Zionism and History

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: Einstein, Fisk, and Lenny Bruce. Together again.

Postby snowlion2 » Thu Oct 05, 2006 7:16 am

My father, bless his evangelical little heart, forwarded the following smug, bigoted email a few days ago:<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Allah or Jesus? <br><br>Last month I attended my annual training session that's required for maintaining my state prison security clearance. During the training session there was a presentation by three speakers who represented the Roman Catholic, Protestant and Muslim faiths who explained their belief systems. I was particularly interested in what the Islamic Imam had to say. <br><br>The Imam gave a great presentation of the basics of Islam complete with a video. After the presentations time was provided for questions and answers. When it was my turn I directed my question to the Imam and asked: "Please, correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand that all of the Imams and clerics of Islam have declared a holy jihad [Holy war] against the infidels of the world. And, that by killing an infidel, which is a command to all Muslims, they are assured of a place in heaven. If that's the case, can you give me the definition of an infidel?" <br><br>There was no disagreement with my statements and without hesitation he replied, "Non-believers!" <br><br>I responded, "So, let me make sure I have this straight. All followers of Allah have been commanded to kill everyone who is not of your faith so they can go to heaven. Is that correct?" <br><br>The expression on his face changed from one of authority and command to that of a little boy who had just gotten caught with his hand in the cookie jar. He sheepishly replied, "Yes." <br><br>I then said, "Well, sir, I have a real problem trying to imagine Pope John Paul commanding all Catholics to kill those of your faith or Pat Robertson or Dr. Stanley ordering Protestants to do the same in order to go to heaven." <br><br>The Imam was speechless. <br><br>I continued, "I also have problem with being your friend when you and your brother clerics are telling your followers to kill me. Let me ask you a question . . . would you rather have your Allah who tell[s] you to kill me in order to go to heaven or my Jesus who tells me to love you because I am going to heaven and wants you to be with me?" <br><br>You could have heard a pin drop as the Imam hung his head in shame. <br><br><hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>I sent the following back to him, courtesy of Snopes:<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>If one is willing to ignore history, context, and actual practice when quoting scripture and other religious texts, followers of just about any religion can be painted as uniformly fanatic and intolerant. Consider the following recasting of the piece quoted above:<br><br>The minister gave a great presentation of the basics of Christianity, complete with a video. After the presentations time was provided for questions and answers. When it was my turn I directed my question to the minister and asked: "Please, correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand that in Exodus 35:2, the Bible instructs Christians to kill everyone who works on the sabbath: 'Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the Lord: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death.'" <br><br>There was no disagreement with my statement. <br><br>I responded, "So, let me make sure I have this straight. God has commanded Christians to kill everyone who works on Sunday, even Muslims and other non-Christians?" <br><br>The expression on his face changed from one of authority and command to that of a little boy who had just gotten caught with his hand in the cookie jar. He sheepishly replied, "Yes." <br><br>I then said, "Well, sir, I have a real problem trying to imagine the Prophet Muhammad commanding all Muslims to kill those of your faith for not observing the Muslim sabbath." <br><br>The minister was speechless. <br><br>I continued, "I also have problem with your Bible commanding all Christians to stone to death anyone who criticizes your God, as detailed in Leviticus 24:16. Let me ask you a question . . . would you rather have your God who tell[s] you to kill me in order to go to heaven or my Allah who tells me to love you because I am going to heaven and wants you to be with me?" <br><br>You could have heard a pin drop as the minister hung his head in shame.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Dad was furious, proving the point. The world just keeps going around, I guess. <p></p><i></i>
snowlion2
 
Posts: 86
Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 10:40 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Einstein, Fisk, and Lenny Bruce. Together again.

Postby snowlion2 » Thu Oct 05, 2006 8:03 am

From the link to "Jewish History, Jewish Religion: the Weight of 3000 Years", courteously provided by Alice above:<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>The duty of pious Jews is to restore through their prayers and religious acts the perfect divine unity, in the form of sexual union, between the male and female deities. Thus before most ritual acts, which every devout Jew has to perform many times each day, the following cabbalistic formula is recited: "For the sake of the [sexual] congress of the Holy Blessed One and his Shekhinah. . . " The Jewish morning prayers are also arranged so as to promote this sexual union, if only temporarily. Successive parts of the prayer mystically correspond to successive stages of the union: at one point the goddess approaches with her handmaidens, at another the god puts his arm around her neck and fondles her breast, and finally the sexual act is supposed to take place.<br><br>Other prayers or religious acts, as interpreted by the cabbalists, are designed to deceive various angels (imagined as minor deities with a measure of independence) or to propitiate Satan. At a certain point in the morning prayer, some verses in Aramaic (rather than the more usual Hebrew) are pronounced. This is supposed to be a means for tricking the angels who operate the gates through which prayers enter heaven and who have the power to block the prayers of the pious. The angels only understand Hebrew and are baffled by the Aramaic verses; being somewhat dull-witted (presumably they are far less clever than the cabbalists) they open the gates, and at this moment all the prayers, including those in Hebrew, get through. Or take another example: both before and after a meal, a pious Jew ritually washes his hands, uttering a special blessing. On one of these two occasions he is worshiping God, by promoting the divine union of Son and Daughter; but on the other he is worshiping Satan, who likes Jewish prayers and ritual acts so much that when he is offered a few of them it keeps him busy for a while and he forgets to pester the divine Daughter. Indeed, the cabbalists believe that some of the sacrifices burnt in the Temple were intended for Satan. For example, the seventy bullocks sacrificed during the seven days of the feast of Tabernacles were supposedly offered to Satan in his capacity as ruler of all the Gentiles, in order to keep him too busy to interfere on the eighth day, when sacrifice is made to God. Many other examples of the same kind can be given.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Sorry Alice.... I really appreciate your insight and perspective on these things.....but wtf? <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>This</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> is who you refer to as "a brave scholar and a man of integrity"? <p></p><i></i>
snowlion2
 
Posts: 86
Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 10:40 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Einstein, Fisk, and Lenny Bruce. Together again.

