding Zionism.

This charismatic individual, the Rebbe of Satmar, Grand Rabbi Joel Teitelbaum, did not mince any words. Straight to the point he called Zionism “the work of Satan”, “a sacrilege” and “a blasphemy”. He forbade any participation with anything even remotely associated with Zionism and said that Zionism was bound to call the wrath of G-d upon His people. He maintained this stance with unwavering bravery from the onset of Zionism whilst he was still in Hungary up until his death in New York where he lead a congregation numbering in the hundreds of thousands. Grand Rabbi Teitelbaum, scion to a legacy of holy mystics and Hassidic Masters unfortunately had his prediction fulfilled. We lost more than six million of our brothers, sisters, sons and daughters in a very horrible manner. This, more than six million holy people had to experience as punishment for the Zionist stupidity. The Holocaust, he wept, was a direct result of Zionism, a punishment from G-d.

IT IS COMMON KNOWLEDGE THAT ALL THE SAGES AND SAINTS IN EUROPE AT THE TIME OF HITLER’S RISE DECLARED THAT HE WAS A MESSENGER OF DIVINE WRATH, SENT TO CHASTEN THE JEWS BECAUSE OF THE BITTER APOSTASY OF ZIONISM AGAINST THE BELIEF IN THE EVENTUAL MESSIANIC REDEMPTION.

But it doesn’t end there. It wasn’t enough for the Zionist leaders to have aroused the wrath of G-d. They made a point of displaying abysmal contempt for their Jewish brothers and sisters by actively participating in their extermination. Just the idea alone of Zionism, which the rabbis had informed them would cause havoc, was not enough for them. They made an effort to pour fuel on an already burning flame. They had to incite the Angel of Death, Adolf Hitler. They took the liberty of telling the world that they represented World Jewry. Who appointed these individuals as leaders of the Jewish People?? It is no secret that these so-called “leaders” were ignoramuses when it came to Judaism. Atheists and racists too. These are the “statesmen” who organized the irresponsible boycott against Germany in 1933. This boycott hurt Germany like a fly attacking an elephant – but it brought calamity upon the Jews of Europe. At a time when America and England were at peace with the mad-dog Hitler, the Zionist “statesmen” forsook the only plausible method of political amenability; and with their boycott incensed the leader of Germany to a frenzy. Genocide began, but these people, if they can really be classified as members of the human race, sat back.

“No Shame”

President Roosevelt convened the Evian conference July 6-15 1938, to deal with the Jewish refugee problem. The Jewish Agency delegation headed by Golda Meir (Meirson) ignored a German offer to allow Jews to emigrate to other countries for $250 a head, and the Zionists made no effort to influence the United States and the 32 other countries attending the conference to allow immigration of German and Austrian Jews. [Source]

On Feb 1, 1940 Henry Montor executive vice-President of the United Jewish Appeal refused to intervene for a shipload of Jewish refugees stranded on the Danube river, stating that “Palestine cannot be flooded with… old people or with undesirables.” [Source]

Read “The Millions That Could Have Been Saved” by I.DombIt is an historical fact that in 1941 and again in 1942, the German Gestapo offered all European Jews transit to Spain, if they would relinquish all their property in Germany and Occupied France; on condition that: a) none of the deportees travel from Spain to Palestine; and b) all the deportees be transported from Spain to the USA or British colonies, and there to remain; with entry visas to be arranged by the Jews living there; and c) $1000.00 ransom for each family to be furnished by the Agency, payable upon the arrival of the family at the Spanish border at the rate of 1000 families daily.

The Zionist leaders in Switzerland and Turkey received this offer with the clear understanding that the exclusion of Palestine as a destination for the deportees was based on an agreement between the Gestapo and the Mufti.

The answer of the Zionist leaders was negative, with the following comments: a) ONLY Palestine would be considered as a destination for the deportees. b) The European Jews must accede to suffering and death greater in measure than the other nations, in order that the victorious allies agree to a “Jewish State” at the end of the war. c) No ransom will be paid This response to the Gestapo’s offer was made with the full knowledge that the alternative to this offer was the gas chamber.

These treacherous Zionist leaders betrayed their own flesh and blood. Zionism was never an option for Jewish salvation. Quite the opposite, it was a formula for human beings to be used as pawns for the power trip of several desperadoes. A perfidy! A betrayal beyond description!

In 1944, at the time of the Hungarian deportations, a similar offer was made, whereby all Hungarian Jewry could be saved. The same Zionist hierarchy again refused this offer (after the gas chambers had already taken a toll of millions).

The British government granted visas to 300 rabbis and their families to the Colony of Mauritius, with passage for the evacuees through Turkey. The “Jewish Agency” leaders sabotaged this plan with the observation that the plan was disloyal to Palestine, and the 300 rabbis and their families should be gassed.

On December 17, 1942 both houses of the British Parliament declared its readiness to find temporary refuge for endangered persons. The British Parliament proposed to evacuate 500,000 Jews from Europe, and resettle them in British colonies, as a part of diplomatic negotiations with Germany. This motion received within two weeks a total of 277 Parliamentary signatures. On Jan. 27, when the next steps were being pursued by over 100 M.P.’s and Lords, a spokesman for the Zionists announced that the Jews would oppose the motion because Palestine was omitted. [Source]

On Feb. 16, 1943 Roumania offered 70,000 Jewish refugees of the Trans-Dniestria to leave at the cost of $50 each. This was publicized in the New York papers. Yitzhak Greenbaum, Chairman of the Rescue Committee of the Jewish Agency, addressing the Zionist Executive Council in Tel Aviv Feb. 18 1943 said, “when they asked me, “couldn’t you give money out of the United Jewish Appeal funds for the rescue of Jews in Europe, I said NO! and I say again, NO!…one should resist this wave which pushes the Zionist activities to secondary importance.” On Feb. 24, 1943 Stephen Wise, President of the American Jewish Congress and leader of the American Zionists issued a public refusal to this offer and declared no collection of funds would seem justified. In 1944, the Emergency Committee to Save the Jewish People called upon the American government to establish a War Refugee Board. Stephen Wise testifying before a special committee of Congress objected to this proposal. [Source]

During the course of the negotiations mentioned above, Chaim Weizman, the first “Jewish statesman” stated: “The most valuable part of the Jewish nation is already in Palestine, and those Jews living outside Palestine are not too important”. Weizman’s cohort, Greenbaum, amplified this statement with the observation “One cow in Palestine is worth more than all the Jews in Europe”.

And then, after the bitterest episode in Jewish history, these Zionist “statesmen” lured the broken refugees in the DP camps to remain in hunger and deprivation, and to refuse relocation to any place but Palestine; only for the purpose of building their State.

In 1947 Congressman William Stration sponsored a bill to immediately grant entry to the United States of 400,000 displaced persons. The bill was not passed after it was publicly denounced by the Zionist leadership. [Source]

These facts are read with consternation and unbearable shame. How can it be explained that at a time during the last phase of the war, when the Nazis were willing to barter Jews for money, partly because of their desires to establish contact with the Western powers which, they believed, were under Jewish influence, how was it possible one asks that the self-proclaimed “Jewish leaders” did not move heaven and earth to save the last remnant of their brothers?

On Feb. 23, 1956 the Hon. J. W. Pickersgill, Minister for Immigration was asked in the Canadian House of Commons “would he open the doors of Canada to Jewish refugees”. He replied “the government has made no progress in that direction because the government of Israel….does not wish us to do so”. [Source]

In 1972, the Zionist leadership successfully opposed an effort in the United States Congress to allow 20,000-30,000 Russian refugees to enter the United States. Jewish relief organizations, Joint and HIAS, were being pressured to abandon these refugees in Vienna, Rome and other Europiean cities. [Source]
The pattern is clear!!! Humanitarian rescue efforts are subverted to narrow Zionist interests.

There were many more shocking crimes committed by these abject degenerates known as “Jewish statesmen”, we could list many more example, but for the time being let anyone produce a valid excuse for the above facts.

Zionist responsibility for the Holocaust is threefold.

1. The Holocaust was a punishment for disrespecting The Three Oaths (see Talmud, Tractate Kesubos p. 111a).

2. Zionist leaders openly withheld support, both financially and otherwise, to save their fellow brothers and sisters from a cruel death.

3. The leaders of the Zionist movement cooperated with Hitler and his cohorts on many occasions and in many ways.

Zionists Offer a Military Alliance with Hitler

It would be wishful thinking if it could be stated that the leaders of the Zionist movement sat back and ignored the plight of their dying brothers and sisters. Not only did they publicly refuse to assist in their rescue, but they actively participated with Hitler and the Nazi regime. Early in 1935, a passenger ship bound for Haifa in Palestine left the German port of Bremerhaven. Its stern bore the Hebrew letter for its name, “Tel Aviv”, while a swastika banner fluttered from the mast. And although the ship was Zionist owned, its captain was a National Socialist Party (Nazi) member. Many years later a traveler aboard the ship recalled this symbolic combination as a “metaphysical absurdity”. Absurd or not, this is but one vignette from a little-known chapter of history: The wide ranging collaboration between Zionism and Hitler’s Third Reich. In early January 1941 a small but important Zionist organization submitted a formal proposal to German diplomats in Beirut for a military-political alliance with wartime Germany. The offer was made by the radical underground “Fighters for the Freedom of Israel”, better known as the Lehi or Stern Gang. Its leader, Avraham Stern, had recently broken with the radical nationalist “National Military Organization” (Irgun Zvai Leumi – Etzel) over the group’s attitude toward Britain, which had effectively banned further Jewish settlement of Palestine. Stern regarded Britain as the main enemy of Zionism.

