SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Emile Vidrine who wrote (307985)10/13/2002 5:00:32 PM
From: Elmer Flugum  Respond to of 769670
 
Manufacturing Anti-Semites

gush-shalom.org

The first Israeli victim of Saddam Hussein is a Zionist myth on which we were brought up.

It stated that Israel is a haven for all the Jews in the world. In all the other countries, Jews live in perpetual fear that a cruel persecutor will arise, as happened in Germany. Israel is the safe haven, to which Jews can escape in times of danger. Indeed, this was the purpose of the Founding Fathers when they established the state.

Now Saddam comes along and proves the opposite. All over the world, Jews live in safety, and only in one place on the planet are they threatened by annihilation: Israel. Here the national parks are prepared for mass-graves, here (pathetic) measures against biological and chemical weapons are prepared. Many people are already planning to escape to the communities in the Diaspora. End of a myth.

Another Zionist myth died even before that. The Diaspora, so we learned in our youth, creates anti-Semitism. Everywhere the Jews are a minority, and a minority inevitably attracts the hatred of the majority. Only when the Jews gather in the Land of their Forefathers and constitute the majority there, will anti-Semitism disappear throughout the world. Thus spoke Herzl, the founder of modern Zionism.

Nowadays this myth, too, is giving up its blessed soul. The very opposite is happening: the State of Israel is causing the resurrection of anti-Semitism all over the world, threatening Jews everywhere.

The Sharon government is a giant laboratory for the growing of the anti-Semitism virus. It exports it to the whole world. Anti-Semitic organizations, which for many years vegetated on the margins of society, rejected and despised, are suddenly growing and flowering. Anti-Semitism, which has hidden itself in shame since World War II, is now riding on a great wave of opposition to Sharon's policy of oppression.

Sharon's propaganda agents are pouring oil on the flames. Accusing all critics of his policy of being anti-Semites, they brand large communities with this mark. Many good people, who feel no hatred at all towards the Jews, but who detest the persecution of the Palestinians, are now called anti-Semites. Thus the sting is taken out of this word, giving it something approaching respectability.

The practical upshot: not only does Israel not protect the Jews from anti-Semitism, but quite on the contrary - Israel manufactures and exports the anti-Semitism that threatens Jews around the world.

For many years, Israel enjoyed the sympathy of most people. It was seen as the state of the holocaust survivors, a small and courageous country defending itself against the repeated assaults of murderous Arabs. Slowly, this image has been replaced by another: a cruel, brutal and colonizing state, oppressing a small and helpless people. The persecuted has become the persecutor, David has turned onto Goliath.

We Israelis, living in a bubble of self-brain-washing, find it hard to imagine how the world sees us. In many countries, television and newspapers publish daily pictures of Palestinian children throwing stones at monstrous tanks, soldiers harassing women at the checkpoints, despairing old men sitting on the ruins of their demolished homes, soldiers taking aim and shooting children. These soldiers do not look like human beings in uniform - "the neighbor's son" as they look to Israelis, but like robots without faces, armed to the teeth, heads hidden by helmets, bullet-proof vests changing their proportions. People who have seen these photos dozens and hundreds of times start to see the Israel in this image.

For Jews, this creates a dangerous vicious circle. Sharon's actions create repulsion and opposition throughout the world. These reinforce anti-Semitism. Faced with this danger, Jewish organizations are pushed into defending Israel and giving it unqualified support. This support enables the anti-Semites to attack not only the government of Israel, but the local Jews, too. And so on.

In Europe, Jews already feel the pressure. But in the United States, they still feel supremely self-confident. In Europe, Jews have learned over the centuries that it is not wise to be too conspicuous and to display their wealth and influence. But in America, the very opposite is happening: the Jewish establishment is practically straining to prove that it controls the country.

Every few years, the Jewish lobby "eliminates" an American politician who does not support the Israeli government unconditionally. This is not done secretly, behind the scenes, but as a public "execution". Just now this was done to the black Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, a young, active, intelligent and very sympathetic woman. She has dared to criticize the Sharon government, support Palestinians and (worst of all) Israeli and Jewish peace groups. The Jewish establishment found a counter-candidate, a practically unknown black woman, injected huge sums into the campaign and defeated Cynthia.