Postby Gouda » Thu Oct 05, 2006 8:56 am

I really am not informed enough to get into a debate about Kabbalism or even esoteric Christianity (nor do I want to here in this particular thread), but I do want to address the attempted brush-offs of Shahak as a source. <br><br>Before we resort to <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>ad hominem</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> attacks about Shahak's sanity (when in doubt, <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>ad hominem</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->?) let's examine the content of his work regarding the history of Zionism, which I have just begun to do with an open mind. I've googled "Shahak + nuts + crazy" but did not get much of anything, mostly lauditory comment. DE, I am sure some in the Nashville left community figure you are nuts too and thus will not give your research a serious hearing, and that's too bad. The system, the lies, the propaganda the machine as it is, is much more crazy than any one man. I thought we are fighting abusive elite systems here - and how Zionism, an abusive elite system, consistently escapes your scrutiny baffles me. <br><br>Yes, I am fully aware that Zionism is also being trotted out yet again by Nazis and other witting or unwitting enablers as a "ruling worldwide plot and menace," and this has very troubling implications for Jewish peoples. This needs to be fought and dealt with too. As Snowlion pointed out, manipulating the weaknesses of any belief system against itself is very easy to do and often abused for nefarious ends. However, I see no consistency in your approach when you focus all attention on Islamic fascism, which yes, also exists. So does Zionist fascism. Christian fascism. Etc. All need to be fought and exposed with equal fervor. Because each is used as a system of domination meant to divide us, and millions are dying under Each regime. Maybe, I think, you feel the nazi islamic threat is not getting enough attention due to the anti-Zionist noise. Could be right, but when real world power policy is buttressing Israel at the expense of Palestinians, and muslims are under suspicion and attack everywhere, I think some rebalancing is needed. <br><br>Now, despite the fact that this claim: "Kabbalists sacrifice to Satan" is intriguing in its own right (especially here at RI) there is actually, believe it or not, some considerable grounds for debate about what he actually wrote and meant on that:<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.biocrawler.com/encyclopedia/Talk:Jewish_History,_Jewish_Religion">www.biocrawler.com/encycl...h_Religion</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>Not an unreasonable debate there, and good points are made on both sides. My point is that you can't simply dismiss an entire line of scholarship on one debatable assertion. I will however, if I am convinced, which I am not, keep such red flags in mind while reading him, and will be open to other criticism of Shahak. This one however, does not cut it for me. I have not read this book, but I imagine delving into religous history as tied to political history is bound to get messy. I am reading a piece Shahak wrote about Shamir, the Stern gang and LEHI, which seems pretty sound. Again, I am reserving my judgement until I read more. <br><br>As for Shahak not having footnotes or references, what are these? Chapter 3, notes 9 & 10 (in bold) refer to the Satan issue. <br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Notes and References for:<br><br>Jewish History, Jewish Religion:<br><br>The Weight of Three Thousand Years<br><br>by Professor Israel Shahak<br><br>Notes and References: Chapt. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6<br><br><br><br>Chapter 1: A Closed Utopia?<br><br>1 Walter Laquer, History of Zionism Schocken Publishers, Tel Aviv, 1974, in Hebrew.<br>2 See Yedioth Ahronot, 27 April 1992.<br>3 In Hugh Trevor-Roper, Renaissance Essays, Fontana Press, London, 1985.<br>4 See Moses Hadas, Hellenistic Culture, Fusion and Diffusion, Columbia University Press, New York, 1959, especially chapters VII and XX.<br><br><br><br>Chapter 2: Prejudice and Prevarication<br><br>1 The Jews themselves universally described themselves as a religious community or, to be precise, a religious nation. 'Our people is a people only because of the Torah (Religious Law)' - this saying by one of the highest authorities, Rabbi Sa'adia Hagga'on who lived in the 10th century, has become proverbial.<br>2 By Emperor Joseph II in 1782.<br>3 All this is usually omitted in vulgar Jewish historiography, in order to propagate the myth that the Jews kept their religion by miracle or by some peculiar mystic force.<br>4 For example, in her Origins of Totalitarianism, a considerable part of which is devoted to Jews.<br>5 Before the end of the 18th century, German Jews were allowed by their rabbis to write German in Hebrew letters only, on pain of being excommunicated, flogged, etc.<br>6 When by a deal between the Roman Empire and the Jewish leaders (the dynasty of the Nesi 'im) all the Jews in the Empire were subjected to the fiscal and disciplinary authority of these leaders and their rabbinical courts, who for their part undertook to keep order among the Jews.<br>7 I write this, being a non-socialist myself. But I will honor and respect people with whose principles I disagree, if they make an honest effort to be true to their principles. In contrast, there is nothing so despicable as the dishonest use of universal principles, whether true or false, for the selfish ends of an individual or, even worse, of a group.<br>8 In fact, many aspects of orthodox Judaism were apparently derived from Sparta, through the baneful political influence of Plato. On this subject, see the excellent comments of Moses Hadas, Hellenistic Culture, Fusion and Diffusion, Columbia University Press, New York, 1959.<br>9 Including the geography of Palestine and indeed its very location. This is shown by the orientation of all synagogues in countries such as Poland and Russia: Jews are supposed to pray facing Jerusalem, and the European Jews, who had only a vague idea where Jerusalem was, always assumed it was due east, whereas for them it was in fact more nearly due south.<br>10 Throughout this chapter I use the term 'classical Judaism' to refer to rabbinical Judaism as it emerged after about AD 800 and lasted up to the end of the 18th century. I avoid the term 'normative Judaism', which many authors use with roughly the same meaning, because in my view it has unjustified connotations.<br>11 The works of Hellenistic Jews, such as Philo of Alexandria, constitute an exception. They were written before classical Judaism achieved a position of exclusive hegemony. They were indeed subsequently suppressed among the Jews and survived only because Christian monks found them congenial.<br>12 During the whole period from AD 100 to 1500 there were written two travel books and one history of talmudic studies -- a short, inaccurate and dreary book, written moreover by a despised philosopher (Abraham ben-David, Spain, c. 1170).<br>13 Me'or 'Eynayi'n by 'Azarya de Rossi of Ferrara, Italy, 1574.<br>14 The best known cases were in Spain; for example (to use their adopted Christian names) Master Alfonso of Valladolid, converted in 1320, and Paul of Santa Marja, converted in 1390 and appointed bishop of Burgos in 1415. But many other cases can be cited from all over west Europe.<br>15 Certainly the tone, and also the consequences, were very much better than in disputations in which Christians were accused of heresy -- for example those in which Peter Abelard or the strict Franciscans were condemned.<br>16 The stalinist and Chinese examples are sufficiently well known. However, it is worth mentioning that the persecution of honest historians in Germany began very early. In 1874, H. Ewald, a professor at Goettingen, was imprisoned for expressing 'incorrect' views on the conquests of Frederick II, a hundred years earlier. The situation in Israel is analogous: the worst attacks against me were provoked not by the violent terms I employ in my condemnations of Zionism and the oppression of Palestinians, but by an early article of mine about the role of Jews in the slave trade, in which the latest case quoted dated from 1870. That article was published before the 1967 war; nowadays its publication would be impossible.<br>17 In the end a few other passages also had to be removed, such as those which seemed theologically absurd (for example, where God is said to pray to Himself or physically to carry out some of the practices enjoined on the individual Jew) or those which celebrated too freely the sexual escapades of ancient rabbis.<br>18 Tractate Berakhot, p. 58b.<br>19 'Your mother shall be sore confounded; she that bare you shall be ashamed...', Jeremiah, 50:12.<br>20 Published by Boys Town, Jerusalem, and edited by Moses Hyamson, one of the most reputable scholars of Judaism in Britain.<br>21 The supposed founders of the Sadducean sect.<br>22 I am happy to say that in a recent new translation (Chicago University Press) the word 'Blacks' does appear, but the heavy and very expensive volume is unlikely, as yet, to get into the 'wrong' hands. Similarly, in early 19th century England, radical books (such as Godwin's) were allowed to appear, provided they were issued in a very expensive edition.<br>23 An additional fact can be mentioned in this connection. It was perfectly possible, and apparently respectable, for a Jewish scholar of Islam, Bernard Lewis (who formerly taught in London and is now teaching in the USA) to publish an article in Encounter, in which he points out many passages in Islamic literature which in his view are anti-Black, but none of which even approaches the passage quoted above. It would be quite impossible for anyone now, or in the last thirty years, to discuss in any reputable American publication the above passage or the many other offensive anti-Black talmudic passages. But without a criticism of all sides the attack on Islam alone reduces to mere slander.