This remarkable proposal “for the solution of the Jewish question in Europe and the active participation on the NMO [Lehi] in the war on the side of Germany” is worth quoting at some length:

“The NMO which is very familiar with the goodwill of the German Reich government and its officials towards Zionist activities within Germany and the Zionist emigration program takes the view that: 1.Common interests can exist between a European New Order based on the German concept and the true national aspirations of the Jewish people as embodied by the NMO. 2.Cooperation is possible between the New Germany and a renewed, folkish-national Jewry. 3.The establishment of the Jewish state on a national and totalitarian basis, and bound by treaty, with the German Reich, would be in the interest of maintaining and strengthening the future German position of power in the Near East.

“On the basis of these considerations, and upon the condition that the German Reich government recognize the national aspirations of the Israel Freedom Movement mentioned above, the NMO in Palestine offers to actively take part in the war on the side of Germany.

“This offer by the NMO could include military, political and informational activity within Palestine and, after certain organizational measures, outside as well. Along with this the “Jewish” men of Europe would be militarily trained and organized in military units under the leadership and command of the NMO. They would take part in combat operations for the purpose of conquering Palestine, should such a front be formed.

“The indirect participation of the Israel Freedom Movement in the New Order of Europe, already in the preparatory stage, combined with a positive-radical solution of the European-Jewish problem on the basis of the national aspirations of the Jewish people mentioned above, would greatly strengthen the moral foundation of the New Order in the eyes of all humanity.

“The cooperation of the Israel Freedom Movement would also be consistent with a recent speech by the German Reich Chancellor, in which Hitler stressed that he would utilize any combination and coalition in order to isolate and defeat England”.

(Original document in German Auswertiges Amt Archiv, Bestand 47-59, E224152 and E234155-58. Complete original text published in: David Yisraeli, The Palestinian Problem in German Politics 1889-1945 (Israel: 1947) pp. 315-317).

On the basis of their similar ideologies about ethnicity and nationhood, National Socialists and Zionists worked together for what each group believed was in its own national interests.

This is just one example of the Zionist movements’ collaboration with Hitler for the purpose of possibly receiving jurisdiction over a minute piece of earth, Palestine.

And to top it all up, brainwashing!

How far this unbelievable Zionist conspiracy has captured the Jewish masses, and how impossible it is for any different thought to penetrate their minds, even to the point of mere evaluation, can be seen in the vehemence of the reaction to any reproach. With blinded eyes and closed ears, any voice raised in protest and accusation is immediately suppressed and deafened by the thousandfold cry: “Traitor,” “Enemy of the Jewish People.”

Source for paragraphs marked “[Source]”: The Wall Street Journal December 2, 1976

The data presented on this page was prepared by AJAZ.

thanks to: True Torah Jews

Jewish vigilantes jailed over Paris attack on Gaza fundraising event

Six members of Jewish Defence League participated in ‘lynching’ of two men and chanted ‘Death to Arabs’ during 2009 assaults

PARIS – Six Jewish vigilantes were jailed in Paris on Friday over a “savage gang attack” targeting attendees at a fundraising event for Gaza in 2009.

The defendants used iron bars, baseball bats and bike chains in the onslaught, in which they deliberately targeted anybody who looked like a Muslim.

Among their victims was a 22-year-old singer who suffered a “lynching” by the 20-strong mob who chanted “Death to Arabs” and “Long live Israel!”

All were leading members of the Jewish Defence League (JDL), a notorious vigilante group that is outlawed in both America and Israel because of its links with terrorism.

Despite this, the JDL is allowed to demonstrate openly in France, and its yellow and black clenched fist flags are regularly seen at events across the country. 

A court in the French capital heard how all six had beaten up Hatem Essabbak and Mustapha Belkhir outside a Paris theatre in April 2009.

The case is considered one of the most sensitive in recent legal history, because of the way it illustrates how the Israel-Palestine conflict has been exported to the streets of major French cities. 

No less than five examining judges were involved in the Paris enquiry, with four resigning one after the other because of the intense pressure. 

The six men found guilty of carrying out aggravated violent assaults were Jason Tibi, Rudy Lalou, Azar Cohen, Maxime Schaffier, Yoia Bensimou, and Yoni Sulman.

Other JDL gang members are said to have fled to Israel to avoid prosecution, while Tibi has admitted serving in the Israeli army while waiting for his case to come to court. At least two of those convicted today have since fled to Israel.

A damning verdict reads: “The facts of this case illustrate how the violence was aggravated by victims being targeted because of their race and religion.”

Dominique Cochain, Essabbak’s barrister, said: “Normally, this type of case is dealt with within three months. It has to be said that this is a very sensitive issue.”

Essabbak, a 22-year-old singer at the time, was with his girlfriend outside the Adyar Theatre, close to the Eiffel Tower, on Sunday 12 April, 2009.

Both were taking part in Our Talents for Gaza – a showbiz event raising money for the surviving families of more than 1,400 Palestinians, including 400 children, killed by Israeli forces during an offensive a few weeks before.

Essabbak was surrounded by the JDL men who used iron bars, bats, bike chains, crash helmets and fists in the “unprovoked lynching,” the court heard.

Essabbak said: “I was repeatedly hit in the face, around the head, and on both legs. I then fell to the ground, and was hit again around the head. They carried on until they saw I wasn’t moving. My life stopped on 12 April, 2009.” 

Mustapha Belkhir went to help Essabbak and was also badly beaten up. Both men ended up in hospital.

Witnesses heard the attackers shouting: “Have this, it’s for Gaza, you dirty Arab,” and “Us Jews are going to f*** you, you dirty race.”

Most of the JDL members had their faces covered, but their mobile phones were later traced to the scene of the attack.

Tibi – who was described in court as the leader of the group – at first denied any knowledge of the attacks, but admitted taking part when confronted with evidence.

Tibi and and Sulman received two-year sentences, while the others were handed sentences of between nine months and a year.

Beyond the theatre attack, 27-year-old Tibi has a previous prison conviction for smashing up a Palestinian book shop in Paris, and has been filmed fighting in Marseille. 

Cochain told the court: “The evidence is that Mr Tibi has not changed. Videos on Google show that in 2011 he disrupted a pro-Palestine meeting in the 14th arrondissement of Paris, accompanied by JDL members, and wanted to stop debate.

“They were shouting slogans like ‘F*** Palestine’. He was also in Marseille in June 2011 to protest against the Gaza flotilla taking supplies to the blockaded Palestinian territory. His face was covered in blood and he was saying ‘I’m here to protest’, ‘Israel will live, Israel will vanquish.’”

The JDL is regularly involved in attacks on pro-Palestine activists, politicians, journalists and other perceived enemies across France.

There have been numerous calls to ban the JDL in France, with Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve condemning their behaviour as “excessive”.

Sorgente: Jewish vigilantes jailed over Paris attack on Gaza fundraising event | Middle East Eye

Iran, gli ebrei al voto in Sinagoga: ‘Siamo iraniani’

Sono in 20mila, ‘stiamo bene qui e non ce ne andremo’

Nella sala della preghiera della sinagoga di Yusifad a Teheran, davanti al grande candelabro azzurro a sette braccia dipinto sulla parete di fondo, è stato allestito un seggio elettorale. Gli scrutatori sono musulmani, ma i votanti sono solo ed esclusivamente ebrei. La comunità ebraica iraniana, la più numerosa di tutto il Medio Oriente (ovviamente dopo Israele) con circa 20mila persone, ha diritto ad un proprio rappresentante nel nuovo Parlamento iraniano, o Majlis, così come gli armeni, i cattolici siriaci e gli zoroastriani, tutte minoranze ‘protette’ dalla costituzione islamica. A Teheran oggi si è votato anche nelle chiese e nei templi del fuoco.

 

Nella Sinagoga, il dovere elettorale è preso molto sul serio. Dati i numeri relativamente piccoli, stupisce il continuo via–vai di votanti, molti uomini con la kippah, donne velate, famiglie con bambini. All’ora di pranzo qualcuno porta grandi ceste di frutta e le appoggia sugli stessi tavoli dove si compilano le schede, prima di metterle nell’urna e di sigillare il voto timbrando l’indice della mano destra nell’inchiostro. I candidati in corsa sono due, Homayoun Samiha e Siamak Morsedes. “Noi ci sentiamo iraniani a tutti gli effetti. Stiamo bene qui. Non abbiamo problemi”, spiega all’ANSA Elyas Abbian, proprietario di una gioielleria nel grande bazar di Teheran.

 

Abbian dice di ricevere continue pressioni da Israele, specie dai suoi parenti, perché anche lui compia la sua alya, ovvero il ritorno alla Terra Promessa. “L’emigrazione non è però un obbligo”, sottolinea. Anche se non esistono rapporti diplomatici tra Israele e l’Iran – e anzi i due Paesi vengono spesso considerati nemici giurati – gli ebrei iraniani possono recarsi in preghiera a Gerusalemme. Nella sinagoga di Teheran, molti ammettono di essere stati in Israele, ma di essere poi tornati.

Chi doveva partire, ormai è partito. Ai tempi dello Scià vivevano in Iran circa 100mila ebrei. Poi la Rivoluzione del 1979 creò una situazione di paura. L’ayatollah Khomeini inquadrò gli ebrei come minoranza protetta ma i più non si fidarono. Gli ebrei hanno vissuto in Iran da 2500 anni, da quando giunsero in Persia liberati da Ciro il Grande, dopo la schiavitù di Babilonia. La storia della minoranza ebraica in Persia e poi in Iran è stata caratterizzata da alti e bassi, periodi di convivenza pacifica si sono alternati a periodi di persecuzioni e conversioni forzate. Dopo le tensioni vissute durante la presidenza di Ahmadinejad e il suo furore anti-sionista, per gli ebrei iraniani è cominciata una fase più positiva con Rohani. “Il sabato è rispettato come nostro giorno di festa, nelle nostre scuole si studia in ebraico, i nostri ragazzi possono fare il servizio militare vicino alle loro comunità, i nostri riti sono tutelati”, afferma Abbian. “Anzi, il 99,9% dei miei amici sono musulmani e non vi sono problemi di religione. Io partecipo alle loro feste e loro vengono al Tempio”. Abbian si ferma a parlare all’ingresso della Sinagoga, dove l’atmosfera sembra rilassata, tranquilla. Solo un soldato è di guardia, così come negli altri seggi. Gli ebrei iraniani sperano che il nuovo corso avviato da Rohani possa portare anche ad un dialogo con Israele? “Noi speriamo ovviamente di sì, però prima deve essere risolta la questione palestinese. Solo a questa condizione, Israele e Iran potranno diventare buoni amici”, risponde senza esitazione il negoziante del bazar.

