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 : Israel to U.S. : Now Deal with Syria and Iran -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Elmer Flugum who wrote (4077)12/15/2003 7:29:48 PM
From: 2MAR$  Respond to of 22250
 
If Isra'El can have nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction, then Iran should have them as well.

No no nannette ....not when it's ok to commit suicide
cause they have 72 virgins waiting for them in heaven ...

and take the rest of us with them .

not in my lifetime baby...that's what it's all about , a little more waking up out of the medieval dreams into the 21rst century .



To: Elmer Flugum who wrote (4077)12/17/2003 4:20:11 AM
From: GUSTAVE JAEGER  Respond to of 22250
 
Follow-up to my posts #3963 & #3977:

See how the Judeofascists' cunning ploy to isolate Turkey pans out....

from the December 16, 2003 edition

Turkey chafes at European 'snub'
By Yigal Schleifer | Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor

ISTANBUL, TURKEY
- In a bustling cafe, a crowd gathers in front of a large-screen television to watch Istanbul's Besiktas soccer team take on England's Chelsea. The fans shout with disgust at every missed pass and shot on goal.

Besiktas would go on to lose the game 2-0, but many of the people watching said they felt cheated before the match even started. It was supposed to be played on Besiktas's home field, just up the road, but was moved to a stadium in Germany by the Union of European Football Associations, which cited safety concerns after four suicide bombings struck Istanbul last month.

It was the second game to be moved out of Turkey by the nongovernmental UEFA following the attacks. And Turkey reacted with universal derision that quickly took on a political hue.

"It's the same message the Europeans have been giving us for 10 years - you are not part of Europe. If the same thing would have happened in Italy, the games would have been played in Italy," says Rustu Daglaroglu, who was watching the match with friends.

If the Istanbul bombings were initially expected to bring Turkey and Europe closer, many Turks say they feel the opposite is true. Observers in Turkey and Europe say the attacks actually may have exposed some underlying rifts in the Turkish-European relationship and a fundamental difference in how each perceives that relationship.

"The initial impression after the incidents was that this would generate an awareness of common problems, and would maybe bring both sides together and lend further credence that Turkey is the new front line in Western defense," says Ilter Turan, a professor of international relations at Istanbul Bilgi University. "But the way the [European Union] countries have behaved has been at best confusing. While people related messages of sympathy ... Turkey was made to suffer deprivations."

Relocated soccer games are not the only post-bombing measures that have alienated Turks. Britain issued a travel warning for its citizens, saying further attacks in Turkey were "imminent," and instituted visa restrictions for Turks. Members of the German opposition called into question Turkey's EU candidacy after the attacks, saying that admitting the country would import terror into the Continent.

The criticism aimed by Turkish politicians at Europe's response was especially sharp. Speaking on Turkish television, Turkey's foreign minister, Abdullah Gul, recently said that Europe "failed the solidarity test in the fight against terrorism."

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, speaking earlier this month to a gathering of ambassadors from EU countries, told the group: "Messages of support issued in the aftermath of the attacks have touched us. But seeing signs that these declarations of support are to remain on paper has seriously worried us."

Perhaps in response to Turkey's chiding, some European countries recently took some steps to show solidarity with Turkey. France last week sent its justice minister, Dominique Perben, on a brief trip to Turkey. A group of Italian parliamentarians visited the country, and some of them even offered to play Turkish parliamentarians in a friendly game of soccer.

Turkey is not yet part of the EU family

EU officials say the Turkish criticism is unwarranted. Jean-Christophe Filori, the EU's spokesman for enlargement issues, says the organization sent Turkey a "clear and encouraging" message that the terrorist acts in Istanbul will not dictate either the EU's relations or negotiations with Turkey. Turkey is in the process of undertaking several human rights, economic, and democratization reforms to meet EU membership requirements. The EU is scheduled to make a final decision at the end of 2004 on starting negotiations with Turkey over its membership candidacy.

"The best answer to give to terrorism is to remain extremely firm to the road we have designed," Mr. Filori says.

Daniel Gros, director of the Center for European Policy Studies, an independent think tank in Brussels, says Turkey's unhappiness with the European response stems not from what the Europeans might have done or not done, but from a gap in how each side perceives the relationship. While Turkey might expect that its status as an EU candidate might already make it part of the European family, the EU feels differently, Mr. Gros says.