<br><br><br><br>Chapter 3: Orthodoxy and Interpretation<br><br>1 As in Chapter 2, I use the term 'classical Judaism' to refer to rabbinical Judaism in the period from about AD 800 up to the end of the 18th century. This period broadly coincides with the Jewish Middle Ages, since for most Jewish communities medieval conditions persisted much longer than for the west European nations, namely up to the period of the French Revolution. Thus what I call 'classical Judaism' can be regarded as medieval Judaism.<br>2 Exodus, 15:11.<br>3 Exodus, 20:3-6.<br>4 Jeremiah, 10; the same theme is echoed still later by the Second Isaiah, see Isaiah, 44.<br>5 The cabbala is of course an esoteric doctrine, and its detailed study was confined to scholars. In Europe, especially after about 1750, extreme measures were taken to keep it secret and forbid its study except by mature scholars and under strict supervision. The uneducated Jewish masses of eastern Europe had no real knowledge of cabbalistic doctrine; but the cabbala percolated to them in the form of superstition and magic practices.<br>6 Many contemporary Jewish mystics believe that the same end may be accomplished more quickly by war against the Arabs, by the expulsion of the Palestinians, or even by establishing many Jewish settlements on the West Bank. The growing movement for building the Third Temple is also based on such ideas.<br>7 The Hebrew word used here -- yihud, meaning literally union-in-seclusion -- is the same one employed in legal texts (dealing with marriage etc.) to refer to sexual intercourse.<br>8 The so-called Qedusbab Sblisbit (Third Holiness), inserted in the prayer Uva Letzion towards the end of the morning service.Numbers, 29. 9-10.<br><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>9 The power of Satan, and his connection with non-Jews, is illustrated by a widespread custom, established under cabbalistic influence in many Jewish communities from the 17th century. A Jewish woman returning from her monthly ritual bath of purification (after which sexual intercourse with her husband is mandatory) must beware of meeting one of the four satanic creatures: Gentile, pig, dog or donkey. If she does meet any one of them she must take another bath.<br>10 The custom was advocated (among others) by Shn'et Musar, a book on Jewish moral conduct first published in 1712, which was one of the most popular books among Jews in both eastern Europe and Islamic countries until early this century, and is still widely read in some Orthodox circles.</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--><br>11 This is prescribed in minute detail. For example, the ritual hand washing must not be done under a tap; each hand must be washed singly, in water from a mug (of prescribed minimal size) held in the other hand. If one's hands are really dirty, it is quite impossible to clean them in this way, but such pragmatic considerations are obviously irrelevant. Classical Judaism prescribes a great number of such detailed rituals, to which the cabbala attaches deep significance. There are, for example, many precise rules concerning behavior in a lavatory. A Jew relieving nature in an open space must not do so in a North-South direction, because North is associated with Satan.<br>12 'Interpretation' is my own expression. The classical (and present-day Orthodox) view is that the talmudic meaning, even where it is contrary to the literal sense, was always the operational one.<br>13 According to an apocryphal story, a famous 19th century Jewish heretic observed in this connection that the verse Thou shalt not commit adultery' is repeated only twice. 'Presumably one is therefore forbidden to eat adultery or to cook it, but enjoying it is all right.'<br>14 The Hebrew re'akha is rendered by the King James Version (and most other English translations) somewhat imprecisely as 'thy neighbor'. See however II Samuel, 16:17, where exactly the same word is rendered by the King James Version more correctly as 'thy friend'.<br>15 The Mishnah is remarkably free of all this, and in particular the belief in demons and witchcraft is relatively rare in it. The Babylonian Talmud, on the other hand, is full of gross superstitions.<br>16 Or, to be precise, in many parts of Palestine. Apparently the areas to which the law applies are those where there was Jewish demographic predominance around AD 150-200.<br>17 Therefore non-zionist Orthodox Jews in Israel organize special shops during sabbatical years, which sell fruits and vegetables grown by Arabs on Arab land.<br>18 In the winter of 1945-6, I myself, then a boy under 13, participated in such proceedings. The man in charge of agricultural work in the religious agricultural school I was then attending was a particularly pious Jew and thought it would be safe if the crucial act, that of removing the board, should be performed by an orphan under 13 years old, incapable of being, or making anyone else, guilty of a sin. (A boy under that age cannot be guilty of a sin; his father, if he has one, is considered responsible.) Everything was carefully explained to me beforehand, including the duty to say, 'I need this board,' when in fact it was not needed.<br>19 For example, the Talmud forbids a Jew to enjoy the light of a candle lit by a Gentile on the sabbath, unless the latter had lit it for his own use before the Jew entered the room.<br>20 One of my uncles in pre-1939 Warsaw used a subtler method. He employed a non-Jewish maid called Marysia and it was his custom upon waking from his Saturday siesta to say, first quietly, 'How nice it would be if' -- and then, raising his voice to a shout, '. . . Marysia would bring us a cup of tea!' He was held to be a very pious and God fearing man and would never dream of drinking a drop of milk for a full six hours after eating meat. In his kitchen he had two sinks, one for washing up dishes used for eating meat, the other for milk dishes.<br>21 Occasionally regrettable mistakes occur, because some of these jobs are quite cushy, allowing the employee six days off each week. The town of Bney Braq (near Tel-Aviv), inhabited almost exclusively by Orthodox Jews, was shaken in the 1960s by a horrible scandal. Upon the death of the 'sabbath Goy' they had employed for over twenty years to watch over their water supplies on Saturdays, it was discovered that he was not really a Christian but a Jew! So when his successor, a Druse, was hired, the town demanded and obtained from the government a document certifying that the new employee is a Gentile of pure Gentile descent. It is reliably rumored that the secret police was asked to research this matter.<br>22 In contrast, elementary Scripture teaching can be done for payment. This was always considered a low-status job and was badly paid.<br>23 Another 'extremely important' ritual is the blowing of a ram's horn on Rosh Hashanah, whose purpose is to confuse Satan.<br><br><br><br>Chapter 4: The Weight of History<br><br>1 See, for example, Jeremiah, 44, especially verses 15-19. For an excellent treatment of certain aspects of this subject see Raphael Patai, The Hebrew Goddess, Ktav, USA, 1967.<br>2 Ezra, 7:25-26. The last two chapters of this book are mainly concerned with Ezra's efforts to segregate the 'pure' Jews ('the holy seed') away from 'the people of the land' (who were themselves at least partly of Jewish descent) and break up mixed marriages.<br>3 W.F. Albright, Recent Discoveries in Bible Lands, Funk & Wagnall, New York, 1955, p.103.<br>4 It is significant that, together with this literary corpus, all the historical books written by Jews after about 400 BC were also rejected. Until the 19th century, Jews were quite ignorant of the story of Massadah and of figures such as Judas Maccabaeus, now regarded by many (particularly by Christians) as belonging to the 'very essence' of Judaism.<br>5 Acts, 18:15.<br>6 Acts, 25.<br>7 See note 6 to Chapter 2.<br>8 Concerning the term 'classical Judaism' see note 10 to Chapter 2 and note 1 to Chapter 3.<br>9 Nobel Prize winners Agnon and Bashevis Singer are examples of this, but many others can be given, particularly Bialik, the national Hebrew poet. In his famous poem My Father he describes his saintly father selling vodka to the drunkard peasants who are depicted as animals. This very popular poem, taught in all Israeli schools, is one of the vehicles through which the anti-peasant attitude is reproduced.<br>10 So far as the central power of the Jewish Patriarchate was concerned, the deal was terminated by Theodosius II in a series of laws, culminating in AD 429; but many of the local arrangements remained in force.<br>11 Perhaps another characteristic example is the Parthian empire (until AD 225) but not enough is known about it. We know, however, that the establishment of the national Iranian Sasanid empire brought about an immediate decline of the Jews' position.<br>12 This ban extends also to marrying a woman converted to Judaism, because all Gentile women are presumed by the Halakhah to be prostitutes.<br>13 The voluntary act on the part of the a prohibited marriage is not generally void, and requires a divorce. Divorce is nominally a husband, but under certain circumstances a rabbinical court can coerce him to 'will' it to 'ad she yyomar rotzeh ani (kofin).<br>14 Although Jewish achievements during the Golden Age in Muslim Spain (1002-1147) were more brilliant, they were not lasting. For example, most of the magnificent Hebrew poetry of that age was subsequently forgotten by Jews, and only recovered by them in the 19th or 20th century.<br>15 During that war, Henry of Trastamara used anti-Jewish propaganda. although his own mother, Leonor de Guzman, a high Castilian noblewoman, was partly of Jewish descent. (Only in Spain did the highest nobility intermarry with Jews.) After his victory he too employed Jews in the highest financial positions.<br>16 Until the 18th century the position of serfs in Poland was generally supposed to be even worse than in Russia. In that century, certain features of Russian serfdom, such as public sales of serfs, got worse than in Poland but the central Tsarist government always retained certain powers over the enslaved peasants, for example the right to recruit them to the national army.