Sorgente: Iran, gli ebrei al voto in Sinagoga: ‘Siamo iraniani’ – Mondo – ANSA.it

A Message to All Jews Everywhere

A Message to All Jews Everywhere
From All Jews Everywhere

Our organization, All Jews Everywhere, wishes to voice our appreciation to Benjamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister of All Jews Everywhere, Inc., for speaking on behalf of the Chosen People before the Israel Funding Association (sometimes referred to as the U.S. Congress).

While we applaud Mr. Netanyahu’s invitation to members of Congress to emigrate to Israel, we advise him to drop that “coming home” theme. Bibi, Israel needs our Congress here to keep that spigot open and the funding flowing.

Many have suggested that Israel should finally relent and apply officially for U.S. statehood. However, we reject that notion, since Israel would then only be represented by two senators, as opposed to 100.

We are thrilled that Congress will be hosting this noted peace warrior. Bibi Netanyahu routinely provokes more standing ovations than the President of the United States when he addresses Congress. Fortunately, thus far, few self-hating Jews have been so petty as to criticize Mr. Netanyahu for actions he’s taken in his role as colonial administrator.

We are appreciative of the fact that, like most great leaders, Bibi has been able to negotiate many settlements. Some of those settlements are secured by walls, barbed wire, machine guns, helicopters, drones and tanks, and some argue that Israel is engaged in the oppression and ethnic cleansing of people living in Gaza and the West Bank. We beg to differ! The bulldozing of the houses of the families of 12-year-old terrorists throwing rocks at our tanks is essential in Prime Minister Netanyahu’s “Broken Windows: Eternal War for Eternal Peace” program, which of course requires U.S. aid to finance and maintain. Thus, All Jews Everywhere believes it is reasonable that Mr. Netanyahu is preparing to spend three full days in meetings with the executive committee of Congress — known locally as AIPAC.

We fully endorse Bibi’s cogent point that the problems between the so-called “Palestine” and Israel (whose right to exist as a Jewish state is biblically inscribed — thank you G-d for choosing us!) are caused by Iran. It is a known fact that all the problems in the world are a direct result of that rogue nation’s undeclared nuclear ambitions, which pose a serious threat to Israel’s monopoly of undeclared nuclear weapons.

Although secret cables from 2012 have just surfaced in which Mossad — Israel’s CIA counterpart — judged Iran incapable of manufacturing and deploying nuclear weapons, if the U.S. and its allies do not bomb Iran soon, there could be a war gap. As Mr. Netanyahu stated this week while touring Israeli military bases, “I will go to Washington to address the American Congress, because the American Congress is likely to be the final brake before the agreement between the major powers and Iran.” If too much time passes without war, the momentum for war, along with funding, will erode, threatening our way of life. Alarmed at such a possibility, we in the AJE endorse 2016 Presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton’s request to continue U.S. taxpayers’ annual outlay of $3.2 billion in outright gifts to Israel, plus another $9 billion in loan guarantees and funding for projects that provide jobs there as snipers and tank-operators.

All Jews Everywhere prays for G-d’s assistance in preventing the same methods used to privilege Jews in Israel from being applied by other countries to privilege them against Jews. We reject the anti-Zionist idea that a single humanitarian standard should be applied to all. Otherwise, where are the perks in being the chosen people? We do however suggest that Bibi exchange his camouflage yarmulka for a more conservative one, to keep open his direct pipeline to Adoshem. We worry whether Bibi’s desert camo kippah makes him invisible to G-d. How can G-d protect him, then, and by extension Eretz Yisrael?

“Money for occupations” or “Money for war”? America is wealthy enough to continue funding Israel’s occupations as well as its wars, and make them our own. Yes we can!

Next Year in Tehran!
AJE Executive Board

ENDS

thanks to: © Scoop Media

“Domani non ci sarà scuola, abbiamo ucciso tutti i bambini”

Israele nel deserto. Di Antonio Vigilante.

Non sempre coloro che prevalgono sono i vincitori effettivi di una guerra. Il governo israeliano potrà continuare a sterminare la popolazione civile palestinese, con il tacito assenso della comunità nazionale. Pagherà un prezzo molto elevato: un imbarbarimento del suo popolo del quale i cori da stadio di manifestanti che esultano perché “domani non ci sarà scuola, abbiamo ucciso tutti i bambini” sono già un indizio tangibile. Sarà quella demonizzazione biblica dell’altro che nella storia occidentale ha agito al di fuori dell’ebraismo, e di cui gli stessi ebrei sono stati vittime. Sarà la crisi religiosa che sempre precede e causa la crisi e la decadenza generale (civile, morale, politica) di un popolo. Che lo conduce nuovamente be-midbar, nel deserto. 

Con ogni probabilità, il passo più terribile della Bibbia – una raccolta di testi in cui non mancano i passi terribili: violenti, atroci, osceni – è quello del libro dei Numeri (in ebraico Be-Midbar, “Nel deserto”) in cui Mosè comanda di sterminare donne e bambini. Consideriamo il contesto. Il popolo del Signore è accampato nel deserto, in una località chiamata Sittim. Qui gli ebrei si mettono a “trescare con le figlie di Moab”, partecipando ai loro sacrifici religiosi ed adorando i loro déi. Il Signore si arrabbia ed ordina a Mosè di far impiccare tutti i capi del popolo, per placare la sua ira. E’ singolare che i cristiani, che lamentano (ed a ragione) le persecuzioni cui in diverse parti del mondo sono sottoposti coloro che si convertono al cristianesimo, ritengano sacro un libro in cui si parla di impiccare chi pratica la libertà religiosa – perché di questo si tratta.

Ma procediamo. Un certo Fineas, sommo sacerdote, scopre che un ebreo ha portato nella sua tenda una moabita, e non ci pensa due volte: prende una lancia e li uccide. Il Signore è talmente contento per il suo gesto – l’assassinio di due innocenti – che fa cessare la sua ira su Israele. Non prima, però, di aver massacrato 24.000 persone (Numeri, 25, 1-9). L’edizione che sto citando, quella curata da Bernardo Boschi per le Edizioni Paoline, spiega in nota che questo Fineas “testimonia la radicale ed esemplare fedeltà della sua classe allo Jahvismo nello spirito della Tradizione Sacerdotale”. Un gran brav’uomo, insomma.

La storia non finisce qui. Gli ebrei hanno tradito Dio, e la carneficina non è sufficiente. Occorre la vendetta. Di cosa siano colpevoli i poveri moabiti non è ben chiaro: usando lo stesso criterio, oggi, i seguaci di qualsiasi religione si potrebbero ritenere in diritto di muover guerra e massacrare chiunque faccia proselitismo presso di loro, a cominciare dai cristiani. Mosè manda contro i madianiti un esercito di dodicimila uomini, che massacrano tutti i maschi, incendiano le città, depredano tutto. Ma i capi dell’esercito risparmiano i bambini e le donne. Per umanità, immagino. Mosè tuttavia si arrabbia: “Avete lasciato in vita tutte le femmine? Furono esse, per suggerimento di Balaam, a stornare dal Signore i figli d’Israele nel fatto di Peor e ad attirare il flagello sulla comunità del Signore. Ora uccidete ogni maschio fra i bambini e ogni donna che si sia unita con un uomo. Tutte le ragazze che non si sono unite con un uomo le lascerete vivere per voi” (Numeri, 31, 15-17).

Tralasciamo quest’ultima notazione, anch’essa terribile (è facile immaginare la fine delle ragazze vergini), e chiediamoci: di cosa sono davvero colpevoli le donne? Cosa hanno fatto, per essere uccise? Hanno seguito la loro religione, esattamente come gli ebrei seguono la loro. Il massacro di queste donne, a battaglia vinta, è un semplice crimine di guerra. Ma soprattutto la domanda è: cosa hanno fatto i bambini? Cosa? Perché massacrarli? Non esiste nessuna ragione. Se il massacro delle donne è un crimine di guerra, il massacro dei bambini è un crimine di guerra al quadrato.

Mi è tornato in mente questo passo guardando un video raccapricciante,disponibile su Internet, nel sito di OummaTv, la televisione dei musulmani francesi. Il video riprende una manifestazione di ebrei, felici per gli attacchi contro i palestinesi. Cantano cori da stadio. A un certo punto intonano: “Il n’y aura pas d’école demain, on a tué tous les enfants”. Non ci sarà scuola domani, abbiamo ucciso tutti i bambini. 

E’, questa, la cosa più spaventosa che ho visto e sentito da gran tempo.Sono sicuro che non sono molti gli ebrei felici per il massacro dei bambini palestinesi, e tuttavia il fatto che una simile barbarie sia possibile, sia pure presso pochi esaltati, dà da pensare. Chi ha letto la Bibbia, sa che c’è un filo rosso che unisce questi cori alla storia sacra di un popolo che ha dovuto strappare con la violenza ad altri popoli la terra promessa dal suo Dio.