All this happened in the open, with fanfares, to make a public example - so that every Senator and Congressperson would know that criticizing Sharon is tantamount to political suicide.

Now this is repeated in a big way. The pro-Israel lobby - which consists of Jews and extreme right-wing Christian fundamentalists - is pushing the American administration to start a war. This, too, openly, in full view of the American public. Dozens of articles in the important newspapers point this out as a plain political fact.

What will happen if the war ends in failure? If it has unexpected negative results and many young Americans die? If the American public turns against it, as happened during the Vietnam War? One can easily imagine a whispering campaign starting: "The Jews have pushed us into this," "The Jews support Israel more than they support America," and, finally, "The Jews control our country."

Furthermore, Sharon may sooner or later bring about a revolution in the Arab world. This will be a disaster for American interests. American Jews, now completely identified with Israel, will be blamed.

Anyhow, the conspicuousness of the Jews in the United States, especially in the media, and their disproportionate influence over the Congress and the White House, can backfire one of these days.

Of course, the special political culture of the United States encourages such phenomena - but that was also true in Spain of the "Golden Age" and the Weimar republic in Germany. History does not have to repeat itself, but neither should one disregard its lessons.

There are people in Israel people who secretly wish for the victory of anti-Semitism everywhere. That would confirm another Zionist myth on which we were brought up: that Jews will not be able to live anywhere but in Israel, because anti-Semitism is bound to triumph everywhere. But the United States is not France or Argentina, it plays a critical role in the Middle East. Israel's national security, as established by all Israeli governments since Ben-Gurion, is based on the total support of the United States - military, political and economic.

If I were asked for advice, I would counsel the Jewish communities throughout the world as follows: break out of the vicious circle. Disarm the anti-Semites. Break the habit of automatic identification with everything our governments do. Let your conscience speak out. Return to the traditional Jewish values of "That which is altogether just shalt thou follow!" (Deuteronomy 16,20) and "Seek peace and pursue it!" (Psalms 34, 14). Identify yourselves with the Other Israel, which is struggling to uphold these values at home.

All over the world, new Jewish groups that follow this way are multiplying. They break yet another myth: the duty of Jews everywhere to subordinate themselves to the edicts of our government.

More from Uri:

avnery-news.co.il



To: Emile Vidrine who wrote (307985)10/13/2002 7:46:43 PM
From: Mr. Forthright  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 769670
 
Sept. 27, 2002/ 21 Tishrei, 5763
Mark Steyn



The more inventively you try to ''explain'' the Islamist psychosis as a rational phenomenon to be accommodated, the more you risk sounding just as nutty as them

There are few things sadder than a rape victim who blames herself, adding self-insult to injury. So what are we to make of a New York Times/CBS News poll from earlier this month? According to this survey, 75 percent of Americans place ''a lot of blame'' or ''some blame'' for the 9/11 mass murder on ''United States policies over the years.''

If by that they mean the State Department's "Visa Express" program for dodgy young Saudi males or the over-subsidy of Mubarak's squalid regime in Egypt, then I'm with that 75 percent. But I suspect most respondents mean that, in some vague way, the United States was insufficiently ''nice'' (as Canada's idiot prime minister put it the other day) to the Middle East. And that somehow the ''arrogance'' of American foreign policy provoked an inevitable response.

Listen up, folks: Don't beat yourselves up, there's plenty of crazy Saudis willing to do it for you. I don't have a problem with attempts to identify the ''root causes'' of 9/11, only with the particular root cause everyone settles on--to wit, poverty. The late Osama bin Laden was a wealthy man. Loaded. Mohammed Atta and most of the other killers belonged to the privileged middle class. Omar Sheikh, who kidnapped and beheaded the Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, is a British ''public'' (i.e., private) schoolboy and graduate of the London School of Economics. Saddam Hussein's personal fortune is estimated at $7 billion, a career in public service in Baghdad being rather more lucrative than one in, say, Copenhagen. And let's not forget the representative two or three hundred Saudi princes currently accompanying King Fahd on his convalescence in Spain. A lucky London escort agency has landed the contract for servicing the Saudi swingers: The gals all have to be blond and they're replaced every two weeks, having been thoroughly, er, exhausted by then.