<br>17 During the preceding period persecutions of Jews were rare. This is true of the Roman Empire even after serious Jewish rebellions. Gibbon is correct in praising the liberality of Antonius Pius (and Marcus Aurelius) to Jews, so soon after the major Bar-Kokhba rebellion of AD 132-5.<br>18 This fact, easily ascertainable by examination of the details of each persecution, is not remarked upon by most general historians in recent times. An honorable exception is Hugh Trevor-Roper, The Rise of Christian Europe, Thames and Hudson, London, 1965, pp.173-4. Trevor-Roper is also one of the very few modern historians who mention the predominant Jewish role in the early medieval slave trade between Christian (and pagan) Europe and the Muslim world (ibid., pp.92-3). In order to promote this abomination, which I have no space to discuss here, Maimonides allowed Jews, in the name of the Jewish religion, to abduct Gentile children into slavery; and his opinion was no doubt acted upon or reflected contemporary practice.<br>19 Examples can be found in any history of the crusades. See especially S. Runciman, A History of the Crusades, vol I, book 3, chap 1, 'The German Crusade'. The subsequent defeat of this host by the Hungarian army, 'to most Christians appeared as a just punishment meted out of high to the murderers of the Jews.'<br>20 John Stoyc, Europe Unfolding 1648, Fontana, London, p.46.<br>21 This latter feature is of course not mentioned by received Jewish historiography. The usual punishment for a rebellious, or even 'impudent' peasant was impalement.<br>22 The same can be observed in different regions of a given country. For example, in Germany, agrarian Bavaria was much more antisemitic than the industrialized areas.<br>23 'The refusal of the Church to admit that once a Jew always a Jew, was another cause of pain for an ostentatious Catholic like Drumont. One of his chief lieutenants, Jules Guerin, has recounted the disgust he felt when the famous Jesuit, Piere du Lac, remonstrated with him for attacking some converted Jews named Dreyfus.' D.W. Brogan, The Development of Modern France, vol 1, Harper Torchbooks, New York, 1966, p.227.<br>24 Ibid..<br>25 Let me illustrate the irrational, demonic character which racism can sometimes acquire with three examples chosen at random. A major part of the extermination of Europe's Jews was carried out in 1942 and early 1943 during the Nazi offensive in Russia, which culminated in their defeat at Stalingrad. During the eight months between June 1942 and February 1943 the Nazis probably used more railway wagons to haul Jews to the gas chambers than to carry much needed supplies to the army. Before being taken to their death, most of these Jews, at least in Poland, had been very effectively employed in production of equipment for the German army. The second, rather remote, example comes from a description of the Sicilian Vespers in 1282: 'Every Frenchman they met was struck down. They poured into the inns frequented by the French and the houses where they dwelt, sparing neither man nor woman nor child . . . The riots broke into the Dominican and Franciscan convents, and all the foreign friars were dragged out and told to pronounce the word ciciri, whose sound the French tongue could never accurately reproduce. Anyone who failed in the test was slain.' (S. Runciman, The Sicilian Vespers, Cambridge University Press,1958, p. 215.) The third example is recent: in the summer of 1980 -- following an assassination attempt by Jewish terrorists in which Mayor Bassam Shak'a of Nablus lost both his legs and Mayor Karim Khalaf of Ramallah lost a foot -- a group of Jewish Nazis gathered in the campus of TeI-Aviv University, roasted a few cats and offered their meat to passers-by as 'shish-kebab from the legs of the Arab mayors'. Anyone who witnessed this macabre orgy -- as I did -- would have to admit that some horrors defy explanation in the present state of knowledge.<br>26 One of the early quirks of Jabotinsky (founder of the party then led by Begin) was to propose, in about 1912, the creation of two Jewish states, one in Palestine and the other in Angola: the former, being poor in natural resources, would be subsidized by the riches of the latter.<br>27 Herzl went to Russia to meet von Plehve in August 1903, less than four months after the hideous Kishinev pogrom, for which the latter was known to be responsible. Herzl proposed an alliance, based on their common wish to get most of the Jews out of Russia and, in the shorter term, to divert Jewish support away from the socialist movement. The Tsarist minister started the first interview (8 August) by observing that he regarded himself as 'an ardent supporter of zionism'. When Herzl went on to describe the aims of zionism, von Plehve interrupted: 'You are preaching to the converted'. Amos Elon, Herzl, 'Am 'Oved, 1976 pp.415-9, in Hebrew.<br>28 Dr Joachim Prinz, Wirjuden, Berlin, 1934, pp. 150-1.<br>29 Ibid., pp. 154-5.<br>30 For example see ibid., p. 136. Even worse expressions of sympathy with Nazism were voices by the extremist Lohamey Herut Yisra'el (Stern Gang) as late as 1941. Dr Prinz was, in zionist terms, a 'dove'. In the 1970s he even patronized the US Jewish movement Breira, until he was dissuaded by Golda Meir.<br><br><br><br>Chapter 5: The Laws Against Non-Jews<br><br>1 Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, 'Laws on Murderers' 2, 11; Talmudic Encyclopedia, 'Goy'.<br>2 R. Yo'el Sirkis, Bayit Hadash, commentary on Beyt Josef, 'Yoreh De'ah' 158. The two rules just mentioned apply even if the Gentile victim is ger toshav, that is a 'resident alien' who has undertaken in front of three Jewish witnesses to keep the 'seven Noahide precepts' (seven biblical laws considered by the Talmud to be addressed to Gentiles).<br>3 R. David Halevi (Poland, 17th century), Turey Zahav" on Shulhan 'Arukh, 'Yoreh De'ah' 158.<br>5 Talmudic Encyclopedia, 'Ger' (= convert to Judaism).<br>6 For example, R. Shabbtay Kohen (mid 17th century), Siftey Kohen on Shulhan 'Arukh, 'Yoreh De'ah, 158: 'But in times of war it was the custom to kill them with one's own hands, for it is said, "The best of Gentiles -- kill him!"' Siftey Kohen and Turey Zahay (see note 3) are the two major classical commentaries on the Shulhan 'Arukh.<br>7 Colonel Rabbi A. Avidan (Zemel), 'Tohar hannesheq le'or hahalakhah' (= 'Purity of weapons in the light of the Halakhah') in Be'iqvot milhemet yom hakkippurim -- pirqey hagut, halakhah umehqar (In the Wake of the Yom Kippur War - Chapters of Meditation, Halakhah and Research), Central Region Command, 1973: quoted in Ha'olam Hazzeh, 5 January 1974; also quoted by David Shaham, 'A chapter of meditation', Hotam, 28 March 1974; and by Amnon Rubinstein, 'Who falsifies the Halakhah?' Ma'ariv", 13 October 1975. Rubinstein reports that the booklet was subsequently withdrawn from circulation by order of the Chief of General Staff, presumably because it encouraged soldiers to disobey his own orders; but he complains that Rabbi Avidan has not been court-martialled, nor has any rabbi -- military or civil -- taken exception to what he had written.<br>8 R. Shim'on Weiser, 'Purity of weapons -- an exchange of letters' in Niv" Hammidrashiyyah Yearbook of Midrashiyyat No'am, 1974, pp.29-31. The yearbook is in Hebrew, English and French, but the material quoted here is printed in Hebrew only.<br>9 Psalms, 42:2.<br>10 'Thou shalt blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven', Deuteronomy, 25:19. Cf. also I Samuel, 15:3: 'Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.'<br>11 We spare the reader most of these rather convoluted references and quotes from talmudic and rabbinical sources. Such omissions are marked [. . .]. The rabbi's own conclusions are reproduced in full.<br>12 The Tosafot (literally, Addenda) are a body of scholia to the Talmud, dating from the 1 lth-13th centuries.<br>13 Persons guilty of such crimes are even allowed to rise to high public positions. An illustration of this is the case of Shmu'el Lahis, who was responsible for the massacre of between 50 and 75 Arab peasants imprisoned in a mosque after their village had been conquered by the Israeli army during the 1948-9 war. Following a pro forma trial, he was granted complete amnesty, thanks to Ben-Gurion's intercession. The man went on to become a respected lawyer and in the late 1970s was appointed Director General of the Jewish Agency (which is, in effect, the executive of the zionist movement). In early 1978 the facts concerning his past were widely discussed in the Israeli press, but no rabbi or rabbinical scholar questioned either the amnesty or his fitness for his new office. His appointment was not revoked.<br>14 Shulhan 'Arukh, 'Hoshen Mishpat' 426.<br>15 Tractate 'Avodah Zarah', p. 26b.<br>16 Maimonides, op. cit., 'Murderer' 4, 11.<br>17 Leviticus, 19:16. Concerning the rendering 'thy fellow', see note 14 to Chapter 3.<br>18 Maimonides, op. cit., 'Idolatry' 10, 1-2.<br>19 In both cases in section 'Yoreh De'ah' 158. The Shulhan 'Arukh repeats the same doctrine in 'Hoshen Mishpat' 425.<br>20 Moses Rivkes, Be'er Haggolah on Shulhan 'Arukh, 'Hoshen Mishpat' 425.<br>21 Thus Professor Jacob Katz, in his Hebrew book Between Jews and Gentiles as well as in its more apologetic English version Exclusiveness and Tolerance, quotes only this passage verbatim and draws the amazing conclusion that 'regarding the obligation to save life no discrimination should be made between Jew and Christian'. He does not quote any of the authoritative views I have cited above or in the next section.<br>22 Maimonides, op. cit., 'Sabbath' 2, 20-21; Shulhan 'Arukh, 'Orab Hayyim' 329.<br>23 R 'Aqiva Eiger, commentary on Shulhan 'Arukh, ibid. He also adds that if a baby is found abandoned in a town inhabited mainly by Gentiles, a rabbi should be consulted as to whether the baby should be saved.<br>24 Tractate Avodah Zarah, p. 26.