"Until it becomes a member, Turkey should expect to be treated as someone who is not very welcome," Mr. Gros says. In that sense, it may have been a mistake for Turkey to look at the bombings as a test of its relationship with Europe, Gros says. "For Turkey, this was a crude way to realize the nature of the relationship," he adds.

csmonitor.com



To: Elmer Flugum who wrote (4077)12/17/2003 7:21:26 AM
From: Crimson Ghost  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 22250
 
The realities of Zionist power in America:

 
"Who are the winners? They are the so-called neo-cons,
or neo-conservatives. A compact group, almost all of
whose members are Jewish. They hold the key positions
in the Bush administration, as well as in the think-tanks
that play an important role in formulating American policy
and the ed-op pages of the influential newspapers. [...]
The immense influence of this largely Jewish group stems
from its close alliance with the extreme right-wing Christian
fundamentalists, who nowadays control Bush's Republican
party. [...] Seemingly, all this is good for Israel. America
controls the world, we control America. Never before
have Jews exerted such an immense influence on
the center of world power".
 

Uri Avnery
"The Night After"
CounterPunch
April 10, 2003

www.counterpunch.org/avnery04102003.html
 
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

 
On another disturbing front, Israel Radio (Kol Yisrael),
reported on Oct. 3, 2001, that Israeli Prime Minister,
Ariel Sharon, had boasted at a Cabinet meeting,
"I want to tell you something very clear, don't worry
about American pressure on Israel, we, the Jewish
people control America, and the Americans know it." 
 
 
William Hughes
"Lieberman's Conflict of Interest?"
CounterPunch
August 23, 2002
www.counterpunch.org/hughes0823.htmlby
 
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

 
Since 1967, we have received some 170 billion dollars
from the people of the US. This money could be used
to feed and school all the underprivileged kids of America.
It could pay to compensate the descendants of the African
slaves and help them out of their hardship. It could save
the sick and comfort the miserable; it could turn Africa
into a paradise. But it was kidnapped and shipped to our
shores. Every dollar invested by the Israeli lobby into
senators and congressmen has been returned a hundred
fold, as promised by the Bible. Besides the taxpayer's
money, the supporters of Israel's -business executives -
invested billions of dollars that theirshareholders entrusted
them with. There is no sound business reason behind
Intel's investment, or other similar investments. Israel
has no pool of qualified workers, they have to be imported
like everything else. The risk of the investments in our
country is great and the profits are meager. But then
again, they are playing with somebody else's money.
Israel's supporters fleece America in a grand way,
but they also go after other prey. [...] The Swiss and
the Germans keep paying umpteen billions of dollars to
Israel for the confiscated property of Jews, though Israel
never paid even one penny for the confiscated Gentile
property. The Europeans meekly comply under threat
of the toughest of brothers Cray, the mightiest enforcer
of Jewish loans, the US. Israel's supporters overseas
are like a giant Hoover machine, sucking out money
and sweat from all over the world. Witness Mark Rich,
the thieving billionaire, pardoned by the best supporter
of Israel, Bill Clinton? He was a Mossad agent. [...]
Sometimes, the Palestinians and their friends bemoan
their inability to build up their own Arab lobby to counteract
the Israeli lobby. They miss the most important point.
The Israeli lobby should not be just a Palestinian concern,
but the concern of all Americans. When oil runs out
of a tanker's hulk, it should concern the crew and the
owners, not only the fish. Israel's supporters swindle
all Americans of their money, and antagonize America's
potential friends abroad. Many American politicians
support the swindle in order to remain in power.
For personal political ambitions, they betray the
trust of their voters. John F. Kennedy told Gore Vidal,
that in 1948, Harry Truman was on the verge of losing
the presidential election, but a Zionist supporter brought
to him 2 million dollars cash and saved his skin. It
caused America to vote for the creation of the Jewish
State. This pattern perpetuates itself. The politicians
take bribes, sell pardons, accept "donations", and
help the Israeli lobby to rob the people of America.
The actual direct contribution of American Jews for
the welfare of Israel is quite small and tax exempt.
It would hardly cover the cost of the missiles and nerve
gas to kill Palestinians, much less support the Israeli
life style to which we have become accustomed. But
what Israel supporters collect in campaign contributions
is enough to bribe politicians and embezzle a good
chunk of American money from the US treasury. If
such a swindle would be hatched by, say, the Libyan
lobby, the media would rightly demand these people
be registered as foreign agents of influence. That is
where the Israeli lobby cashes in on the solidarity of
the many American Jews and right-wing Christian
Zionists in the national media. 
 