So we could increase foreign aid. It would enable Saddam to expand his anthrax factory and the House of Saud to rotate its hookers every 48 hours. But would it do anything else? Under the terms of the Camp David accords, Egypt has been the beneficiary of the largest amount of U.S. aid apart from Israel. What's happened to it? In the 1950s, Egypt and South Korea had more or less identical per capita incomes. Today, Egypt's is less than a fifth of South Korea's.

The campus left haven't had an original idea since Vietnam, so ask 'em what's to blame for Sept. 11, and they fall back on that old standby ''global poverty,'' the growing ''inequality'' between rich and poor. Let's spell it out: There's no such thing. The story of the last 30 years is the emergence of ''a new world middle class,'' as Professor Xavier Sala-i-Martin calls them in his study "The World Distribution of Income." This class is made up of some 2.5 billion people in the developing world, whose standards of living now approach those of the West. That's to say, roughly half the people in the developing world are doing pretty well economically. As Virginia Postrel wrote in the New York Times recently, taking the world's population as a whole, in 1998 ''the largest number of people earned about $8,000, a standard of living equivalent to Portugal's.''

Why hasn't the Middle East shared in this economic growth? Because they're failed states run by kleptocrats who govern by clan and corruption. The West could quadruple aid to the Arab world and it would have zero effect on either poverty or terrorism.

OK, forget poverty. Let's take the broader point of those 75 percent of poll respondents, the underlying assumption that there's some kind of accommodation you can reach with these guys so that they'll cease flying planes into Manhattan landmarks. What is it the Islamists want?

In the words of Hussein Massawi, former leader of Hezbollah: ''We are not fighting so that you will offer us something. We are fighting to eliminate you.''

But maybe that's just his opening position, and we could reach some sort of compromise--if not with Massawi, then with more ''mainstream'' figures in the Islamist movement such as Sheik Muhammad al-Gamei'a, an Egyptian big shot who was the imam at the Islamic Cultural Center and Mosque in New York at the time of last September's unfortunate example of the price of American arrogance. Back in October, the big-time Westernized imam thought it was all to do with America's Jewish influence: ''You see these people all the time, everywhere, disseminating corruption, heresy, homosexuality, alcoholism, and drugs. Because of the Jews, there are strip clubs, homosexuals, and lesbians everywhere. They do this to impose their hegemony and colonialism on the world.''

Hmm. Sheik al-Gamei'a and those 75 percent of respondents are in agreement: America brought the attacks on itself. They differ only on the details: Western self-loathers think it's because of "arrogance,'' lack of niceness; the sheik puts it down to decadence, Jews, lesbianism, Budweiser, etc. Already, one can see the parameters of a potential settlement emerging:

The Islamists want to kill all the Jews. What about if we split the difference and just kill half of 'em? They want to behead all the sodomites. What about if we offered, say, 40 percent?

The Islamists have no negotiable demands, and no conceivable changes to U.S. policy will deflect them. And the more inventively you try to ''explain'' the Islamist psychosis as a rational phenomenon to be accommodated, the more you risk sounding just as nutty as them. Take former President Bill Clinton (please), who thinks Sept. 11 was blowback for 1095 .:

''Those of us who come from various European lineages are not blameless. In the First Crusade, when the Christian soldiers took Jerusalem, they first burned a synagogue with 300 Jews in it, and proceeded to kill every woman and child who was Muslim on the Temple Mount. I can tell you that that story is still being told today in the Middle East and we are still paying for it.''

You know something? Call me an ''arrogant cowboy,'' but I honestly think I am blameless for the First Crusade. It was 1095. That's 907 years. Even Paula Jones would have settled. If ever there was an occasion for the great Clintonian invocation that ''we need to move on,'' a grudge over the First Crusade is surely it.

President Bush has to confront the real root causes--the comprehensive failure of the Middle East's various despotisms. If you've a different theory, let's hear it. But no offer to al-Qaida or Hamas or the other Islamists short of the West's conversion and submission to Islamic law will stop them from wanting to kill you. Memo to the American people: It's not your fault.