Prima che mi si accusi di antisemitismo (una accusa sempre pronta contro chiunque metta in discussione le politiche sioniste), aggiungo che il massacro palestinese mi ha fatto venire in mente un altro testo che appartiene alla tradizione dell’ebraismo. Si tratta di un libretto di Chaim Nachman Bialik, lo scrittore ucraino considerato il poeta nazionale di Israele. Nel 1903 avviene un terribile pogrom a Kishinev, attuale capitale della Moldavia. In due giorni vengono uccisi quarantanove ebrei, mentre cinquecento sono i feriti. Di fronte ad una tale devastazione si resta senza parole. Ma Bialik è un poeta, un grande poeta. E le parole le trova. Nella città del massacro, il poemetto scritto per raccontare, per piangere, per denunciare il pogrom, è poesia pura, vibrante, che tocca le corde più intime e commuove profondamente. Comincia con queste parole, Bialik: “Un cuore di ferro e acciaio, freddo, duro e muto, / batte in te, vieni uomo! / entra nella città del massacro, devi vedere con i tuoi occhi, / toccare con le tue mani…” (trad. R. A. Cimmino). E nel resto del poemetto il lettore in effetti vede con i suoi occhi e tocca con le sue mani l’orrore.

I versi più intensi dell’opera sono quelli nei quali Bialik descrive la Shekinah, “nera, stanca, disperata”, che piange in silenzio. Quella di Shekinah è una delle concezioni più affascinanti della teologia e della mistica ebraica. Il termine deriva dal verbo shakan, abitare: indica dunque la presenza, la dimora di Dio sulla terra. Una manifestazione di Dio che ha i caratteri del mistero e della gloria, nella tradizione. Ma con Bialik avviene un cambiamento importante. La Shekinah, la gloriosa manifestazione di Dio, ora si limita a stare accanto alle vittime. Subisce la loro stessa sofferenza, accetta su di sé il dolore degli afflitti.

Il pensiero va anche a quella pagina memorabile de La Notte in cui Elie Wiesel racconta di un bambino impiccato ad Auschwitz. “Dov’è Dio?”, chiede qualcuno. E Wiesel scrive: “E io sentivo in me una voce che gli rispondeva: – Dov’è? Eccolo: è appeso lì, a quella forca”.

C’è una straordinaria rivoluzione teologica in queste parole. Dio non è più nei cieli, non si manifesta più nella distanza e nella potenza, ma sta accanto a chi soffre. Chi soffre in questo caso è il popolo eletto, ma il passo verso un Dio che sta con chiunque soffra è breve. E’ una intuizione – questa di un Dio dei poveri, dei deboli, degli afflitti – che si affaccia in diverse tradizioni religiose: dal cristianesimo (e non a caso alcuni cabalisti troveranno affinità tra la Shekinah e il Cristo) allo hinduismo, con l’idea del Daridranarayana, “Dio nei poveri”, che si trova in Vivekananda in Gandhi. La considero la più alta concezione religiosa dopo quella del Dio-non Dio di Meister Eckhart.

Le parole di Bialik si potrebbero leggere, in questi giorni, come un canto che dice la tragedia delle migliaia di palestinesi massacrati dall’esercito israeliano. Un ebreo ha trovato le parole per dire l’indicibile, ed ora quelle parole non gli appartengono più, come non appartengono più al solo popolo ebraico. Rappresentano il contributo del popolo ebraico alla comune umanità: dire la tragedia, raccontare l’orrore, pensare un Dio che sta con la vittima. La concezione della Shekinah, liberata da ogni nazionalismo, può mettere gli ebrei in condizione di avvertire l’umanità offesa dalle bombe, di percepire il Divino negli occhi delle vittime. Di superare quella etnolatria, quella esaltazione violenta dell’identità nazionale che esige lo sterminio del nemico, che si esprime in quel passo del libro dei Numeri. 

In una guerra non sempre colui che ha vinto è il vincitore effettivo. Le conseguenze di una vittoria possono essere devastanti. Credo che sia questo il rischio attuale per Israele. Potrà continuare a sterminare la popolazione civile palestinese, con il tacito assenso della comunità nazionale. Ma il prezzo da pagare sarà un imbarbarimento di cui i cori di cui ho detto sono un indizio tangibile e preoccupante, insieme ad altri. A prevalere sarà il Dio degli Eserciti, violento e capriccioso, che esige lo sterminio di donne e bambini. Sarà quella demonizzazione biblica dell’altro che nella storia occidentale ha agito al di fuori dell’ebraismo, e di cui gli stessi ebrei sono stati vittime. Sarà quella crisi religiosa che sempre precede e causa la crisi e la decadenza generale (civile, morale, politica) di un popolo. Che lo conduce nuovamente be-midbar, nel deserto.

_________________________

 Fonte: Spectator Novus il blog di Antonio Vigilante . 18 Agosto.  Questo articolo è uscito come editoriale per Stato Quotidiano.

thanks to: Infopal.

ISRAELE. Rabbino Lior: “Se necessario, Israele deve distruggere Gaza”

Le considerazioni del rabbino estremista, espresse sotto forma di una sentenza religiosa, danno la benedizione alle autorità israeliane di sterminare gli abitanti della Striscia per difesa. Il Meretz chiede di aprire un’indagine
Lior trasportato in spalla dai suoi sostenitori all’uscita del carcere nel 2011 (Fonte Jerusalem Post)

Lior trasportato in spalla dai suoi sostenitori all’uscita del carcere nel 2011 (Fonte Demotix.com)

della redazione

Roma, 23 luglio 2014, Nena News – “La Torah spiega in che modo gli ebrei devono difendersi dai propri nemici: se è necessario, Israele deve distruggere Gaza”. Parola di Dov Lior, leader spirituale dell’insediamento illegale di Kiryay Arba alle porte di Hebron, considerato il rabbino più estremista della destra religiosa ebraica. Famoso per aver asserito che “se uno dei due genitori non è ebreo, il bambino avrà i geni negativi che caratterizzano i non-ebrei”; ma anche per essere stato arrestato e interrogato con l’accusa di incitamento alla violenza per aver promosso un libro religioso, “il Re della Torah”, che dà gli ebrei il permesso di uccidere i non-ebrei, compresi i neonati.

Lior ha emesso un responsum (sentenza giuridica religiosa) che permette la totale distruzione della Striscia di Gaza e dei suoi abitanti, se necessario, per difendere il paese sotto attacco. “La Torah – ha scritto Lior – insegna agli Ebrei come comportarsi anche in tempo di guerra. Pertanto, alla nazione attaccata è consentito punire la popolazione nemica con le misure che ritiene adeguate, come il blocco delle forniture o di energia elettrica. Essa può bombardare l’intera area in base al giudizio del ministro della guerra e non mettere arbitrariamente i soldati in pericolo. Tutte le misure deterrenti per sterminare il nemico sono lecite”.

Grande sostenitore di Baruch Goldstein, il colono che il 25 febbraio del 1994 aprì il fuoco sui fedeli musulmani in preghiera alla tomba dei patriarchi di Hebron uccidendo 29 palestinesi – e detrattore dell’ex premier israeliano Yitzakh Rabin promotore degli accordi di pace con i palestinesi – Lior ha aggiunto che “il ministro della Difesa può anche ordinare la distruzione di Gaza, in modo che il sud non debba più soffrire e per evitare danni ai membri del nostro popolo che da tempo soffre per i nemici che ci circondano”.

Zahava Gal-On, leader del partito di opposizione Meretz, ha chiesto al procuratore generale Yehoshua Weinstein di aprire un’indagine: “I commenti razzisti del rabbino Dov Lior – ha dichiarato – vanno ben oltre la libertà di espressione. E continuano sulla linea dei commenti razzisti degli anni passati, tra i quali quelli su Yitzakh Rabin prima della sua morte e quelli in sostegno di Baruch Goldstein”. In quell’occasione Lior definì infatti Goldstein “più santo dei martiri dell’Olocausto”.

thanks to: Nena News

Hannah Arendt e l’intolleranza ebraica

Nel 1961, la filosofa ebrea tedesca e teorica politica Hannah Arendt si recò a Gerusalemme per documentare il processo ad Adolf Eichmann per il New Yorker. Il docudramma ”Hannah Arendt” di Margarethe von Trotta del 2012 racconta la storia del suo viaggio e le polemiche seguite alla sua relazione.

Ciò che la Arendt (interpretata da Barbara Sukowa) vide in Eichmann non fu stupidità, ma in realtà leggerezza, una sorta di completa incapacità di elaborare un pensiero critico indipendente. Arendt capì come fosse all’interno di questa leggerezza che il male diventasse banale invece di essere un sinistro, premeditato crimine.

La “banalità del male”, in quanto tale, è la struttura che permette all’etica di svanire e al cieco conformismo di prendere il sopravvento. In una certa misura, la banalità del male è la cruda obbedienza che, in realtà, allontana la responsabilità dal colpevole e trasforma il genocidio in una operazione meccanica.

La comunità ebraica si mostrò indignata dalla lettura che la Arendt fece sia dell’Olocausto sia del processo Eichmann, e contestò l’interpretazione di quest’ultimo come semplice ufficiale obbediente inserito all’interno di un apparato burocratico dello stato. Protestò contro la nozione strumentale della banalità del Male. Voleva vendicarsi e vedere Eichmann come l’architrave di un caso esemplare di ‘mercante d’odio antisemita’. Ma la Arendt ha suggerito come non stessero affatto così le cose. Secondo lei, la comparsa di Eichmann a Gerusalemme, dimostrò come egli non fosse che un “pesce piccolo” [libera interpretazione di “ingranaggio minore in una grande macchina”, ndt]. Ma ancora di più, la comunità ebraica si infuriò per la tesi della Arendt riguardo a come, in realtà, fosse stata la collaborazione dei Consigli ebraici (Judenräte) a rendere l’Olocausto una tragedia di proporzioni colossali. Essa sosteneva che senza l’assistenza del Judenräte nella registrazione e concentrazione degli Ebrei nei ghetti e, in seguito, senza l’aiuto attivo alle deportazioni nei campi, molti meno ebrei sarebbero periti. A tal riguardo, la Arendt ritenne gli Ebrei almeno in parte responsabili della propria distruzione.