Israel Shamir
"Kid Sister"
February 17, 2001
www.israelshamir.net/english_articles.html
 
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

 
The Pentagon, that enormous, sprawling building on
the banks of the Potomac, houses most of the Department
of Defense's central headquarters. It is the top command
for the forces and measures which provide Americans
with security in a troubled world. Across the Potomac
is the Department of State, a massive eight-story building
on Washington's Foggy Bottom, the nerve center of our
nation's worldwide diplomatic network. These buildings
are channels through which flow each day thousands
of messages dealing with the nation's top secrets. No
one can enter either building without special identification
or advance clearance. Armed guards seem to be everywhere,
and in late 1983 concrete emplacements were added
and heavy trucks strategically parked to provide extra
buffers if a fanatic should launch an attack. These buildings
are fortresses where the nation's most precious secrets
are carefully guarded by the most advanced technology.
But how secure are the secrets?
"The leaks to Israel are fantastic. If I have something
I want the secretary of state to know, but don't want
Israel to know, I must wait till I have a chance to see
him personally." The declaration comes from an ambassador
still on active duty in a top assignment, reviewing his
long career in numerous posts in the Middle East.
Although hardly a household name in the United States,
his is one of America's best-known abroad. Interviewed
in the State Department, he speaks deliberately, choosing
his words carefully. "It is a fact of life that everyone in
authority is reluctant to put anything on paper that
concerns Israel if it is to be withheld from Israel's
knowledge," says the veteran. "Nor do such people
even feel free to speak in a crowded room of such
things."
 
 
Paul Findley
Former Congressman from Illinois
They Dare To Speak Out - People and Institutions Confront Israel's Lobby
Lawrence Hill Books, 1989, p. 139
 
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

 
Jewish power has, in fact, been trumpeted by a number
of Jewish writers, including one, J.J. Goldberg, editor of
the Jewish weekly Forward, who wrote a book by that
name in 1996. Any attempt however, to explore the issue
from a critical standpoint inevitably leads to accusations
of anti-Semitism, as Bill and Kathy Christison pointed out
in their article on the role of right-wing Jewish neo-cons
in orchestrating US Middle East policy, in CounterPunch
(1/25/03):
 
"Anyone who has the temerity to suggest any Israeli
instigation of, or even involvement in, Bush administration
war planning is inevitably labeled somewhere along the
way as an anti-Semite. Just whisper the word 'domination'
anywhere in the vicinity of the word 'Israel', as in 'U.S.-Israeli
domination of the Middle East' or 'the U.S. drive to assure
global domination and guarantee security for Israel", and
some Leftist who otherwise opposes going to war against
Iraq will trot out charges of promoting the Protocols of the
Elders of Zion, the old czarist forgery that asserted a Jewish
plan for world domination."
 
[...]
 
This is hardly the first time that Jews have been
in the upper echelons of power, as Benjamin Ginsberg
points out in The Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State,
but there has never been a situation anywhere like
the present. This is how Ginsberg began his book:
 
"Since the 1960s, Jews have come to wield considerable
influence in American economic, cultural, intellectual and
political life. Jews played a central role in American finance
during the 1980s, and they were among the chief beneficiaries
of that decade's corporate mergers and reorganizations.
Today, though barely 2 % of the nation's population is
Jewish, close to half its billionaires are Jews. The chief
executive officers of the three major television networks
and the four largest film studios are Jews, as are the owners
of the nation's largest newspaper chain and the most
influential single newspaper, the New York Times."
 
That was written in 1993. Today, ten years later,
ardently pro-Israel American Jews are in positions
of unprecedented influence within the United States
and have assumed or been given decision making positions
over virtually every segment of our culture and body politic.
This is no secret conspiracy. Regular readers of The New
York Times business section, which reports the comings
and goings of the media tycoons, are certainly aware of it.
Is each and every tycoon a pro-Israel zealot? Not necessarily,
but when one compares the US media with its European
counterparts in their respective coverage of the Israel-
Palestine conflict, the extreme bias in favor of Israel on
the part of the US media is immediately apparent.
 