<br>25 Maimonides, op. cit., 'Sabbath' 2, 12; Shulhan 'Arukh, 'Orah Hayyim' 330. The latter text says 'heathen' rather than 'Gentile' but some of the commentators, such as Turey Zahav, stress that this ruling applies 'even to Ishmaelites', that is, to Muslims, 'who are not idolators'. Christians are not mentioned explicitly in this connection, but the ruling must a fortiori apply to them, since -- as we shall see below -- Islam is regarded in a more favorable light than Christianity. See also the responsa of Hatam Sofer quoted below.<br>26 These two examples, from Poland and France, are reported by Rabbi I.Z. Cahana (afterwards professor of Talmud in the religious Bar-Ilan University, Israel), 'Medicine in the Halachic post-Talmudic Literature', Sinai, vol 27, 1950, p.221. He also reports the following case from 19th century Italy. Until 1848, a special law in the Papal States banned Jewish doctors from treating Gentiles. The Roman Republic established in 1848 abolished this law along with all other discriminatory law against Jews. But in 1849 an expeditionary force sent by France's President Louis Napoleon (afterwards Emperor Napoleon III) defeated the Republic and restored Pope Pius Ix, who in 1850 revived the anti-Jewish laws. The commanders of the French garrison, disgusted with this extreme reaction, ignored the papal law and hired some Jewish doctors to treat their soldiers. The Chief Rabbi of Rome, Moshe Hazan, who was himself a doctor, was asked whether a pupil of his, also a doctor, could take a job in a French military hospital despite the risk of having to desecrate the sabbath. The rabbi replied that if the conditions of employment expressly mention work on the sabbath, he should refuse. But if they do not, he could take the job and employ 'the great cleverness of God-fearing Jews.' For example, he could repeat on Saturday the prescription given on Friday, by simply telling this to the dispenser. R. Cahana's rather frank article, which contains many other examples, is mentioned in the bibliography of a book by the former Chief Rabbi of Britain, R. Immanuel Jakobovits, Jewish Medical Ethics, Bloch, New York, 1962; but in the book itself nothing is said on this matter.<br>27 Hokhmat Shlomoh on Shulhan 'Arukh, 'Orah Hayyim' 330, 2.<br>28 R. Unterman, Ha'aretz, 4 April 1966. The only qualification he makes -- after having been subjected to continual pressure -- is that in our times any refusal to give medical assistance to a Gentile could cause such hostility as might endanger Jewish lives.<br>29 Hatam Sofer, Response on Shulhan 'Arukh, 'Yoreh De'ah' 131.<br>30 Op. cit., on Shulhan 'Arukh, 'Hoshen Mishpat' 194. 31 R. B. Knobelovitz in The Jewish Review (Journal of the Mizrachi Party in Great Britain), 8 June 1966.<br>32 R. Yisra'el Me'ir Kagan -- better known as the 'Hafetz Hayyim' -- complains in his Mishnah Berurah, written in Poland in 1907: 'And know ye that most doctors, even the most religious, do not take any heed whatsoever of this law; for they work on the sabbath and do travel several parasangs to treat a heathen, and they grind medicaments with their own hands. And there is no authority for them to do so. For although we may find it permissible, because of the fear of hostility, to violate bans imposed by the sages -- and even this is not clear; yet in bans imposed by the Torah itself it must certainly be forbidden for any Jew to do so, and those who transgress this prohibition violate the sabbath utterly and may God have mercy on them for their sacrilege.' (Commentary on Shulhan 'Arukh, 'Orah Hayyim' 330.) The author is generally regarded as the greatest rabbinical authority of his time.<br>33 Avraham Steinberg MD (ed.), Jewish Medical Law, compiled from Tzitz Eli 'ezer (Responsa of R. Eli'ezer Yehuda Waldenberg), translated by David B. Simons MD, Gefen & Mossad Harav Kook, Jerusalem and California, 1980.<br>34 Op. cit., p. 39. Ibid., p.41.<br>35 Ibid., p. 41.<br>36 The phrase 'between Jew and gentile' is a euphemism. The dispensation is designed to prevent hostility of Gentiles towards Jews, not the other way around.<br>37 Ibid.,p.412; my emphasis.<br>38 Dr Falk Schlesinger Institute for Medical Halakhic Research at Sha'arey Tzedeq Hospital, Sefer Asya (The Physician's Book), Reuben Mass, Jerusalem, 1979.<br>39 By myself in Ha'olam Hazzeh, 30 May 1979 and by Shullamit Aloni, Member of Knesset, in Ha'aretz, 17 June 1980.<br>40 Ezekiel, 23:20.<br>41 Tractate Berakhot, p. 78a.<br>42 Talmudic Encyclopedia, 'Eshet Ish' ('Married Woman').<br>43 Exodus, 20:17.<br>44 Genesis, 2:24.<br>45 Maimonides, op. cit., 'Prohibitions on Sexual Intercourse' 12; 10; Talmudic Encyclopedia, 'Goy'.<br>46 Maimonides, op. cit., ibid., 12, 1-3. As a matter of fact, every Gentile woman is regarded as N.Sh.G.Z. -- acronym for the Hebrew words niddah, shifhah, goyah, zonah (unpurified from menses, slave, Gentile, prostitute). Upon conversion to Judaism, she ceases indeed to be niddah, shifhah, goyah but is still considered zonah (prostitute) for the rest of her life, simply by virtue of having been born of a Gentile mother. In a special category is a woman 'conceived not in holiness but born in holiness', that is born to a mother who had converted to Judaism while pregnant. In order to make quite sure that there are no mix-ups, the rabbis insist that a married couple who convert to Judaism together must abstain from marital relations for three months.<br>47 Characteristically, an exception to this generalization is made with respect to Gentiles holding legal office relating to financial transactions: notaries, debt collectors, bailiff and the like. No similar exception is made regarding ordinary decent Gentiles, not even if they are friendly towards Jews.<br>48 Some very early (1st century BC) rabbis called this law 'barbaric' and actually returned lost property belonging to Gentiles. But the law nevertheless remained.<br>49 Leviticus, 25:14. This is a literal translation of the Hebrew phrase. The King James Version renders this as 'ye shall not oppress one another'; 'oppress' is imprecise but 'one another' is a correct rendering of the biblical idiom 'each man his brother'. As pointed out in Chapter 3, the Halakhah interprets all such idioms as referring exclusively to one's fellow Jew.<br>50 Shulhan 'Arukh, 'Hoshen Mishpat' 227.<br>51 This view is advocated by H. Bar-Droma, Wezeh Gvul Ha'aretz (And This Is the Border of the Land), Jerusalem, 1958. In recent years this book is much used by the Israeli army in indoctrinating its officers.<br>52 Maimonides, op. cit., 'Idolatry' 10, 3-4.<br>53 See note 2.<br>54 Exodus, 23:33.<br>55 Maimonides, op. cit., 'Idolatry' 10, 6.<br>56 Deuteronomy, 20:16. See also the verses quoted in note 10.<br>57 Numbers 31:13-20; note in particular verse 17: 'Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.'<br>58 R. Sha'ul Yisra'eli, 'Taqrit Qibbiya Le'or Hahalakhah' (The Qibbiya incident in the light of the Halakhah'), in Hattorab Wehammedinah, vol 5, 1953/4.<br>59 This is followed by a blessing 'for not making me a slave'. Next, a male must add a blessing 'for not making me a woman', and a female 'for making me as He pleased'.<br>60 In eastern Europe it was until recent times a universal custom among Jews to spit on the floor at this point, as an expression of scorn. This was not however a strict obligation, and today the custom is kept only by the most pious.<br>61 The Hebrew word is meshummadim, which in rabbinical usage refers to Jews who become 'idolators', that is either pagan or Christians, but not to Jewish converts to Islam.<br>62 The Hebrew word is minim, whose precise meaning is 'disbelievers in the uniqueness of God'.<br>63 Tractate Berakhot, p. 58b.<br>64 According to many rabbinical authorities the original rule still applies in full in the Land of Israel.<br>65 This custom gave rise to many incidents in the history of European Jewry. One of the most famous, whose consequence is still visible today, occurred in 14th century Prague. King Charles IV of Bohemia (who was also Holy Roman Emperor) had a magnificent crucifix erected in the middle of a stone bridge which he had built and which still exists today. It was then reported to him that the Jews of Prague are in the habit of spitting whenever they pass next to the crucifix. Being a famous protector of the Jews, he did not institute persecution against them, but simply sentenced the Jewish community to pay for the Hebrew word Adonay (Lord) to be inscribed on the crucifix in golden letters. This word is one of the seven holiest names of God, and no mark of disrespect is allowed in front of it. The spitting ceased. Other incidents connected with the same custom were much less amusing.<br>66 The verses most commonly used for this purpose contain words derived from the Hebrew root shaqetz which means 'abominate, detest', as in Deuteronomy, 7:26: 'thou shalt utterly detest it, and thou shalt utterly abhor it; for it is a cursed thing.' It seems that the insulting term sheqetz, used to refer to all Gentiles (Chapter 2), originated from this custom.<br>67 Talmud, Tractate Beytzah, p. 21a, b; Mishnah Berurah on Shulhan 'Arukh, 'Orah Hayyim' 512. Another commentary (Magen Avraham) also excludes Karaites.<br>68 According to the Halakha, a Gentile slave bought by a Jew should be converted to Judaism, but does not thereby become a proper Jew.<br>69 Leviticus, 25:46.<br>70 The Hebrew form of the name Jesus -- Yeshu -- was interpreted as an acronym for the curse may his name and memory be wiped out', which is used as an extreme form of abuse. In fact, anti-zionist Orthodox Jews (such as Neturey Qarta) sometimes refer to Herzl as 'Herzl Jesus' and I have found in religious zionist writings expressions such as 'Nasser Jesus' and more recently 'Arafat Jesus.' <hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://jewsagainstzionism.blogspot.com/2005_02_01_jewsagainstzionism_archive.html#110772823632669023">jewsagainstzionism.blogsp...3632669023</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--> <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=gouda@rigorousintuition>Gouda</A> at: 10/5/06 7:02 am<br></i>
User avatar
Gouda
 