Il punto di vista della Arendt è adesso ben accettato da molti storici, ma, nel 1960 essa stava affrontando la massima forma di avversione ebraica contro l’affermazione di alcuni fatti evidenti.

Il film è uno sguardo devastante nelle profondità dell’intolleranza culturale ebraica. Rivela anche il persistente antagonismo intellettuale ebreo nei confronti del pensiero continentale [inteso come europeo, ndt] e filosofico.

Gli Ebrei hanno portato al mondo numerosi scienziati dal calibro incredibile, registi, artisti, poeti e comici – eppure, restano sempre solo quei pochissimi grandi filosofi ebrei, incuriositi dalla verità e dalla nozione di Essere, a fronteggiare l’isteria ebraica; Spinoza fu scomunicato e Otto Weininger si uccise poco prima di affrontare un destino simile. Il film “Hannah Arendt”, racconta una storia simile ovvero di una campagna diffamatoria implacabile e spietata, di diffamazioni e abuso totale.

La Arendt era una studentessa e un’appassionata seguace di Martin Heidegger, uno dei più grandi pensatori del passato millennio. In quanto tale, tentò di produrre un resoconto filosofico del mondo in cui viveva. Cercò di cogliere il vero significato della Shoah visto in contrapposizione alla semplicistica, popolare vulgata storica. Tentò di capire ciò che faceva sì che le persone cessassero di pensare in modo etico – ammesso lo abbiano mai fatto – ed è questo tentativo di pensare all’essenza [delle cose ndt] e con rigore a destabilizzare l’identità politica ebraica e provocare una tale aggressione.

Ma ecco la buona notizia. Ogni studente di materie umanistiche del mondo occidentale, ad un certo punto, si imbatte nel lavoro di Hannah Arendt, ma nessuno conosce davvero per nome alcuno dei suoi detrattori. Lo stesso vale per Spinoza, che sappiamo essere stato sottoposto alle stesse, implacabili campagne rabbiniche, anche se nessuno ricorda più il nome di nessun rabbino tra quelli che lo aggredirono.

Inutile dire come la persecuzione di Hannah Arendt sia stata più intensa quando ha giocato in casa [ovvero sia stata più potente in Israele, ndt]. Alla pari di lei, sono stato oggetto di una campagna ebraica simile solo per aver affermato la verità che ogni Ebreo conosce bene. Tuttavia, essendo un’anima di buon cuore, spero ancora che alcuni dei miei detrattori più devoti possano apparire in una o due note a pié di pagina di una delle mie biografie.

Dopo tutto, essi hanno dedicato tutta la loro vita per la causa [di contrastarmi, ndt].

Gilad Atzmon, che ora vive a Londra, è nato in Israele e ha svolto servizio militare nell’Esercito Israeliano. È l’autore di “The Wandering Who” e uno dei sassofonisti jazz più affermati in Europa. “Può essere contattato all’indirizzo:atz@onetel.net.uk

Fonte: http://www.gilad.co.uk
Link: http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/hannah-arendt-and-jewish-intolerance.html
12.10.2013

Traduzione per http://www.comedonchisciotte.org a cura di PG

Hannah Arendt and Jewish Intolerance

A film review by Gilad Atzmon

In  1961, German-Jewish philosopher and political theorist Hannah Arendt travelled to Jerusalem to cover the trial of Adolf Eichmann for The New Yorker. Margarethe von Trotta’s  new docudrama ‘Hannah Arendt’ tells the story of her journey and the controversy following her report.

What Arendt (Barbara Sukowa) saw in Eichmann was not stupidity, but actually a thoughtlessness – a complete incapacity for independent critical thought. Arendt understood that it was within this thoughtlessness that the evil becomes banal as opposed to being a sinister premeditated crime.  The ‘banality of evil’, as such, is the structure that allows the ethical to fade away and blind compliance to take over. To a certain extent, the banality of evil is that crude obedience that actually removes responsibility from the perpetrator and turns genocide into a mechanical operation.

 

The Jewish community was outraged by Arendt’s reading of both the Holocaust and the Eichmann trial, and objected to the portrayal of Eichmann as an obedient officer within a state bureaucratic apparatus. They protested against the instrumental notion of the ‘Banality of Evil.’ They wanted revenge and wanted to see Eichmann as the arch exemplary case of a ‘hatemonger antisemite’. But Arendt suggested he wasn’t that at all. According to Arendt, Eichmann’s appearance in Jerusalem proved that he was just a minor cog in a big machine.

But even more, the Jewish community was infuriated by Arendt’s contention that actually it was the Jewish Councils’ (Judenräte) collaboration that made the Holocaust into a colossal tragedy. Arendt argued that, without the assistance of the Judenräte in registering and concentrating Jews into ghettos and later in actively assisting in the deportations to the camps, many fewer Jews would have perished. In that regard, Arendt found the Jews at least partially responsible for their own destruction.

Arendt’s view is now well accepted by many historians, yet, back in the 1960s Arendt was facing the ultimate form of Jewish poisonous venom for stating some obvious facts.

The film is a devastating glimpse into the depths of Jewish cultural intolerance. It also reveals the persistent Jewish intellectual antagonism towards continental and philosophical thinking.

Jews brought to the world many incredible scientists, film makers, artists, poets and comedians – but still, it is always those very few great Jewish  philosophers, intrigued by truth and the notion of Being who face down the Jewish hysteria; Spinoza was excommunicated and Otto Weininger killed himself just before facing a similar fate. The film Hannah Arendt, tells a similar story of a relentless and ruthless smear campaign, character assassination and total abuse.

Arendt was a student and avid follower of Martin Heidegger, one of the greatest thinkers of the last millennium. As such, she attempted to produce a philosophical account of the world she was living in. She tried to grasp the true meaning of the Holocaust as opposed to a simplistic, historical popular reportage.  Arendt tried to understand what is it that makes people stop thinking ethically  – that is, if they ever did – and it is this attempt to think essentially and categorically that destabilizes Jewish political identity and provokes such aggression.

But here’s the good news. Every humanities student in the Western world will, at some time, comes across the work of Hannah Arendt but no one really knows by name, any of her detractors. The same applies to Spinoza who we know was subjected to the same relentless Rabbinical campaigns but no one knows the name of any of the Rabbis who chased him.

Needless to say, the ordeal of Hannah Arendt feels mighty close to home. Like Arendt, I have been subject to a similar Jewish campaign just for stating the truth that every Jew knows well. However, being a kind-hearted soul, I still hope that some of my more devoted detractors may make it into a footnote or two in one of my biographies. After all, they have dedicated their entire life for the cause.

thanks to: comedonchisciotte

Gilad Atzmon

Bestie

Teen shot by Israeli forces suffers partial paralysis

26/05/2013

RAMALLAH (Ma’an) — A teenager shot by Israeli forces on Tuesday is suffering from partial paralysis due to his injuries, the boy’s uncle said Saturday.

Atta Sabah, 13, was walking with school friends in Jalazoun refugee camp near Ramallah on Tuesday when Israeli forces opened fire at the group and hit him in the back.

An Israeli military spokeswoman said soldiers opened fire at a Palestinian trying to hurl a firebomb at Israeli forces during a riot in the area.

Sabah’s uncle accused Israel of deliberately targeting his nephew and said that the family has contacted a lawyer to file a complaint.

Israeli soldiers shot Sabah and the bullet penetrated his lungs, pancreas and damaged his spinal cord, his uncle said.

Sabah was trying to retrieve his bag after his friends had thrown it near Israeli soldiers, he added.

thanks to:

The last of the Semites

14 May 2013

It is Israel’s claims that it represents and speaks for all Jews that are the most anti­Semitic claims of all.

Jewish opponents of Zionism understood the movement since its early age as one that shared the precepts of anti­Semitism in its diagnosis of what gentile Europeans called the “Jewish Question”. What galled anti­Zionist Jews the most, however, was that Zionism also shared the “solution” to the Jewish Question that anti­Semites had always advocated, namely the expulsion of Jews from Europe.

It was the Protestant Reformation with its revival of the Hebrew Bible that would link the modern Jews of Europe to the ancient Hebrews of Palestine, a link that the philologists of the 18th century would solidify through their discovery of the family of “Semitic” languages, including Hebrew and Arabic. Whereas Millenarian Protestants insisted that contemporary Jews, as descendants of the ancient Hebrews, must leave Europe to Palestine to expedite the second coming of Christ, philological discoveries led to the labelling of contemporary Jews as “Semites”. The leap that the biological sciences of race and heredity would make in the 19th century of considering contemporary European Jews racial descendants of the ancient Hebrews would, as a result, not be a giant one.

Basing themselves on the connections made by anti­Jewish Protestant Millenarians, secular European figures saw the political potential of “restoring” Jews to Palestine abounded in the 19th century. Less interested in expediting the second coming of Christ as were the Millenarians, these secular politicians, from Napoleon Bonaparte to British foreign secretary Lord Palmerston (1785­1865) to Ernest Laharanne, the private secretary of Napoleon III in the 1860s, sought to expel the Jews of Europe to Palestine in order to set them up as agents of European imperialism in Asia. Their call would be espoused by many “anti­Semites”, a new label chosen by European anti­Jewish racists after its invention in 1879 by a minor Viennese journalist by the name of Wilhelm Marr, who issued a political programme titled The Victory of Judaism over Germanism. Marr was careful to decouple anti­Semitism from the history of Christian hatred of Jews on the basis of religion, emphasising, in line with Semitic philology and racial theories of the 19th century, that the distinction to be made between Jews and Aryans was strictly racial.