[...]
 
A better explanation was provided by Stephen Green,
whose Taking Sides: America's Secret Relations with
Militant Israel was the first examination of State Department
archives concerning US-Israel relations. Since the
Eisenhower administration, wrote Green, in 1984,
"Israel, and friends of Israel in America, have
determined the broad outlines of US policy in
the region. It has been left to American Presidents
to implement that policy, with varying degrees of
enthusiasm, and to deal with the tactical issues."
 
An exaggeration, perhaps, but former US Senator
James Abourezk (D-South Dakota) echoed Green's
words in a speech before the American-Arab Anti-
Discrimation Committee last June:
 
"That is the state of American politics today.
The Israeli lobby has put together so much
money power that we are daily witnessing
US senators and representatives bowing down
low to Israel and its US lobby. Make no mistake.
The votes and bows have nothing to do with the legislators'
love for Israel. They have everything do to with the
money that is fed into their campaigns by members
of the Israeli lobby. My estimate is that at least $6
billion flows from the American Treasury to Israel each
year. That money, plus the political support the US
gives Israel at the United Nations, is what allows
Israel to conduct criminal operations in Palestine
with impunity."
 
That is a reality that has been expressed many
times in many forms by ex-members of Congress,
usually speaking off the record.
 
 
Jeffrey Blankfort
"The Israel Lobby and the Left"
Published in:
The Politics of Anti-Semitism
Edited by Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair
CounterPunch and AK Press, 2003, pp. 101-106
 
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

 
Why then is the Zionist lobby so powerful when their
own scholars write endlessly about the alienation of
their youth from the movement? The answer is simple:
the Jews are the richest ethnic or religious stratum
in the US. Because their standard of living is so high,
they are the most educated. Because they are the
most educated, they are the most scientific oriented,
hence most inclined towards atheism or religious
skepticism. But the true believer minority still has
an unbelievable amount of money to throw at the
politicians.
 
In 1991, I interviewed Harold Seneker, then the editor
of the Forbes 400 list of the richest Americans, for
an article in The Nation. I told him that I found Jews,
2.2% of the population, to be about 25% of the 400.
[...] My estimate is that 84 of the latest 400 are Jews.
The magazine doesn't list religious affiliations unless
the person involved is distinctive in giving to religious
charities, etc. And not all of the Jews are pro-Zionists.
Some listees are among the educated disaffiliated
we are discussing. But Zionist money is prodigious.
James Tisch, chair of the Conference of Presidents
of Major Jewish Organizations isn't on the list, altho
he is CEO of Loews Corp., listed on the Fortune 500
list. But daddy, Laurence, is, at $2 billion, and uncle
Preston is worth $2.3 billion. His predecessors at the
Conference were Ronald Lauder, $1.8 billion, and
Mort Zuckerman, who struggles along with a penny
ante $1.2 billion. Chaim Sabon, $1.7 billion, is a
University of California regent. Mayhaps he got the
job because he gave the Democrats the largest
campaign contribution in American history?
 
[...]
 
Both major parties pick their candidates via primaries
which any member can enter. So occasionally an
honest Democrat or Republican is elected to Congress
and begins to criticize their party's Israel über alles
line. Usually it doesn't take long before a tidal wave
of Zionist cash pours in against them in the next
election and out they go. [...] Many leftists don't like
to talk about it because of their fear of raising anti-
Semitism. They want to talk about oil money. That's
fine. Any kid who they let cross streets alone knows
that oil is the major reason that the US is so deeply
involved in the Middle East. But that doesn't explain
why the two capitalist parties are so pro-Zionist.
Indeed their pro-Zionism creates problems for them
with the Arab masses. And it doesn't explain why
liberal Democrats are as zealous for Israel as the
most fanatic Republican Christian Zionist. [...] The
moral of the story is that, while it is crucial to talk
about oil industry domination of US foreign policy,
it is just as crucial to talk about Zionist funding
and its enormous influence on domestic politics.
 