Posts: 3009
Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2005 1:53 am
Location: a circular mould
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Einstein, Fisk, and Lenny Bruce. Together again.

Postby Dreams End » Thu Oct 05, 2006 10:12 am

I was wondering if any of you actually had any comments on the piece about the close relationship between the early Palestinian revolt, the Grand Mufti and the Nazis. As in formal, working relationship including financing from Germany with open expression by Hussein of his agreement with the final solution, etc. I know it's a long article but it lays out the whole thing I've been trying to say, which is that there was a very deliberate stirring up of anti-Jewish sentiment in the pre-War years as part of a Nazi strategy for the region. Meanwhile, what I haven't researched yet, but expect to, is how these reactionary movements within the Arab world actually destroyed true left/socialist/communist movements in the area. I know for a fact that Nasser went after communists, and we have the above article that shows that the Mufti went after even political moderates. <br><br>Also, I didn't mean to imply you should google shahak + crazy or whatever...I just found that devil worshipping stuff to be strange. In general, if you judge any of the three religions of the book by...well...the book itself, you'll get some craziness. To take that as something literal..well, I can't even comment. I can't read the Talmud. The best I could do would be to see what Jewish scholars think of Shahak's interpretation. But they could all be "Zionist shills" so I guess unless someone can read the source texts directly and also knows the historical context (i.e. anything written during a time of high oppression of the Jews might very well be "anti-gentile") then we won't be able to do too much. I do know that his translations have been called into question by such scholars.<br><br>We can keep going about Shahak if you want. My point was that in two google clicks I found stuff on the guy that made me question his motivation....or sanity. Take your pick.<br><br>In general, this has been fascinating. Everything you see on this thread is new to my thinking in the last year. Before that, the idea that Zionism = racism and that all the fault of the Palestinian conflict was Israel's, etc were my own views. But see, they WEREN'T my own views. I simply accepted them because the political left, of which I'm a part, had these views. While I don't expect the left to be infallible, I just sort of accepted that viewpoint. Now I'm in this weird and awkward place where SOME of the things I agree with are put out by the right and by the establishment BUT, their reasons for putting them out are very questionable. <br><br>Why is it, as a leftist, I did not know the history of Nazi involvement in the development of Arab nationalism? Why isn't the left bothered by this? These questions go beyond this thread, really, and are irrelevant to anyone who doesn't consider himself a leftist, but it's a crucial question.<br><br>So I hope you all will go back and reread that article I posted. It is central to what I'm trying to explain, so if you read it, then at least you'll know what I've been talking about. <p></p><i></i>
Dreams End
 

Re: Einstein, Fisk, and Lenny Bruce. Together again.

Postby AlicetheCurious » Thu Oct 05, 2006 10:13 am

snowlion2, that "dialogue" with the sock-puppet anonymous "Imam" would be hysterical if so many people didn't take it seriously.<br><br>It's not like there aren't plenty of real, live, legitimate and qualified Islamic scholars around, more than happy to discuss and explain their religion. But it's so much more pleasant and less complicated to make up these imaginary 'muslims' so that they can be made to hang their heads in shame, right on cue. <!--EZCODE EMOTICON START :\ --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/ohwell.gif ALT=":\"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <br><br>Anyway, about Israel Shahak, he was discussing Kabbalist beliefs and practices that originated (according to most serious scholars) in the 12th-13th centuries in Europe.<br><br>Although I know very little about these beliefs and practices, those you describe do not strike me as implausible, particularly when you compare to the prevalent beliefs and practices of Christians during the same period.<br><br>Kabbalism as practiced by medieval Jews, as far as I can tell, did include what today we would call 'magick', through manipulation of angels and demons, even of God Himself, through esoteric knowledge.<br><br>And the Zohar, one of the major books of the Kabbalah, does sexualize spiritual practice (and vice versa) in a way you may not like, but that does not change the fact that it does.<br><br>Many of the hermetic secret societies that we associate with the occult, such as the Golden Dawn, Aleister Crowley's OTO, even Masonism and theosophism, draw heavily from and are influenced by, medieval Kabbalic "secret knowledge".<br><br>There's a big gap between the Judaism of the ancient Torah and the 2nd century Talmud, and the medieval superstitious claptrap of the Kabbala. Despite its dubious roots and bizarre beliefs, kabbalistic mumbo jumbo has infiltrated some modern Jewish movements, through groups such as the Lubavitchers and other mystical sects, gaining respectability among the more fundamentalist and fanatic Jewish thinkers.<br><br>Israel Shahak is indeed a scholar, a brave one, a man of integrity whose sin was to lift a few rocks that others would have preferred be left alone.<br><br>In any case, I am not a religious scholar, of any religion, nor do I wish to engage in dubious arguments about who has the better religion.<br><br>I agree with yathrib that behind the Disney version of all three monotheistic religions, there are plenty of putrid skeletons mouldering in hidden closets. It's not the job of scholars and historians to stand in front of those closets, but to open them wide and air them out. Not to provide ammunition to racists and haters, but expose the kind of mythology and propaganda that PROMOTES racism and hate.<br><br>Frankly, as a non-Jew, I don't feel it's my business or my right to talk about any aspect of the Jewish religion, any more than I accept criticism of Islam by non-Muslims, or of Christianity by non-Christians.<br><br>I will content myself with demanding justice for the oppressed, and for the prosecution of criminals, and defending the human rights of all people.<br><br>Let's try to get this thread back on track, shall we? <p></p><i></i>
AlicetheCurious
 
Posts: 570
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 7:45 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Snowlion

Postby yathrib » Thu Oct 05, 2006 11:19 am

One last thing on this "Which is the best religion" discussion, then I'll shut up. The Imam anecdote was presented to me by a fundamentalist acquaintance as a personal experience. I assume he was just appropriating this fraudulent, pious spam as his own.<br><br>The only difference between Islam and CHristianity--and most Judaism, for that matter--is that Christians and Jews in general do not take their scriptures as seriously and/or literally as do Muslims in the present day. Either that, or--as is the case for most Christians--they have elaborate schemes for explaining away vast portions that they want to ignore.<br><br>I have a ton more I could say about this, but I'll let the thread get back to its original purpose.<br><br><br> <p></p><i></i>
yathrib
 
Posts: 1880
Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 11:44 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Einstein, Fisk, and Lenny Bruce. Together again.