Assimilating Jews into European culture

Scientific anti­Semitism insisted that the Jews were different from Christian Europeans. Indeed that the Jews were not European at all and that their very presence in Europe is what causes anti­Semitism. The reason why Jews caused so many problems for European Christians had to do with their alleged rootlessness, that they lacked a country, and hence country­based loyalty. In the Romantic age of European nationalisms, anti­Semites argued that Jews did not fit in the new national configurations, and disrupted national and racial purity essential to most European nationalisms. This is why if the Jews remained in Europe, the anti­Semites argued, they could only cause hostility among Christian Europeans. The only solution was for the Jews to exit from Europe and have their own country. Needless to say, religious and secular Jews opposed this horrific anti­Semitic line of thinking. Orthodox and Reform Jews, Socialist and Communist Jews, cosmopolitan and Yiddishkeit cultural Jews, all agreed that this was a dangerous ideology of hostility that sought the expulsion of Jews from their European homelands.

The Jewish Haskalah, or Enlightenment, which emerged also in the 19th century, sought to assimilate Jews into European secular gentile culture and have them shed their Jewish culture. It was the Haskalah that sought to break the hegemony of Orthodox Jewish rabbis on the “Ostjuden” of the East European shtetl and to shed what it perceived as a “medieval” Jewish culture in favour of the modern secular culture of European Christians. Reform Judaism, as a Christian­ and Protestant­like variant of Judaism, would emerge from the bosom of the Haskalah. This assimilationist programme, however, sought to integrate Jews in European modernity, not to expel them outside Europe’s geography.

When Zionism started a decade and a half after Marr’s anti­Semitic programme was published, it would espouse all these anti­Jewish ideas, including scientific anti­Semitism as valid. For Zionism, Jews were “Semites”, who were descendants of the ancient Hebrews. In his foundational pamphlet Der Judenstaat, Herzl explained that it was Jews, not their Christian enemies, who “cause” anti­Semitism and that “where it does not exist, [anti­Semitism] is carried by Jews in the course of their migrations”, indeed that “the unfortunate Jews are now carrying the seeds of anti­Semitism into England; they have already introduced it into America”; that Jews were a “nation” that should leave Europe to restore their “nationhood” in Palestine or Argentina; that Jews must emulate European Christians culturally and abandon their living languages and traditions in favour of modern European languages or a restored ancient national language. Herzl preferred that all Jews adopt German, while the East European Zionists wanted Hebrew. Zionists after Herzl even agreed and affirmed that Jews were separate racially from Aryans. As for Yiddish, the living language of most European Jews, all Zionists agreed that it should be abandoned.

The majority of Jews continued to resist Zionism and understood its precepts as those of anti­ Semitism and as a continuation of the Haskalah quest to shed Jewish culture and assimilate Jews into European secular gentile culture, except that Zionism sought the latter not inside Europe but at a geographical remove following the expulsion of Jews from Europe. The Bund, or the General Jewish Labor Union in Lithuania, Poland, and Russia, which was founded in Vilna in early October 1897, a few weeks after the convening of the first Zionist Congress in Basel in late August 1897, would become Zionism’s fiercest enemy. The Bund joined the existing anti­Zionist Jewish coalition of Orthodox and Reform rabbis who had combined forces a few months earlier to prevent Herzl from convening the first Zionist Congress in Munich, which forced him to move it to Basel. Jewish anti­Zionism across Europe and in the United States had the support of the majority of Jews who continued to view Zionism as an anti­Jewish movement well into the 1940s.

Anti­Semitic chain of pro­Zionist enthusiasts

Realising that its plan for the future of European Jews was in line with those of anti­Semites, Herzl strategised early on an alliance with the latter. He declared in Der Judenstaat that: “The Governments of all countries scourged by anti­Semitism will be keenly interested in assisting us to obtain [the] sovereignty we want.”

He added that “not only poor Jews” would contribute to an immigration fund for European Jews, “but also Christians who wanted to get rid of them”. Herzl unapologetically confided in his Diaries that: “The anti­Semites will become our most dependable friends, the anti­Semitic countries our allies.”

Thus when Herzl began to meet in 1903 with infamous anti­Semites like the Russian minister of the interior Vyacheslav von Plehve, who oversaw anti­Jewish pogroms in Russia, it was an alliance that he sought by design. That it would be the anti­Semitic Lord Balfour, who as Prime Minister of Britain in 1905 oversaw his government’s Aliens Act, which prevented East European Jews fleeing Russian pogroms from entering Britain in order, as he put it, to save the country from the “undoubted evils” of “an immigration which was largely Jewish”, was hardy coincidental. Balfour’s infamous Declaration of 1917 to create in Palestine a “national home” for the “Jewish people”, was designed, among other things, to curb Jewish support for the Russian Revolution and to stem the tide of further unwanted Jewish immigrants into Britain.

The Nazis would not be an exception in this anti­Semitic chain of pro­Zionist enthusiasts. Indeed, the Zionists would strike a deal with the Nazis very early in their history. It was in 1933 that the infamous Transfer (Ha’avara) Agreement was signed between the Zionists and the Nazi government to facilitate the transfer of German Jews and their property to Palestine and which broke the international Jewish boycott of Nazi Germany started by American Jews. It was in this spirit that Nazi envoys were dispatched to Palestine to report on the successes of Jewish colonisation of the country. Adolf Eichmann returned from his 1937 trip to Palestine full of fantastic stories about the achievements of the racially­separatist Ashkenazi Kibbutz, one of which he visited on Mount Carmel as a guest of the Zionists.

Despite the overwhelming opposition of most German Jews, it was the Zionist Federation of Germany that was the only Jewish group that supported the Nuremberg Laws of 1935, as they agreed with the Nazis that Jews and Aryans were separate and separable races. This was not a tactical support but one based on ideological similitude. The Nazis’ Final Solution initially meant the expulsion of Germany’s Jews to Madagascar. It is this shared goal of expelling Jews from Europe as a separate unassimilable race that created the affinity between Nazis and Zionists all along.

While the majority of Jews continued to resist the anti­Semitic basis of Zionism and its alliances with anti­Semites, the Nazi genocide not only killed 90 percent of European Jews, but in the process also killed the majority of Jewish enemies of Zionism who died precisely because they refused to heed the Zionist call of abandoning their countries and homes.

The anti­Semites will become our most dependable friends, the anti­Semitic countries our allies.

Theodor Herzl , Diaries

After the War, the horror at the Jewish holocaust did not stop European countries from supporting the anti­Semitic programme of Zionism. On the contrary, these countries shared with the Nazis a predilection for Zionism. They only opposed Nazism’s genocidal programme. European countries, along with the United States, refused to take in hundreds of thousands of Jewish survivors of the holocaust. In fact, these countries voted against a UN resolution introduced by the Arab states in 1947 calling on them to take in the Jewish survivors, yet these same countries would be the ones who would support the United Nations Partition Plan of November 1947 to create a Jewish State in Palestine to which these unwanted Jewish refugees could be expelled.

The pro­Zionist policies of the Nazis

The United States and European countries, including Germany, would continue the pro­Zionist policies of the Nazis. Post­War West German governments that presented themselves as opening a new page in their relationship with Jews in reality did no such thing. Since the establishment of the country after WWII, every West German government (and every German government since unification in1990) has continued the pro­Zionist Nazi policies unabated. There was never a break with Nazi pro­Zionism. The only break was with the genocidal and racial hatred of Jews that Nazism consecrated, but not with the desire to see Jews set up in a country in Asia, away from Europe. Indeed, the Germans would explain that much of the money they were sending to Israel was to help offset the costs of resettling European Jewish refugees in the country.

After World War II, a new consensus emerged in the United States and Europe that Jews had to be integrated posthumously into white Europeanness, and that the horror of the Jewish holocaust was essentially a horror at the murder of white Europeans. Since the 1960s, Hollywood films about the holocaust began to depict Jewish victims of Nazism as white Christian­looking, middle class, educated and talented people not unlike contemporary European and American Christians who should and would identify with them. Presumably if the films were to depict the poor religious Jews of Eastern Europe (and most East European Jews who were killed by the Nazis were poor and many were religious), contemporary white Christians would not find commonality with them. Hence, the post­ holocaust European Christian horror at the genocide of European Jews was not based on the horror of slaughtering people in the millions who were different from European Christians, but rather a horror at the murder of millions of people who were the same as European Christians. This explains why in a country like the United States, which had nothing to do with the slaughter of European Jews, there exists upwards of 40 holocaust memorials and a major museum for the murdered Jews of Europe, but not one for the holocaust of Native Americans or African Americans for which the US is responsible.

Aimé Césaire understood this process very well. In his famous speech on colonialism, he affirmed that the retrospective view of European Christians about Nazism is that it is barbarism, but the supreme barbarism, the crowning barbarism that sums up all the daily barbarisms; that it is Nazism, yes, but that before [Europeans] were its victims, they were its accomplices; and they tolerated that Nazism before it was inflicted on them, that they absolved it, shut their eyes to it, legitimised it, because, until then, it had been applied only to non­European peoples; that they have cultivated that Nazism, that they are responsible for it, and that before engulfing the whole of Western, Christian civilisation in its reddened waters, it oozes, seeps, and trickles from every crack.

That for Césaire the Nazi wars and holocaust were European colonialism turned inwards is true enough. But since the rehabilitation of Nazism’s victims as white people, Europe and its American accomplice would continue their Nazi policy of visiting horrors on non­white people around the world, on Korea, on Vietnam and Indochina, on Algeria, on Indonesia, on Central and South America, on Central and Southern Africa, on Palestine, on Iran, and on Iraq and Afghanistan.

The rehabilitation of European Jews after WWII was a crucial part of US Cold War propaganda. As American social scientists and ideologues developed the theory of “totalitarianism”, which posited Soviet Communism and Nazism as essentially the same type of regime, European Jews, as victims of one totalitarian regime, became part of the atrocity exhibition that American and West European propaganda claimed was like the atrocities that the Soviet regime was allegedly committing in the pre­ and post­War periods. That Israel would jump on the bandwagon by accusing the Soviets of anti­ Semitism for their refusal to allow Soviet Jewish citizens to self­expel and leave to Israel was part of the propaganda.