 
Lenni Brenner
"The Demographics of American Jews"
CounterPunch
October 24, 2003

www.counterpunch.org/brenner10242003.html
 
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

 
Almost all influential individuals and groups in the U.S.
political landscape still shy away from discussing the
degree to which this Israeli connection has been a major
factor in determining the entire complex of U.S. policies
on Iraq and the Middle East since September 11. In the
eyes of most Americans, the correctness of the ever
stronger ties between the right-wing governments of the
United States and Israel is simply not to be questioned.
(If you do question these ties, you must be prepared to
deal either with suspicions of anti-Semitism that may be
directed at you, or, more likely, with suggestions that you
are simply "too far out" of the mainstream and therefore
deserve no further consideration. In the latter case, an
unspoken motive of your interlocutors is often that they
fear being charged with anti-Semitism, or with being
"self-hating Jews," if they seem to agree with you.)
 
[...]
 
Although the war was sold to Congress and the public
on the basis of the WMD issue, many of us believed
for months before the war that the actual reasons the
Bush administration invaded Iraq were the U.S. drive
for global domination, oil--and Israel. [...] It is vital that
we break through the taboos, which have, if anything,
grown stronger in recent months.
 
 
Bill and Kathleen Christison
"The Pervasive Fear of Talking About the Israeli Connection"
CounterPunch
December 13/14, 2003

www.counterpunch.org/christison12132003.html
 
Let's name the Jew
By Prof. Kevin MacDonald
kmacd@csulb.edu
Go to original for article links:
forums.originaldissent.com
Over the last year, there's been a torrent of articles on neoconservatism
raising (usually implicitly) some vexing issues: Are neoconservatives different
from other conservatives? Is neoconservatism a Jewish movement? Is it
“anti-Semitic” to say so?
The dispute between the neocons and more traditional conservatives — “
paleoconservatives” — is especially important because the latter now find
themselves on the outside, looking in on the conservative power structure.
Hopefully, some of the venom has been taken out of this argument by the
remarkable recent article by neoconservative “godfather” Irving Kristol (“The
Neoconservative Persuasion,” Weekly Standard, August 25, 2003). With commendable
frankness, Kristol admitted that:
“the historical task and political purpose of neoconservatism would seem to
be this: to convert the Republican party, and American conservatism in general,
against their respective wills, into a new kind of conservative politics
suitable to governing a modern democracy.” (Read on!)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

 



To: Elmer Flugum who wrote (4077)12/18/2003 11:00:50 AM
From: Crimson Ghost  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 22250
 
-

THE SILENCING OF DISSENT -
- How do they get away with it?

Paul Eisen

As the onslaught on the Palestinian people continues and the
hundred-year conquest of Palestine enters what may be its final stages,
efforts by the Israeli, Zionist and Jewish establishments to silence any
remaining criticism of Israel and Zionism intensify. At the centre of
these efforts is the claim that anti-Zionism equals anti-Semitism.
Critics of Israel are warned that whilst like any other democratic
state, Israel is open to criticism of its policies, any criticism of
Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state is, by definition,
anti-Semitic.

First, it is not true that we are free to criticize Israeli policies
since so many perfectly legitimate criticisms of Israeli policy are
blanketed as attacks on Israel's right to self-defense and therefore as
attacks on Israel's right to exist and, therefore themselves as
anti-Semitic. But what of the core argument that, since all other
peoples are entitled to statehood, to deny to Jews that which is granted
to everyone else is discriminatory and, therefore, anti-Semitic?

There are of course some who really do want to "push the Jews into the
sea", and there are certainly those who say that Jews are not a nation,
but a religious group. There are others who undoubtedly would deny the
right of Jews to establish a state anywhere. These people can fight
their own battles. For my part, if Jews say they are a nation, that's
fine and if Jews want to wear blue-and-white, wave flags and set up a
state on some piece of uninhabited and unclaimed land, although I won't
be joining them, that's also fine. The problem is when this state is
established on someone else's land and maintained at someone else's
expense.

So what is this state of Israel, this Jewish state, whose existence we
are forbidden to question? Founded on the expulsion and exile of another
people, and defining itself as for Jews alone, Israel officially and
unofficially, overtly and covertly, discriminates against non-Jews. Is
denying Jews such a state denying them that which is granted to all
others? One may agree or disagree with any of this. One may argue for or
against Jewish nationhood, the need for a Jewish state, the right of
Jews to have a state in Palestine, and even, post-Holocaust, the
justification for Jews to establish that state at the expense of another
people. One can agree or disagree with any of this, but is such
agreement or disagreement necessarily anti-Semitic?