Postby AlicetheCurious » Thu Oct 05, 2006 11:40 am

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Before that, the idea that Zionism = racism and that all the fault of the Palestinian conflict was Israel's, etc were my own views. But see, they WEREN'T my own views. I simply accepted them because the political left, of which I'm a part, had these views. While I don't expect the left to be infallible, I just sort of accepted that viewpoint. Now I'm in this weird and awkward place where SOME of the things I agree with are put out by the right and by the establishment BUT, their reasons for putting them out are very questionable. <br><br>Why is it, as a leftist, I did not know the history of Nazi involvement in the development of Arab nationalism? Why isn't the left bothered by this?<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--> <br><br>Zionism = Racism because it proclaims the "rights" of one group of people to deprive another of its legal and human rights, based on ethnic/religious criteria.<br><br>The fault for the Palestine conflict IS Israel's -- by definition, because Israel has colonized Palestine through a process of ethnic cleansing and systemic human rights violations.<br><br>Even if Arab leaders were the rabid anti-semites portrayed in Zionist propaganda, this still would not justify the crimes committed against Palestinian people. <br><br>The whole "anti-semitism" thing is an important Zionist tool, for dehumanizing their victims and justifying atrocities committed against them. It really is a morally bankrupt position, since Israel is not defending itself against racists and anti-semites, it is mainly killing and dispossessing ordinary people who have done nothing wrong, but who are the wrong religion/ethnicity.<br><br>The Mufti has been immortalized by Zionists because of his naive and misguided belief that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". Neither influential nor respected in life, he has become a giant figure in Zionist propaganda. To which most Arabs respond, "Huh?"<br><br>Another target of the anti-semitism libel is Hassan Nasrallah, leader of the Hizbullah, who is, on the other hand, truly a towering figure among Arabs, whether religious or non-religious, Christian, Muslim, Shia, Sunni, etc., probably because we can actually hear his words first-hand, unlike those who depend on Zionist sources:<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>I do not support the terrible excesses of Israel’s bombing of Lebanon, nor do I regard all criticism of Israel as an expression of anti-semitism, but Charles Glass’s defence of Hizbullah is beyond the pale (LRB, 17 August). Is Glass familiar with these statements, made by Hizbullah’s leader, Hassan Nasrallah? ‘If they [the Jews] all gather in Israel it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide’ and ‘They [Jews] are a cancer which is liable to spread at any moment.’ The leader of the Party of God (a grotesque conception of a political party, although that doesn’t seem to bother Glass) is not simply a resistance fighter. <br><br>He is an anti-semite with fantasies of genocide. Glass makes Hizbullah sound like a rational movement that does little harm, but on the contrary does a great deal of good and learns from its mistakes. What lessons had it learned from the debacle of the 1980s when it provoked a war that has brought so much havoc to its own country, without even consulting the government in which it serves? Glass tells us that he was kidnapped by Hizbullah. Has he succumbed to Stockholm syndrome?<br><br><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>Eugene Goodheart</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--><br><br><!--EZCODE UNDERLINE START--><span style="text-decoration:underline">Response:</span><!--EZCODE UNDERLINE END--><br><br>Eugene Goodheart asks whether I am familiar with two statements he attributes to Hizbullah’s secretary-general, Sayed Hassan Nasrallah (Letters, 7 September). Goodheart uses the inflammatory quotations to accuse Nasrallah of being ‘an anti-semite with fantasies of genocide’. <br><br>If I am unfamiliar with the statements, it is because they are in all likelihood fabrications. The first (‘If they [the Jews] all gather in Israel it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide’) was circulated widely on neo-con websites, which give as its original source an article by Badih Chayban in Beirut’s English-language Daily Star on 23 October 2002. <br><br>It seems that Chayban left the Star three years ago and moved to Washington. The Star’s managing editor writes of Chayban’s article on Nasrallah, that ‘I have faith in neither the accuracy of the translation [from Arabic to English] nor the agenda of the translator [Chayban].’ The editor-in-chief and publisher of the Star, Jamil Mrowe, adds that Chayban was ‘a reporter and briefly local desk sub and certainly did not interview Nasrallah or anyone else.’ <br><br>The account of Nasrallah’s speech in the Lebanese daily As Safir for the same day makes no reference to any anti-semitic comments. Goodheart’s second quotation – ‘They [the Jews] are a cancer which is liable to spread at any moment’ – comes from the Israeli government’s website at <!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://tinyurl.com/99hyz.">tinyurl.com/99hyz.</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--> For the record, a Hizbullah spokeswoman, Wafa Hoteit, denies that Nasrallah made either statement.<br><br>Goodheart wonders whether, as a former captive of Hizbullah, I may have succumbed to Stockholm syndrome; may I ask in return whether he is succumbing to the disinformation that passes for scholarship and journalism in certain quarters in the United States?<br><br><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>Charles Glass</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--><br>Paris<br><br><br><hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br><br>I couldn't find the place where you originally included those supposed quotes of Hassan Nasrallah, DE, so I posted this here, to show that at least some (if not most) accusations of anti-semitism are fabricated to further the Zionist agenda.<br><br><!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>On edit: here's the link:</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n19/letters.html">www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n19/letters.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br> <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=alicethecurious>AlicetheCurious</A> at: 10/5/06 9:43 am<br></i>
AlicetheCurious
 
Posts: 570
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 7:45 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Einstein, Fisk, and Lenny Bruce. Together again.

Postby Dreams End » Thu Oct 05, 2006 12:08 pm

Alice I believe the article I posted goes WAY beyond a "misguided" Mufti. It talks of the incessang Arabic language propaganda from a Nazi radio station, the funding and military support of the Nazis for the Arab nationalists. It also discusses Muslim Brotherhood, Qutb, and Nasser, among others. <br><br>My Nasrallah quotes were a response to your Zionist quotes. I bothered to look up your Zionist quotes till you disavowed them as only being evidence of how confusing it is to verify quotes. Feel free to do the same to the Nasrallah quotes.<br><br>And I believe that the video of the little "drama" of the Rabbis killing the Christian child was pretty convincingly linked to Al-Manar, which despite your constant viewing of that station, you evidently missed. <p></p><i></i>
Dreams End
 

Re: Einstein, Fisk, and Lenny Bruce. Together again.

Postby AlicetheCurious » Thu Oct 05, 2006 1:31 pm

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>My Nasrallah quotes were a response to your Zionist quotes. I bothered to look up your Zionist quotes till you disavowed them as only being evidence of how confusing it is to verify quotes. Feel free to do the same to the Nasrallah quotes.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>I did, see above.<br><br>As for "'the little "drama' of the Rabbis killing the Christian child" which according to you "was pretty convincingly linked to Al-Manar", pretty convincing to whom? Not to me, since based on their previous record, Zionist websites are not exactly reliable when they provide "evidence" supporting their self-interested accusations of anti-semitism against their victims.<br><br>If you can find more objective sources, or better still, original sources, I'd have to confess that even though I've never seen anything remotely of this kind on al-Manar, you are right and I am wrong.<br><br>Don't quote that last clause out of context! <p></p><i></i>
AlicetheCurious
 
Posts: 570
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 7:45 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Einstein, Fisk, and Lenny Bruce. Together again.