Commitment to white supremacy

It was thus that the European and US commitment to white supremacy was preserved, except that it now included Jews as part of “white” people, and what came to be called “Judeo­Christian” civilisation. European and American policies after World War II, which continued to be inspired and dictated by racism against Native Americans, Africans, Asians, Arabs and Muslims, and continued to support Zionism’s anti­Semitic programme of assimilating Jews into whiteness in a colonial settler state away from Europe, were a direct continuation of anti­Semitic policies prevalent before the War. It was just that much of the anti­Semitic racialist venom would now be directed at Arabs and Muslims (both, those who are immigrants and citizens in Europe and the United States and those who live in Asia and Africa) while the erstwhile anti­Semitic support for Zionism would continue unhindered.

West Germany’s alliance with Zionism and Israel after WWII, of supplying Israel with huge economic aid in the 1950s and of economic and military aid since the early 1960s, including tanks, which it used to kill Palestinians and other Arabs, is a continuation of the alliance that the Nazi government concluded with the Zionists in the 1930s. In the 1960s, West Germany even provided military training to Israeli soldiers and since the 1970s has provided Israel with nuclear­ready German­made submarines with which Israel hopes to kill more Arabs and Muslims. Israel has in recent years armed the most recent German­supplied submarines with nuclear tipped cruise missiles, a fact that is well known to the current German government. Israel’s Defence Minister Ehud Barak told Der Spiegel in 2012 that Germans should be “proud” that they have secured the existence of the state of Israel “for many years”. Berlin financed one­third of the cost of the submarines, around 135 million euros ($168 million) per submarine, and has allowed Israel to defer its payment until 2015. That this makes Germany an accomplice in the dispossession of the Palestinians is of no more concern to current German governments than it was in the 1960s to West German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer who affirmed that “the Federal Republic has neither the right nor the responsibility to take a position on the Palestinian refugees”.

This is to be added to the massive billions that Germany has paid to the Israeli government as compensation for the holocaust, as if Israel and Zionism were the victims of Nazism, when in reality it was anti­Zionist Jews who were killed by the Nazis. The current German government does not care about the fact that even those German Jews who fled the Nazis and ended up in Palestine hated Zionism and its project and were hated in turn by Zionist colonists in Palestine. As German refugees in 1930s and 1940s Palestine refused to learn Hebrew and published half a dozen German newspapers in the country, they were attacked by the Hebrew press, including by Haartez, which called for the closure of their newspapers in 1939 and again in 1941. Zionist colonists attacked a German­owned café in Tel Aviv because its Jewish owners refused to speak Hebrew, and the Tel Aviv municipality threatened in June 1944 some of its German Jewish residents for holding in their home on 21 Allenby street “parties and balls entirely in the German language, including programmes that are foreign to the spirit of our city” and that this would “not be tolerated in Tel Aviv”. German Jews, or Yekkes as they were known in the Yishuv, would even organise a celebration of the Kaiser’s birthday in 1941 (for these and more details about German Jewish refugees in Palestine, read Tom Segev’s book The Seventh Million).

Add to that Germany’s support for Israeli policies against Palestinians at the United Nations, and the picture becomes complete. Even the new holocaust memorial built in Berlin that opened in 2005 maintains Nazi racial apartheid, as this “Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe” is only for Jewish victims of the Nazis who must still today be set apart, as Hitler mandated, from the other millions of non­Jews who also fell victim to Nazism. That a subsidiary of the German company Degussa, which collaborated with the Nazis and which produced the Zyklon B gas that was used to kill people in the gas chambers, was contracted to build the memorial was anything but surprising, as it simply confirms that those who killed Jews in Germany in the late 1930s and in the 1940s now regret what they had done because they now understand Jews to be white Europeans who must be commemorated and who should not have been killed in the first place on account of their whiteness. The German policy of abetting the killing of Arabs by Israel, however, is hardly unrelated to this commitment to anti­Semitism, which continues through the predominant contemporary anti­Muslim German racism that targets Muslim immigrants.

Euro­American anti­Jewish tradition

The Jewish holocaust killed off the majority of Jews who fought and struggled against European anti­Semitism, including Zionism. With their death, the only remaining “Semites” who are fighting against Zionism and its anti­Semitism today are the Palestinian people. Whereas Israel insists that European Jews do not belong in Europe and must come to Palestine, the Palestinians have always insisted that the homelands of European Jews were their European countries and not Palestine, and that Zionist colonialism springs from its very anti­Semitism. Whereas Zionism insists that Jews are a race separate from European Christians, the Palestinians insist that European Jews are nothing if not European and have nothing to do with Palestine, its people, or its culture. What Israel and its American and European allies have sought to do in the last six and a half decades is to convince Palestinians that they too must become anti­Semites and believe as the Nazis, Israel, and its Western anti­Semitic allies do, that Jews are a race that is different from European races, that Palestine is their country, and that Israel speaks for all Jews. That the two largest American pro­Israel voting blocks today are Millenarian Protestants and secular imperialists continues the very same Euro­American anti­Jewish tradition that extends back to the Protestant Reformation and 19th century imperialism.  But the Palestinians have remained unconvinced and steadfast in their resistance to anti­Semitism.

European Jews were transformed into the instruments of aggression; they became the elements of settler colonialism intimately allied to racial discrimination…

Yasser Arafat, 1974 UN speech

Israel and its anti­Semitic allies affirm that Israel is “the Jewish people”, that its policies are “Jewish” policies, that its achievements are “Jewish” achievements, that its crimes are “Jewish” crimes, and that therefore anyone who dares to criticise Israel is criticising Jews and must be an anti­Semite. The Palestinian people have mounted a major struggle against this anti­Semitic incitement. They continue to affirm instead that the Israeli government does not speak for all Jews, that it does not represent all Jews, and that its colonial crimes against the Palestinian people are its own crimes and not the crimes of “the Jewish people”, and that therefore it must be criticised, condemned and prosecuted for its ongoing war crimes against the Palestinian people. This is not a new Palestinian position, but one that was adopted since the turn of the 20th century and continued throughout the pre­WWII Palestinian struggle against Zionism. Yasser Arafat’s speech at the United Nations in 1974 stressed all these points vehemently:

Just as colonialism heedlessly used the wretched, the poor, the exploited as mere inert matter with which to build and to carry out settler colonialism, so too were destitute, oppressed European Jews employed on behalf of world imperialism and of the Zionist leadership. European Jews were transformed into the instruments of aggression; they became the elements of settler colonialism intimately allied to racial discrimination…Zionist theology was utilised against our Palestinian people: the purpose was not only the establishment of Western­style settler colonialism but also the severing of Jews from their various homelands and subsequently their estrangement from their nations. Zionism… is united with anti­Semitism in its retrograde tenets and is, when all is said and done, another side of the same base coin. For when what is proposed is that adherents of the Jewish faith, regardless of their national residence, should neither owe allegiance to their national residence nor live on equal footing with its other, non­Jewish citizens ­when that is proposed we hear anti­Semitism being proposed. When it is proposed that the only solution for the Jewish problem is that Jews must alienate themselves from communities or nations of which they have been a historical part, when it is proposed that Jews solve the Jewish problem by immigrating to and forcibly settling the land of another people ­ when this occurs, exactly the same position is being advocated as the one urged by anti­Semites against Jews.

Israel’s claim that its critics must be anti­Semites presupposes that its critics believe its claims that it represents “the Jewish people”. But it is Israel’s claims that it represents and speaks for all Jews that are the most anti­Semitic claims of all.

Today, Israel and the Western powers want to elevate anti­Semitism to an international principle around which they seek to establish full consensus. They insist that for there to be peace in the Middle East, Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims must become, like the West, anti­Semites by espousing Zionism and recognising Israel’s anti­Semitic claims. Except for dictatorial Arab regimes and the Palestinian Authority and its cronies, on this 65th anniversary of the anti­Semitic conquest of Palestine by the Zionists, known to Palestinians as the Nakba, the Palestinian people and the few surviving anti­ Zionist Jews continue to refuse to heed this international call and incitement to anti­Semitism. They affirm that they are, as the last of the Semites, the heirs of the pre­WWII Jewish and Palestinian struggles against anti­Semitism and its Zionist colonial manifestation. It is their resistance that stands in the way of a complete victory for European anti­Semitism in the Middle East and the world at large.

Joseph Massad teaches Modern Arab Politics and Intellectual History at Columbia University in New York. He is the author of The Persistence of the Palestinian Question: Essays on Zionism and the Palestinians.

You can follow the editor on Twitter: @nyktweets

thanks to: Joseph Massad

the censuring policy of Aljazeera

restored article

Joseph Massad’s statement in full after restoration

I am heartened to know that there has been a huge and widespread upheaval among Al Jazeera journalists and staffers against this arbitrary decision, which flew in the face of professional journalistic standards and the freedom of expression. Their opposition along with the reaction and outrage expressed by the general public internationally in the last two days clearly tipped the balance against the peremptory power of the profit-seeking executives and has put the latter on notice.

While the restoration of my article is a triumph against the political commissars of Al Jazeera, the statement that Al Jazeera issued, which contained no apology, falls short of being a triumph for all those who insist on maintaining Al Jazeera’s independence and critical edge from American media restrictions. I am saddened that their principled stance has yet to fully triumph in this important fight.

It seems to me that the attempt to censor my article is the price that Al Jazeera, or at least Ehab Al Shihabi and other upper management executives, are willing to pay in order to enter the US media market. This means that Al Shihabi and other executives at Al Jazeera see no problem in sacrificing Al Jazeera’s freedom of expression and subjecting it to the severe restrictions of the American mainstream media on the question of US foreign policy in the Middle East and on the question of Israel, thus eliminating in the process Al Jazeera’s critical coverage of both. Clearly, American Zionist pressure, placed on Al Shihabi and on Al Jazeera, is intended to impart to Al Jazeera the mediocre standards of mainstream American journalism and its commitment to severe censorship of views critical of US policy and of Israeli colonialism. When Oscar Wilde was asked in 1882 upon entering the US if he had anything to declare to the customs authorities of New York, he responded: “I have nothing to declare but my genius;” Not only is Al Jazeera having to declare its journalistic independence as a foreign taxable commodity, but it is also surrendering it at the US border altogether.

As for the line that someone made a mistake and removed my article because it resembled the one I had published last December, this line was tried on me on the phone when the new Head of Al Jazeera online Imad Musa called me yesterday evening to discuss the matter. Mr. Musa used that line as an opening bid but I quickly disabused him of it, explaining that while “The Last of the Semites” was related to the article I published last December titled “Zionism, Anti-Semitism, and Colonialism,” it was a different article altogether and had a different frame and a different set of arguments and facts. I also informed him that I had a very good idea how this decision had been taken and that Al Shihabi was the man behind the ban. He offered to arrange a meeting in New York between Al Shihabi and me, but I quickly told him that we could not ponder any such meetings until after Al Jazeera restored my article and issued a public apology. I also informed him that I do not meet with people who coordinate with the likes of Rahm Emanuel.

After making a few phone calls, Mr. Musa called me back to assure me that I would be pleased with what Al Jazeera would do tomorrow (i.e. today). I explained that since he was the new Head of Al Jazeera Online (he told me that he had been appointed in this new position ten days ago), he could restore the article and issue the apology immediately and not have to wait till the next day. He explained that the matter was “more complicated than that.” I retorted: “Are you or are you not the Head of Al Jazeera Online?” He murmured embarrassingly that the matter was not in his hands. I responded by reaffirming to him that indeed it was not and that the matter was not up to him but to the higher ups who made the decision for political reasons.

At any rate, Mr. Musa never called back today, though he issued a statement on the Al Jazeera website this afternoon which does not contain an apology to the readers or to me. There are no expressions of regret either, or any acknowledgment of the motivations for the censorship. Musa repeats the shameful excuse that the reason why the article was pulled was due to its alleged similarity with the December article. I find this to be a damage control move that refuses to take responsibility for Al Jazeera’s submission to American Zionist dictates.

Ahmadinejad: “C’è bisogno della collaborazione dei fedeli di tutte le religioni per cambiare il mondo”

Dr.Ahmadinejad in a meeting with the leaders of the International Jewish Anti-Zionism Network:

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said the followers of divine religions have no difference of opinion about the need for changing world’s status quo and reforming the global management.

“C’è bisogno della collaborazione dei fedeli di tutte le religioni per riformare lo status quo del mondo e la sua gestione“.

President Ahmadinejad made the above remarks in a meeting with the leaders of the International Jewish Anti-Zionism Network.

He pointed out that the followers of divine religions should join hands for making a better world.

Referring to the fact that the Zionists are trying to attribute their ugly measures to the Jews, President Ahmadinejad noted that the Jews are peace-seeking people and favor broader friendship in the world like others followers of the divine religions such as Muslims, Christians and others.

“Today those who have undermined all divine values in order to gain power and wealth while ignoring the human nature of humans are at the end of their way. Now it is time for the believers to cooperate for making a new world,” the president added.

Elaborating on the crimes committed by the Zionist regime, he said that the occupation of Palestine is only the small portion of the crimes committed by the Zionist regime and their biggest crime is that they attribute themselves to the Jewish community.

Spokesman for the International Jewish Anti-Zionism Network, David Weiss, for his part said that there are a large number of Jews in the world who are against the notion of Zionism and establishing a Zionist state.

E’ quanto ha affermato il presidente iraniano Mahmoud Ahmadinejad durante una riunione con i leader del Network internazionale ebraico anti-sionista.
Ahmadinejad ha detto che i seguaci delle religioni divine non hanno divergenza di opinioni sulla necessità di un cambiamento nello status quo mondiale e di una riforma nella sua gestione globale. E ha aggiunto che essi dovrebbero darsi la mano per migliorare il mondo.
Riferendosi al fatto che i sionisti tentano di attribuire le loro brutte condotte all’ebraismo, Ahmadinejad ha sottolineato che gli ebrei sono un popolo che cerca la pace e l’amicizia, come i musulmani, i cristiani e altri.
“Oggi, coloro che hanno minato tutti i valori divini per ottenere potere e ricchezza mentre ignorano l’umanità degli altri esseri, sono alla fine del loro percorso. E’ tempo per i credenti di collaborare per un mondo nuovo”.
Riflettendo sui crimini commessi dal regime sionista, egli ha affermato che l’occupazione della Palestina è solo una piccola parte di ciò che i sionisti hanno fatto, e che il loro crimine maggiore è di attribuire se stessi alla comunità ebraica.
Il portavoce del Network internazionale ebraico anti-sionista, David Weiss, da parte sua, ha affermato che c’è un gran numero di ebrei nel mondo che sono contro il sionismo e lo Stato sionista.

thanks to: president.ir

Gli Ebrei, i bambini e l’antisemitismo.

“Quando Erode si accorse che i Magi si erano presi gioco di lui, si infuriò e mandò a uccidere tutti i bambini che stavano a Betlemme e in tutto il suo territorio e che avevano da due anni in giù, secondo il tempo che aveva appreso con esattezza dai Magi.” Mat 2,16

 
L’odio che gli israeliani nutrono nei confronti dei bambini è leggendario soprattutto se si tratta di bambini palestinesi.
 
Come denuncia l’organizzazione per i diritti umani B’Tselem un altro caso di abuso nei confronti di minori si è verificato in Palestina ad opera di israeliani.
Il giorno 29 giugno ad Hebron un bambino palestinese di nome Abdel è stato aggredito e picchiato da due soldati dello IOF.
Non è la prima volta che bambini palestinesi subiscono soprusi, quando non sono uccisi dal fosforo bianco o dalle bombe a grappolo, sono i soldati o i coloni ebrei occupanti a colpirli direttamente.
 
Ma come mai odiano così tanto i bambini?
 
Tutta colpa del fanatismo religioso.
 

I bambini gentili (non ebrei) sono animali.Yebamoth 98a (Talmud).
Quando un ebreo uccide un gentile (non ebreo) non ci sarà pena di morte, quello che un ebreo prende da un gentile (non ebreo) può tenere. Sanhedrin 57a(Talmud).
Se un gentile (non ebreo) picchia un ebreo, il gentile (non ebreo) deve essere ucciso. Sanhedrin 58b(Talmud).
Se un ebreo è tentato di fare il male, egli dovrebbe andare in una città dove non è conosciuto e fare il male lì.Moed Kattan 17a(Talmud).

Sono queste le frasi che molti fanatici ebrei ultra ortodossi insegnano ai loro figli fin da piccoli. Sono le idee razziste ed antisemite che le varie sette ebraiche promulgano da migliaia di anni trovando l’humus ideale del loro proselitismo nell’ignoranza dell’insegnamento religioso coatto che i moderni figli di Israele sono costretti ad apprendere.

“I non ebrei sono nostri nemici, i non ebrei sono nostri nemici” ripetono loro continuamente. Fin quando non li costringono a frequentare il servizio militare obbligatorio, e ad imbracciare un fucile. In quel caso il tono delle loro parole diventa più minaccioso: «I non ebrei (palestinesi) sono nostri nemici e nemici della patria, difendi la patria, difendi la nostra patria, uccidi i palestinesi, uccidili tutti, uccidi i grandi e uccidi i piccoli, meglio ammazzarli da piccoli».

Proprio quei palestinesi, semiti come gli ebrei, come tutti coloro che parlano lingue semitiche, arabi, ebrei, etiopi, ecc.

Quegli arabi che secondo lo storico israeliano Shlomo Sand sarebbero discendenti degli antichi Israeliti, la maggior parte dei quali convertitasi all’Islam quando questa religione si diffuse in Palestina.

Se ciò non bastasse lo “Stato d’Israele” favorisce la discriminazione razziale antisemita fuori e dentro i confini utilizzando le stesse fonti religiose come sistema giuridico nazionale (halakah). Infatti Israele non ha e non ha mai avuto una Costituzione, per il semplice motivo che se l’avesse dovrebbe riconoscere a tutti i cittadini gli stessi diritti e gli stessi doveri, ovvero anche ai cittadini non ebrei.

Ma è con la propaganda (hasbara) che si raggiunge il picco dell’assurdità: i palestinesi da vittime dell’odio e della violenza diventano carnefici, pericolosi terroristi che si aggirano sulle colonne dei principali quotidiani locali ed occidentali. I media sionisti occidentali soprattutto, offrono il meglio di sé quando si tratta di nascondere le atroci conseguenze dell’occupazione ebraica del territorio palestinese, moderna riproposizione dei sempre citati, giammai dimenticati campi di sterminio nazista.

Proprio spostando l’attenzione della comunità internazionale dalla verità sul “campo” costoro riescono a far scomparire le violazioni dei diritti umani fondamentali che sistematicamente si ripetono da ormai più di 64 anni in quella che una volta veniva chiamata Terra Santa. E le discriminazioni nei confronti dei bambini ne sono un esempio lampante, uccisi, arrestati, seviziati, torturati, i crimini che tutte le organizzazioni internazionali per i diritti umani condannano continuano ad essere la regola in Palestina. Mentre il mondo dalle radici giudaico cristiane guarda altrove, alla minaccia nucleare iraniana, al terrorismo islamico delle varie Al Qaeda nel Maghreb, Al Qaeda nel Sahel, Al Qaeda nel Texas…

 
«Lasciate che i piccoli vengano a me
e non glielo impedite,
perché a chi è come loro
appartiene il regno di Dio», dice il Signore.      Mc 10,14

Spiegateglielo che si tratta di una allegoria, prendono sempre tutto alla lettera questi ebrei.