ANTI-ZIONISM EQUAL ANTI-SEMITISM?

The anti-Zionism equals anti-Semitism argument amounts to this: If you
do not agree with the right of Jews to go to Palestine, settle there en
masse against the wishes of the indigenous population, expel this
population from 75% of their land and then, for the next fifty years and
more, continue this assault on the remaining land and population, then
you are an anti-Semite. Similarly, if you do not support the existence
of an ethnically based state which defines itself as being for Jews only
and discriminates officially both inside and outside its borders against
non-Jews, then, again, you are an anti-Semite.

This would be laughable if it came from any other group of people, yet
coming from Jews, even though not always agreed with, it is still seen
as legitimate. So how do they get away with it? No-one else does, so
what's special about Jews?

Whether there is anything special about Jews is not really relevant.
What is relevant is that a large part of the Western world, even the
most secular part, seems to believe that there is, or, if they don't
believe it, are not confident enough in their disbelief to say so. The
Western world seems at times almost obsessed with Jews and Jewish life.
Stories of struggle from the Hebrew Bible, such as the Exodus from
Egypt, have become paradigms for other people's struggles and
aspirations. The emigration of Jews from Eastern Europe into their
Golden Land in America has become as American a legend as the Wild West.
Jewish folklore and myth, stereotypes of Jewish humour, food and family
life-all are deeply woven into the fabric of Western, particularly
American, life. Yet these preoccupations are complicated and often
ambivalent
Despite our present secularity, Christianity still occupies a central
place in Western culture and experience, and Jews occupy a central place
in the Christian narrative, so it is no surprise that Jews and Jewish
concerns receive a lot of attention. But Christian attitudes towards
Jews are themselves complex and contradictory: Jesus was born a Jew and
died a Jew, and yet, traditionally, His teachings supersede those of
Judaism. Jesus lived amongst Jews, His message was shaped by Jews yet He
was rejected by Jews and, it has been widely believed, died at the
behest of Jews. So, for many Christians, Jews are both the people of God
and the people who rejected God, and are objects of both great
veneration and great loathing. This ambivalence is reflected in the
secular world too where Jews are widely admired for their history and
traditions and for their creativity and success yet are also held in
some suspicion and dislike for their exclusivity and supposed feelings
of 'specialness'. Jews seem either loved or hated and, now since the
Holocaust, publicly at least, they seem loved or at least if not loved,
then certainly, indulged.

IS JEWISH SUFFERING UNIQUE?

The establishment of the state of Israel in May 1948, coming just three
years after the liberation of Auschwitz in January 1945, marks, for
Jews, the transition from enslavement to empowerment. This empowerment
of Jews took place not only with the establishment of Israel, but also
continuously, from the mass emigration of Jews to the West in the late
nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, to the present day. Today in
the West Jews enjoy unparalleled political, economic and social power
and influence. Jews are represented way beyond their numbers in the
upper echelons of all areas of public and professional life-politics,
academia, the arts, the media and business. But even more than the
political and economic power which Jews possess, is the social power.
Jews have a moral prestige derived from their history and traditions as
a chosen and as a suffering people. In these more secular times,
however, especially since the Holocaust, it is as a suffering people
that Jews occupy their special place in Western culture.

That Jews have suffered is undeniable. But acknowledgement of this
suffering is rarely enough. Jews and others have demanded that not only
should Jewish suffering be acknowledged but that it also be accorded
special status. Jewish suffering is rarely measured against the
sufferings of other groups. Blacks, women, children, gays, workers,
peasants, minorities of all kinds, all have suffered, but none as much
as Jews. Protestants at the hands of Catholics, Catholics at the hands
of Protestants, pagans and heretics, all have suffered religious
persecution, but none as relentlessly as Jews. Indians, Armenians,
Gypsies and Aborigines, all have been targeted for elimination, but none
as murderously and as premeditatedly as Jews

Jewish suffering is held to be mysterious and beyond explanation.
Context is rarely examined. The place and role of Jews in society -
their historical relationships with Church and state, landlords and
peasantry - is hardly ever subject to scrutiny, and, whilst non-Jewish
attitudes to Jews are the subject of intense interest, Jewish attitudes
to non-Jews are rarely mentioned. Attempts to confront these issues are
met with suspicion, and sometimes hostility, because of a fear that
explanation may lead to rationalization, which may lead to exculpation,
and then even to justification.

The stakes in this already fraught game have been raised so much higher
by the Holocaust. Is the Holocaust "The ultimate mystery, never to be
comprehended or transmitted" as Elie Wiesel would have us believe? Are
attempts to question the Holocaust narrative just a cover for denial or
even justification? Was Jewish suffering in the Holocaust greater and of
more significance than that of anyone else? Were the three million
Polish Jews who died at the hands of the Nazis more important than the
three million Polish non-Jews who also died? Twenty million black
Africans, a million Ibos, a million Kampucheans, Armenians, Aborigines,
all have perished in genocides, but none as meaningfully as the six
million Jews slaughtered in the only genocide to be theologically named
and now perceived by Jews and the rest of the Western world to be an
event of near religious significance.

Jews have not been just passive recipients of all this special treatment
and consideration. The special status accorded to Israel's behaviour in
Palestine, and Jewish support for it, is not something that the Jewish
establishment has accepted reluctantly. On the contrary, Jews and Jewish
organisations have demanded it. And at the heart of this demand for
special consideration is the demand that the whole world, recognising
the uniqueness of Jewish suffering, should join with Jews in their fears
about anti-Semitism and of its resurgence.

Anti-Semitism in its historic, virulent and eliminationist form did
exist and could certainly exist again, but it does not currently exist
in the West in any significantly observable form. Jews have never been
so secure or empowered, yet many Jews feel and act as if they are a
hair's breadth away from Auschwitz. And not only this, but they require
that everybody else feel the same. So soon after the Holocaust this is
perhaps understandable, but less so when it is used to silence dissent
and criticism of Israel and Zionism. Jews, individually and collectively
use their political, economic, social, and moral power in support of
Israel and Zionism. In their defense of Israel and Zionism, Jews
brandish their suffering at the world, accusing it of reverting to its
old anti-Semitic ways.

THE SILENCING OF DISSENT.

Is a Jewish state acceptable in this day and age? Are the Jews a people
who qualify for national self-determination, or are Jews a religious
group only? Post-Holocaust, does the Jewish need for a state of their
own perhaps even justify the displacement of the Palestinians? Are Jews
who wield power to serve what they perceive as their own ethnic
interests and to support Israel, to be held politically accountable?
What is anti-Semitism? Is anti-Zionism anti-Semitism? All this and a
great deal more could and should be debated. What need not be debated is
this: that every complexity and ambiguity of Jewish identity and
history, every example of Jewish suffering, every instance of
anti-Jewish prejudice, however inconsequential, is used to justify the
crimes of Israel and Zionism. Every possible interpretation or
misinterpretation of language, and every kind of intellectual sophistry
is used by Zionists to muddy the waters and label the critic of Israel
and Zionism an anti-Semite. Words and phrases become loaded with hidden
meanings, so that even the most honest critic of Israel has to twist and
turn and jump through hoops to ensure that he or she is not perceived as
anti-Semitic.

And the penalties for transgression are terrible. For those who do not
manage to pick their way through this minefield, the charge of
anti-Semite awaits, with all its possibilities of political, religious
and social exclusion. No longer a descriptive term for someone who hates
Jews simply for being Jews, 'anti-Semite' is now a curse to hurl against
anyone who dares to criticise Jews and, increasingly against anyone who
dares, too trenchantly, to criticize Israel and Zionism. And for those
Jews of conscience who dare speak out, for them there is reserved the
special penalty of exclusion from Jewish life and exile.

Marc Ellis's 'ecumenical deal' which translates also into a political
deal, says it all. It goes like this: To the Christian and to the entire
non-Jewish world, Jews say this: 'You will apologise for Jewish
suffering again and again and again. And, when you have finished
apologising, you will then apologise some more. When you have apologised
sufficiently we will forgive you, provided you let us do what we want in
Palestine.'

As hard as it may be, for the sake of us all - Jew and non-Jew alike, do
we not now have to break free?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paul Eisen is a director of Deir Yassin Remembered and is on the
Executive Committee of Sabeel UK.
dyr@eisen.demon.co.uk