Postby Dreams End » Thu Oct 05, 2006 8:03 pm

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>you are right and I am wrong.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br> Alice the curious.<br><br>All I can do, and have done, is provide the airtime and date. You have a much better chance than me of getting access to that information. <br><br>But it's not like it's been tearing up the "Zionist propaganda" networks. I've only found it mentioned on two sites. <br><br>Looking forward to your remarks about the overt and extensive ties between Nazis and early Arab nationalist movements. <p></p><i></i>
Dreams End
 

Re: Einstein, Fisk, and Lenny Bruce. Together again.

Postby erosoplier » Thu Oct 05, 2006 11:20 pm

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Looking forward to your remarks about the overt and extensive ties between Nazis and early Arab nationalist movements. <hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br><br>I really don't know the third or fourth thing about it, but do you think perhaps, DE, it may be a case of the colonised understanding that it's game over for life as they know it unless they make some new friends, fast? Given that Britain had already promised to give some Palestine away to the Jews (over a decade before anybody much had ever heard of a "Nazi") is it so surprising that the Palestinians would be strongly motivated to seek an alternative benefactor who didn't plan on giving their land away? <br><br>I think, when you are at the point where you are ready to start killing the people who seem intent on stealing your land from under your feet, it goes without saying, you are ready to abandon the principles of democracy. Where is the big surprise in that? Exactly how appalled should we be with this toying with fascism, DE (whatever the hell "fascism" might mean in a 1930's middle-eastern context)?<br><br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Uprising">en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Uprising</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--> <p></p><i></i>
User avatar
erosoplier
 
Posts: 1247
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 3:38 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Einstein, Fisk, and Lenny Bruce. Together again.

Postby Dreams End » Thu Oct 05, 2006 11:45 pm

Why don't you read the article, eros?<br><br>It doesn't matter why they embraced Naziism, the fact is that they did. <br><br>And this influenced subsequent events profoundly. <p></p><i></i>
Dreams End
 

Re: Einstein, Fisk, and Lenny Bruce. Together again.

Postby erosoplier » Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:51 am

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Why don't you read the article, eros?<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--> <br>Couldn't bring myself to read it in full...out of respect for the likes of Bertell Ollman perhaps? The article is little more than a propaganda piece - more politics than history.<br><br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>It doesn't matter why they embraced Naziism, the fact is that they did. <hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br>Oh yes it does. See my previous post. (Edit: Do you think their enemies would ever regret having the opportunity to accuse them of embracing Nazism?)<br><br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>And this influenced subsequent events profoundly. <hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br>So did the sheer number of dead Arabs, I'm sure. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=erosoplier>erosoplier</A> at: 10/5/06 11:00 pm<br></i>
User avatar
erosoplier
 
Posts: 1247
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 3:38 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Einstein, Fisk, and Lenny Bruce. Together again.

Postby Joe Hillshoist » Fri Oct 06, 2006 3:09 am

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr><br>It doesn't matter why they embraced Naziism, the fact is that they did. <br><br>And this influenced subsequent events profoundly.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--> <br><br>The irony of this statement is brilliant.<br><br>Who are you talking about?<br><br>Palestinians in the 1930's.<br><br>The Taliban.<br><br>WASPS in the 1930s.<br><br>Americans today. (BTW This includes you DE, if your statement is as big a generalisation as saying all Palestinians in the 30s embraced Nazism, then all Americans today did, you included. At least its modern form - bushism or something.)<br><br>BTW Re the Cabalism bit - its as arabic as it is jewish. Idries Shah goes into it in his book "the Sufi's".<br><br>This argument about Zionism would go away if people referred to Isreal's nasty behaviour as what it is fascism, same as the fascism that is rampant in the arabic world, both the fundamentalist and the secular capitalist arab worlds, and in much of the muslim and christian world.<br><br>Blaming Israeli fascism is a lot less politically loaded than blaming Zionism, and places the Israeli situation on the same field as all the other fascist trending power structures we have to put up with.<br><br>Calling it Zionism just creates these endless who did what arguments where both sides accuse each other of the same thing.<br><br>And makes it seem somehow seperate or above the worldwide globalist fascism that is dribbling through the zeitgeist like sewerage through Bondi Beach.<br><br>Zionism is a conveinient meme for both sides of the argument to use. If the anti israeli lobby used the term fascism they would have to face some ugly truths about themselves, well some of them anyway.(Islamofascists and redneck ones from jesusville) And those that support Israel use Zionism to give it(Israel) a legitimacy that it probably doesn't deserve (Iron like a lion in Zion), cos if they didn't they would have to face the fact that its another colonialist expansion policy that has nothing to do with god and everything to do with power on earth. <p></p><i></i>
Joe Hillshoist
 
Posts: 10616
Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2006 10:45 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Einstein, Fisk, and Lenny Bruce. Together again.

Postby AlicetheCurious » Fri Oct 06, 2006 7:54 am

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>The only difference between Islam and CHristianity--and most Judaism, for that matter--is that Christians and Jews in general do not take their scriptures as seriously and/or literally as do Muslims in the present day. Either that, or--as is the case for most Christians--they have elaborate schemes for explaining away vast portions that they want to ignore.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Yathrib, what you say is both extremely simplistic and terribly inaccurate. That should be obvious just in your lumping together of "Christians", "Jews" and "Muslims", but even beyond that gross oversimplification, for our purposes, the significant point is not that individuals follow the precepts of their religion, however they interpret that, but to what extent those precepts influence and shape such things as government policy, particularly policy towards "the Other".<br><br>For example, only a minority of Israelis categorize themselves as deeply religious, or haredi, but it is precisely this minority whose policies are being implemented on the ground, towards Palestinians.<br><br>The beliefs of these Haredim are deeply anti-democratic, anti-human rights and alarmingly Judeo-supremacist.<br><br>It's as though, in the US, despite most of the population holding democratic and liberal views, the government pursues a policy of building, protecting and expanding settlements of armed Klu Klux Klanners in black population population centers.<br><br>In that case, the black people struggling to survive the daily onslaughts of the KKK as well as the army's bulldozing of their homes and arrests of those who resist, have a slightly different perspective from those who point to how "liberal" and "democratic" the majority American population is, whom they rightly perceive as complicit hypocrites. Don't you think so?<br><br>I am a non-Muslim living in a country where the majority of people consider themselves to be pious Muslims. For the most part, the effects on my daily life are either neutral or positive. It's no skin off my nose if a woman wears a headscarf, or if my neighbours faithfully fast during Ramadan (I get invited to a lot of nice "dinners" for me, that are "breakfasts" for my hosts). I have no problem providing a place to pray for my guests who wish to do so, and pointing out the east.<br><br>I've had Orthodox Jewish friends, and was happy to plan menus with kosher meat, no meat in dishes with dairy, no shellfish, etc. Big deal.<br><br>Frankly, the only serious problems I remember ever having, were with other Christians, who gave themselves permission to preach aggressively to me, to talk to me (yell at me) rudely in my own home, because I didn't conform to their definition of what a Christian needed to be, or because I dared to voice the (gasp!) opinion that the Bible was not the direct, pure Word of God.<br><br>So your global generalization there, did not ring true for me. Especially as I've watched a scary number of individuals I know, and used to like, particularly in North America, succumb to the right-wing fanaticism of the 'born-again rapture people" (BARP!) and start talking like brainwashed zombies.<br><br>Truly, it creeps me out. But, being the tolerant person that I am, I prefer to gently and silently untie our canoes and let the river of life drift us apart in its natural course.<br><br>That is no longer possible once those religious beliefs are translated into political or military actions against the "other".<br><br>I expect my Muslim friends to speak out against those laws or officials that discriminate against Copts, or any other forms of injustice or oppression, otherwise they may not consider themselves my friends.<br><br>Same with Jews.<br><br>Same with Christians, who congratulate themselves on how loving and gentle and just their God is, but can't bring themselves to lift a finger to even condemn war crimes and other crimes against humanity, committed in their name, or in the name of any other religion, or even as justified by the religion of the victims.<br><br>In other words, your religion is your business, until your religion becomes the motive for a crime against other people, in which case it SHOULD become the business of criminal courts, and justice administered according to the laws of humanity.<br><br>Anything else is unacceptable to me. What about you? <p></p><i></i>
AlicetheCurious
 
Posts: 570
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 7:45 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to Deep Politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest