Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Inciting Genocide At Harvard

Expand Messages
  • World View
    A Look At How America s Elite Are Programmed to Become Racists Inciting Genocide At Harvard From: thorsprovoni@aol.com I recently had my 25th anniversary
    Message 1 of 1 , Feb 3, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      A Look At How America's Elite Are Programmed to Become Racists

      Inciting Genocide At Harvard
      From: thorsprovoni@...

      I recently had my 25th anniversary reunion at Harvard (Class
      of '78). As you probably know, Harvard hits on alumni for
      contributions very hard during that reunion year. Summers had
      recently become president, and I thought it would be worthwhile to
      look into developments at the University.

      Summers began the year by demonizing on-campus divestment activism
      as anti-Semitic in effect if not in intent without bothering to tell
      anyone how to make legitimate criticism of Zionism and the State of
      Israel. He was telling us that no criticism of Zionism or Israel is
      legitimate. It is a disturbing message to send to a community that
      is supposed to be devoted to scholarship and free intellectual
      exchange.

      A few weeks later Harvard Students for Israel invited Joseph Abdel
      Wahed to the campus to tell everyone that all Arabs were liars. I
      pointed out to Dean Illingworth that it was completely inappropriate
      for one segment of the Harvard community to use official Harvard
      student organizations to demonize another segment of the Harvard
      community.

      As far as I can tell, he did nothing, and of course during this time
      period, Professors Wisse and Dershowitz were fairly continuously
      ranting about anti-Semitism at the University and in academia in
      general.

      Shortly afterward, Harvard Hillel hosted Rabbi Forsman from Rabbis
      from Human Rights to tell the Harvard Community that shooting old
      women in Lebanon was legitimate (something he apparently did)
      because behind every old lady there stood a Palestinian terrorist.
      I later asked Rabbi Milgrom from RHR (I know him from doing business
      in Israel and the Occupied Territories) about Forsman, and he
      pointed out that RHR was more of an umbrella group that many Rabbis
      join in order to convince themselves of their superiority to Arabs
      and Muslims. If they did not occasionally do useful things, he
      would have long ago dissociated himself from the organization.

      Eliad Moreh from the David Project followed Forsman, and she made a
      coded call for genocide against Palestinians. I attach some of my
      notes below.

      After Moreh came some anti-Slavery and Clash of Civilization talks,
      and I have attached some of my notes below.

      Around February I had begun to wonder whether Harvard was typical of
      the universities in the area. After further research, I found that
      there was clearly a concerted and well-orchestrated effort at
      demonization of Arabs and Muslims in academic, popular and political
      forums throughout the Boston area. I have attached some of my notes
      on BC and WBUR.

      I began to attend Israel Advocacy sessions at local synagogues as
      well as Saturday night (Motza'ei Shabbat) Lectures at
      Maimonides/Soloveitchik Institute. These talks were so interesting
      that I videotaped some of them.

      I found that the Boston ethnic Ashkenazi community through the CJP
      is funding, coordinating and running a systematic campaign to
      demonize and vilify American and non-American Arabs and Muslims.(*)
      The campaign is a multimedia effort that supplies huge quantities of
      both lurid popular and pseudoscholarly pseudoacademic hate material.
      People like Charles Jacobs and his subordinate Rachel Fish are
      coordinating it. (Fish specifically concentrates on making sure that
      wealthy Arabs are prevented from contributing to American
      universities because large contributors can potentially influence
      University stances on political issues like Divestment.)

      The demonization program is very similar to the one that the German
      Nazis ran in the 1930s against German Jews (see The Nazi Conscience
      by Koonz), but it also has some similarities to the anti-Turkic anti-
      Muslim orientalist campaign that was run (mostly by academics of
      ethnic Ashkenazi background) in Czarist Russia to justify imperial
      expansion and ethnic cleansing in the Caucasus and Southwest Asia.
      As in the USA today there was also an effort to create "good
      Muslims" by a system of corruption and enmeshment. Khalid Muhammad
      and Irshad Manji are the sort of "good Muslims" that the program
      tries to create.

      The campaign in the popular media tries to manipulate American
      Muslims or Arabs to denounce non-American Arabs or Muslims. The
      method is simple. Some newspaper, radio or TV reporter gets some
      prominent Arab or Muslim American to denounce terrorism. The
      coverage will then be coupled with a claim that Hizbullah or Hamas
      are terrorist organizations, and after a two or three stage process
      American Arabs or Muslims are being cited by the US state department
      or the State of Israel as support for murderous acts of US or
      Israeli state terrorism.

      If I were the target of such reporter questions, I would probably
      focus on the message that violent state-supported racism like US
      southern slavery or Zionism are inherently evil and that American
      history and precedent has supported partisan action against such
      politics. Professor Emerson at Harvard used to solicit money in
      Harvard Yard so that John Brown could raise a militia to hack
      slavers to pieces.

      If the US wants to avoid the violence associated with opposition to
      state-supported racism, the USA should dissociate itself from states
      like Israel that violate the antiracist, democratic and human rights
      norms that the USA vows to support throughout the world. The US
      government should probably also be investigating the loyalty of
      Americans that support the US-Israel alliance. Anyone that spends
      much time among American Arabs or Muslims realizes very quickly it
      is hard to find an ethnic community more wedded to American ideals.
      On the other hand, anyone that spends any time in the system of
      Ashkenazi American self-indoctrination quickly concludes that ethnic
      Ashkenazi Americans have no qualms about sacrificing American
      principles on the altar of racist ethnic fundamentalist tribalism.
      The current US administration is so anti-Arab and anti-Muslim that
      there is no obvious downside to confronting directly the un-American
      nature of current US Middle East policy or to pointing out the
      traitorous attitudes of the racist ethnic Ashkenazim that are
      formulating the policy.

      After researching the local Ashkenazi American community for the
      last 3 years and following the Roxbury Mosque controversy, I suspect
      the local ethnic Ashkenazi leadership fears that the Roxbury Mosque
      could serve as a center for organization and coordination comparable
      to the CJP building on High Street. They are afraid that organized
      American Muslims would be able to thwart ethnic Ashkenazi political
      and social goals. In the sort of battle that the CJP is waging,
      there really is no moral high ground because local ethnic Ashkenazim
      will make any claim and use any dirty trick no matter how outrageous
      in order to discredit local Arabs and Muslims and in order to attack
      the Roxbury Mosque project.

      In the case of Spencer's talk, I am not exactly sure what they are
      planning. Usually, the strategy sessions charge admission of at
      least $1000. This talk is probably more of an attempt at rallying
      the troops or plugging a book. In general the local racist Zionist
      Ashkenazi spokesmen usually fold pretty quickly well when confronted
      with people that understand the issues and that are not intimidated
      by accusations of anti-Semitism.

      Joachim Martillo

      (*) The campaign does not really distinguish Arabs and Muslims
      because ethnic Ashkenazim rarely understand genuine religious
      faith. The vast majority of ethnic Ashkenazim no longer practice
      the traditional Judaism of worshipping God and piously studying the
      Talmud but instead have replaced religious faith with a combination
      of Holocaust fixation, worship of the Israeli state and ethnic
      narcissism.

      ============
      Inciting Genocide At Harvard

      The presentation of Victims of Terrorism: Surviving Terror on Campus
      by Eliad Moreh and company at Harvard on Thursday, February 27th,
      was a unique historical moment. Normally one would not expect to see
      or hear coded calls for genocide or ethnic cleansing at an elite
      American university at the beginning of the 21st century, but Moreh
      provided an example of just such inflammatory speech.

      Moreh argues that terrorism is so uniquely evil that the civilized
      countries, who to her apparently mean the USA and Israel, must do
      everything and anything to fight against it.

      One need not have visited in Belgrade during the 90s to know exactly
      what statements of that sort mean. One need not even look beyond the
      contemporary USA political scene to understand how the "uniquely
      evil" argument can be misused, for it is the logic by which
      the Bush administration is subverting the Constitution. In the end
      this message that can only redound to the harm of Americans, for
      there are many people in the world that believe with good reason
      that the USA carries out or sponsors "uniquely evil" terrorism
      throughout the world.

      Moreh's lecture is part of a Zionist strategy which dovetails
      perfectly with the belligerence, aggression and imperialism of
      George W. Bush and the Republican party. The State of Israel has
      created a scenario that is quite elegant in an evil sort of way. It
      keeps increasing the pressure on Palestinians. It takes away more
      of their land, removes their freedom of movement, destroys their
      homes and purposefully kills approximately 3-5 Palestinians a day.

      If Palestinians passively accept the oppression, they will be
      completely dispossessed and driven out. If they wait patiently, hit
      their limit of tolerance and then resist violence with violence, the
      State of Israel and its supporters denounce evil terrorism that must
      be fought by any means not excluding genocide, dispossession and
      expulsion.

      The Palestinian reaction is remarkable for forbearance. If Japan
      had defeated the USA in 1945, occupied the mainland, driven out 90%
      of the US population, settled Japanese colonists in the homes of
      Americans, humiliated and degraded the remnant American population
      while it periodically attacked the refugees on the borders,
      Americans would probably have resorted to suicide bombings by 1950.

      It is hard to be more hypocritical about terrorism than the State of
      Israel and its supporters to whom terrorism is a bad thing unless of
      course the terrorist is a Zionist.

      Jabotinsky, the founder of the movement that became Ariel Sharon's
      political party, argued for suicide terrorism in the 1930s, Elie
      Wiesel justified Zionist murder and terrorism in Dawn, Zionist
      settler colonists used suicidal terrorism in the 40s in their
      program to steal Palestine from the native population, and for
      approximately 40 years Zionists romanticized suicidal terrorism in a
      perverted misinterpretation of the story of Masada.

      Obviously, the issue of Middle East terrorism is somewhat more
      complex than Moreh and her handlers would have you believe. Even our
      own history makes exactly the same point. In the 1850s Massachusetts
      was a major support center for the antislavery terrorist John Brown,
      who ordered slavers hacked to pieces in order to keep Kansas free.
      The terrorism of Bleeding Kansas had a context. Likewise, we cannot
      ignore the background when we talk about terrorism and the Middle
      East.

      The main issues in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict today are easy
      to summarize.

      1. Zionism presupposes that the historical, ethnic and national
      rights of Jews take precedence over the human rights of the native
      population. It is hard for an ideology to be more explicitly racist
      and unethical.

      2. Eastern European settler colonists stole the greater portion of
      Palestine from the native population in 1947-8, and the State of
      Israel continues the program to this day.

      3. The Eastern European settler colonists ethnically cleansed the
      native population from areas under their control in 1947-8, and the
      State of Israel has continued the program ever since.

      4. The Eastern European settler colonists plundered the native
      population in 1947-8, and the State of Israel has continued the
      program ever since.

      5. The Eastern European settler colonists committed pogroms against
      the native population in 1947-8, and the State of Israel has
      continued the policy ever since.

      6. The State of Israel sends death squads to murder the best and the
      brightest of Palestinians in territories under Israeli control and
      throughout the world.

      Is there no such thing as state terrorism? Israel's actions against
      the civilian Palestinian population are simply indefensible. The
      security argument is a sieve that cannot possibly hold water. Every
      human rights group in the world has condemned Israel for excessive
      force, disproportionate response, collective punishment and
      innumerable other crimes against humanity.

      Because the question of Palestine is fundamentally an ethical no-
      brainer, Zionists have the problem of justifying the unjustifiable
      to themselves and to the USA on which the State of Israel depends,
      and a certain class of Zionists is trying to engage in a preemptive
      effort to control public discourse in the USA.

      Instead of actually addressing issues, Zionists like Moreh follow a
      Bush-like strategy. They make a semi-Pavlovian use of mental reflex
      to evoke sympathy and simultaneously to suppress any rational
      thought on the question of Palestine. This type of propaganda
      technique would be insulting if it were not so effective.

      Suppose you swallow Moreh's pile of disinformation hook line and
      sinker. What will be the result? Bush spews this sort of garbage as
      he works hard to create a conflagration that can only increase the
      anger in the Middle East and throughout Asia and Africa with a
      concomitant spillover of terrorism and violence into the USA.

      We Americans have to face facts. Israel has no independent
      existence. If the USA withdrew funding, within 3 months Israel's
      economy would cease to exist when international loan payments came
      due. The State of Israel is the Algerian colony of the USA, and the
      Israeli settler colonists are the pieds noirs of the USA. The USA
      has no interest in a racist state that belongs to all Jews of the
      world and not to its citizens. The idea is offensive to American
      ideals.

      As long as the USA maintains this vile colony that violates every
      concept of human rights and international justice, we Americans will
      suffer terrorist attacks for which we have only ourselves to blame
      because Zionists are the bad guys. The solution is obvious: to
      switch sides, to dump the racist Zionists and to support Palestinian
      efforts to reclaim their country from the thieves in conformance
      with the avowed American commitment to anticolonialism, antiracism
      and democracy.

      John Brown's last words are relevant.

      "I, John Brown, am quite certain that the crimes of this guilty land
      will never be purged away but with blood. I had, as I now think
      vainly, flattered myself that without very much bloodshed it might
      be done."

      John Brown refers to crimes of slavery, the Peculiar Institution of
      the Old South, in which all these United States of America were
      complicit, but his words apply equally well to the crimes of
      Zionism, the Peculiar Institution of racist Diaspora Ashkenazim and
      Israeli settler colonists, in which the whole United States of
      America is today complicit because of a combined effort of an ethnic
      Eastern European lobby and fanatic know-nothing Christian
      fundamentalists.

      John Brown was right. Everything got a lot worse before it got
      better. The situation today is the same. As long as we Americans
      support and maintain the State of Israel, we can expect an ever
      increasing level of danger to us and the whole world.

      Joachim Martillo

      ===============
      A Question of Public Discourse

      The question of acceptable discourse is debated at practically all
      American universities. Many Americans would like to suppress all
      debate about the Iraq War while US troops are engaged in conflict.
      People that criticize US policy are traitors according to the logic
      of many supporters of the Iraq War. I have a problem with the
      suppression of any speech, yet I have noticed a problem at Harvard,
      and I sent the following eletter to David Illingworth
      (illingw@...), who is associate dean of Harvard
      University. What do you think of the question? Should certain
      forms of mythic anti-analytic speech be suppressed in American
      universities?

      Dear Dean Illingworth:

      I noticed the following talk at an MIT Web site yesterday.

      America at War: The Moral Imperative to Self-Defense
      Dr. Andrew Bernstein, Philosopher & Novelist America at War:
      The Moral Imperative to Self-Defense

      by Andrew Bernstein

      Two major points are presented in this talk.

      One: Neither guns, bombs nor tanks constitute a nation's most
      powerful weapon. Rather, moral rectitude - the courage to proudly
      defend the property, freedom and lives of its citizen - does. The
      United States has abdicated this weapon in fifty years of
      appeasement in the Middle East. Just as President Thomas Jefferson
      and the fledgling republic - inspired by the battle cry of "Millions
      for defense, but not a penny for tribute"-- had the courage to stand
      up to the notorious Barbary Pirates in 1801, so President George W.
      Bush must have the moral courage to wipe out America's current
      fanatical and deadly enemies.

      Two: This is not fundamentally a political but a philosophical
      struggle. Islamic Civilization - essentially a religious culture -
      loathes and seeks to destroy Western Civilization, which is
      essentially secular. Their religious fanaticism is the fundamental
      reason they hate the United States and the West, and is the reason
      that rational negotiation with them is impossible. This is a life-
      and-death struggle between contradictory philosophical systems.

      Special Book Signing Opportunity
      Harvard Objectivist Club
      Harvard University, Cambridge, Room: Science Center A

      Is not point two beyond the pale of acceptable discourse? Let me
      rewrite it to clarify.

      Two: This is not fundamentally a political but a philosophical
      struggle. Judaic Civilization - essentially a religious culture -
      loathes and seeks to destroy Western Civilization, which is
      essentially secular. Their religious fanaticism is the fundamental
      reason they hate Germany and the West, and is the reason that
      rational negotiation with them is impossible. This is a life-and-
      death struggle between contradictory philosophical systems.

      In this form I would recognize point two as belonging to a class of
      German anti-Semitic literature disseminated during the 1930s. If a
      Harvard student club were purveying the Judeophobic form of point
      two, Harvard would probably disband it, and the Administrative board
      would probably scrutinize the leadership of the club. A club that
      distributes the Islamophobic version should be subject to exactly
      the same strictures.

      This type of club activity fits into a pattern of sponsorship of
      racist or bigoted speech and behavior in which not only the Harvard
      Objectivist Club but also both Hillel and Harvard Students for
      Israel have been engaging at least since September when I began to
      pay attention. It will only harm Harvard if such conduct is
      permitted to continue.

      Joachim Martillo

      =====================================================

      The Never-Ending Campaign of Harvard Students for Israel to Defame
      Arabs
      I received the following announcement from the Harvard Students for
      Israel.

      =====================================================

      "I Escaped from Slavery" Francis Bok, an escaped Sudanese slave
      speaks of his journey from servitude to freedom.

      Monday April 21, 5:30 pm
      Rabb Hall, Harvard Hillel

      Sponsored by the Black Law Student Association, Jewish Law Student
      Association, Harvard University Graduate Student Friends of Israel,
      and Harvard Students for Israel.

      Imprisoned and tortured by Arab slaveholders, twenty-three year old
      Francis Bok is a former Christian Dinka slave from Sudan. At the age
      of seven he was abducted in a Sudanese government slave raid and
      held in bondage for nearly a decade. In 1996, he escaped from
      slavery and settled in Boston, where he works today with the
      American Anti-Slavery Group. He has testified to the Senate, met
      with Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and President Bush,
      carried the Olympic torch, been honored by the Boston Celtics.

      ======================================================

      I am very disturbed by the announcement because I could easily put
      together a lecture announcement like the following.

      =======================================================

      "I Escaped from White Slavery" Katerina Ivanovna Rikasilia, an
      escaped Belorussian white slave, speaks of her journey from sexual
      servitude to freedom.

      Monday April 21, 5:30 pm
      Main Hall, Newman House, Harvard University

      Sponsored by the Russian Student Association, Orthodox Christian
      League, Christian Students for Justice, Opus Dei, the Newman
      Society.

      Imprisoned and tortured by Jewish white slavers, twenty-three year
      old Katerina Ivanovna Rikasilia is a former Belorussian child
      prostitute from Israel. At the age of 14 desperately poor Katerina
      was deceived by an offer of work into coming to Israel by a Jewish
      white slaver with the aid and connivance of the Israeli government.
      Upon her arrival she was raped by Jewish pimps and forced into
      prostitution for nearly a decade. In 2003, she escaped from the Jews
      with the aid of an international human rights group and returned to
      Belorus to the delight of her family, who had been told by the Jews
      that she died in an industrial accident.

      =======================================================

      I would perceive this latter announcement as anti-Jewish propaganda
      intended to suggest general Jewish involvement in white slavery just
      as I perceive the former announcement as an attempt by various
      Zionist groups to portray all Arabs as primitives that engage in
      slavery and other crimes against humanity. I am all for free
      speech, but I have a real problem when America's premier university
      permits a concerted effort by part of its community to slander and
      libel another part of its community. I could certainly construct
      either announcement without the anti-Arab or anti-Jewish
      implications by sticking to the facts that a few Sudanese and a few
      Israeli Jews have engaged in criminal practices. It seems really
      inappropriate for the BLSA (Black Law Students Association) to
      assist racist anti-Arab propaganda campaigns.


      Lecture Series is Appalling

      Joachim Martillo
      Boston, MA


      Dear Sirs and Madam:

      I was appalled by the lecture, Christians and Jews: Shared History,
      Sharing the Future, Speaking to Each Other in Times of Controversy,
      which was cosponsored by the Boston College Center for
      Christian-Jewish Learning and Jewish Community Relations Council of
      Greater Boston at Boston College on Feb. 13 at 7:30.

      It is completely inappropriate for Barry Shrage, the President of
      the Combined Jewish Philanthropies, to use a Jewish-Christian dialog
      as a vehicle to disseminate Zionist propaganda and demonization of
      Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims.

      He complained that al-Jazeera had broadcast a series based on The
      Protocols of the Elders of Zion to the Arab world this past
      December. He was repeating in garbled form the canard about Faris
      bila Jawad (Horseman without a Horse). It was not broadcast on al-
      Jazeera, which is a news network and consists mostly of the old BBC
      Arabic service. The episodes actually appeared on Ahlam (Dreams), a
      private Egyptian channel. It was not based on the Elders of Zion.
      The series was a fairly factual drama that described the time period
      from the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire through the creation of
      the State of Israel and the expulsion of the native population of
      Palestine from their homes by Eastern European Ashkenazi Zionists.

      After I pointed out to Shrage that the comment was slanderous of
      Arabs and leshon hara` (the speech of evil, a major sin in Judaism),
      he did not confess error or ask forgiveness but obfuscated the issue
      by changing the topic to Baruch Goldstein. At the end of the talk
      the other representative of the local Ashkenazi community claimed
      that Ossama al-Baz, an Egyptian government official, whom he
      identified as a theologian, condemned Horseman as anti-Semitic. I
      checked al-Baz's comments on the web. He censured the use of anti-
      Semitic forgeries like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion in Arab
      social and political discourse. Such condemnation does not cost him
      anything because most Arabs are completely unfamiliar with the
      oeuvre of European anti-Semitism. They have sufficient material
      grievances against Eastern European Ashkenazi Zionists and Israeli
      settler colonists that they do not have to use fabrications. Al-Baz
      did not condemn Horseman.

      The campaign against Horseman is just another example of the type of
      lies that Zionists spread to confuse the issues of the Palestine
      conflict and to demonize Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims. You need
      not trust me on the issue. On Friday Feb. 14, I spoke with Kathleen
      Hall Jamieson, who was giving a talk at the Kennedy School of
      Government. Dr. Jamieson is the nation's preeminent scholar of
      political advertising, is Dean of the Annenberg School for
      Communication at the University of Pennsylvania, and also serves as
      Director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center. She confirmed that
      these news reports about Horseman were just another disinformation
      campaign and pointed out that the press corrected the story about a
      month later.

      Is the Christian Jewish dialogue to be built on anti-Palestinian,
      anti-Arab and anti-Muslim indoctrination of Christians by Zionists?

      It is simply disgusting that these lectures are providing a forum
      for Ashkenazi Americans to dump on Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims
      with no Palestinian, Arab or Muslim present to provide a response.

      The matter of Horseman was not the only problem with the lecture.
      It was not even the worst. It is simply the one that can be most
      easily confirmed independently.

      The basis of this dialog really needs some rethinking.

      Is the purpose to discuss theological disagreement, theological anti-
      Judeanism or theological anti-Semitism? Jewish religious scholars
      rarely take part in interreligious theological discussions.
      The literature of theological anti-Semitism indicates to me that
      most of the writers that address this topic

      1) do not have the vaguest idea how to read Christian or Jewish
      texts of the Greco-Roman period,

      2) are completely clueless about the nature of Central and Eastern
      European anti-Semitism and

      3) are unable to distinguish modern Rabbinic (or Karaite) Judaism
      from Greco-Roman period Judean religion, from which both
      Christianity and modern Judaism diverge about equally.

      With such a level of ignorance, discussions of theological anti-
      Semitism, which does not exist until the appearance of Central and
      Eastern European extremist organic nationalism almost invariably
      turn into exercises in futility.

      Are the sponsoring organizations trying to create a conversation
      about the ethnic conflict between Ashkenazim and Poles or
      Ukrainians? The antagonism was completely mutual and lasted for
      certain very small time periods in comparison with the long
      stretches of good relations. All parties had good and bad reasons
      for the hostility.

      After listening to the talk and chatting with Dr. Rosann Catalano,
      who had no idea who the Czartoryskis, Radziwills or Potockis are, I
      can fairly safely suggest that this group is not capable of handling
      the ethnic dialog. In The Christian Scholars Group on Christian-
      Jewish Relations of the Christian-Jewish learning center, I saw
      perhaps one name that might be Polish. I cannot imagine what
      interest the ethnic dialog would be to the Archdiocese of Boston,
      whose laity is mostly of Irish(*), South Italian, Brazilian, Cape
      Verdean, Latin American Hispanic and Vietnamese origin.

      Without the involvement of Palestinians, Arabs, Muslims and people
      that actually have some knowledge of the topics under discussion,
      these lectures can only do more harm than good.

      Sincerely yours,

      Joachim Martillo

      (*) I am aware that Father Coughlin is a blemish on the history of
      Boston Catholics, but he represents an example of the infrequently
      occurring popular pre-modern Judeophobia, which is not according to
      most scholars a unified phenomenon. In the transcripts of his radio
      program, I did not find any evidence of the biological determinist,
      pseudoscientific or voelkisch racist ideas that characterize modern
      anti-Semitism. A discussion encompassing popular pre-modern
      Judeopobia, theological anti-Judeanism and modern anti-Semitism,
      which is not guided by an expert in the field, will generate more
      heat than light.

      Subj:
      Re: Christians and Jews: Shared History, Sharing the Future



      In a message dated 2/15/2003 9:34:27 AM Eastern Standard Time,
      cunninph@... writes:

      Thank you for your note about our recent panel discussion. I regret
      that you
      were aggrieved by a few comments spoken in the context of nearly two
      hours of
      a broader discussion. The topic of the event was not the conflict
      among the
      various inhabitants of the Middle-east, but rather how Christians
      and Jews
      engaged in interreligious dialogue in the United States can become
      more
      sensitive to how their conversation is impacted by crisis events.

      I understand that the topic was the impact of ME crisis on dialog.
      For this reason the subtheme was Speaking to Each Other in Times of
      Controversy.(*)

      I believe the points that you mentioned were raised in the context
      of urging
      all public speakers not to use religion as a weapon to caricature
      others and
      for religious leaders to criticize those who do. Your note leads me
      to hope
      that you would agree with that sentiment.

      Religion provides a language whereby one may condemn injustice
      according to precepts of faith. If caricature is a serviceable tool
      in battling iniquity, there is nothing wrong with it, and it seems
      preferable to a bomb.

      Nevertheless, I do condemn the use of religion to justify unethical
      political programs or crimes against humanity like the attack on the
      WTC. But the misuse of Jewish religious concepts, scripture and
      mythology to justify the theft of Palestine from the native
      population by Eastern European Ashkenazi Zionists is equally
      criminal and has lead to far more pain, suffering and deaths. I
      understand that your group condemns the former misuse of religion.
      I am not so sure that your group condemns the latter misuse of
      religion.

      In this specific case, are you telling me that it was okay for
      Shrage to repeat a really nasty (and already disproved) lie that
      demonizes Egyptians, Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims because it was
      not
      obviously based in religion?

      It does not, it seems to me, require the invocation of thoughts of a
      Zionist
      or anti-Palestinian campaign to understand why Jews (and others)
      would protest
      the recycling of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion such as in the
      accusation
      found on a number of self-identified Islamic websites that the
      attacks on the
      USA of September 11, 2001 were the work of Israeli agents after a
      clandestine
      meeting. I hasten to add that such websites do not represent the
      Islamic
      tradition in my view, although they do make such claims for
      themselves.

      And the existence of such sites makes it okay for Shrage to repeat
      lies and propaganda?

      Shrage made a claim of fact that one could easily disprove and that
      has already been shown to be part of a Zionist disinformation
      campaign (give Dr. Jamieson a call). Such behavior is simply
      unacceptable.

      Yes, there are many websites that try to connect the Protocols of
      the Elders of Zion to the conflict over Palestine. I point out that
      anyone can put up a web site, and I have certainly received a lot
      of email that contains anti-Semitic comments, that is supposed to
      have been written by people sympathetic to Palestinians and that has
      suspicious origins in the State of Israel.

      I also note that Palestinian and other Arab students that I have
      known in university programs in the USA have rarely heard of stuff
      like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Primary and secondary
      education in Arab countries is totally apolitical because Arab
      governments fear anything that might inflame the public.

      Zionist propagandists project the politicization of Zionist
      education in Israel and the USA onto Arab or Palestinian education.
      Zionist elementary and primary education is full of all sorts of
      demonization
      and negative stereotypes of Arabs and Muslims. This defamation
      probably originates in Russian orientalism and popular culture of
      the late 19th and early 20th century. A link between Zionist
      propaganda and Russian anti-Islamism is hardly surprising. 19th
      century Russia was the most aggressively anti-Muslim imperial power.
      Most Ashkenazim lived in Czarist Russia. In 1905 the most
      widely spoken language among Jews (not merely Ashkenazim) was
      Russian.


      Horseman was a popular megaseries that appeared on one of the
      largest Egyptian channels. Egypt provides most of the content in
      the Arab world. To suggest such an attempt at producing a
      blockbuster was based in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a
      major slander of Egyptian and Arab popular culture.


      I pointed out that there was a continuity in Zionist demonization of
      Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims from the writings of Herzl in
      Altneuland to the present day. This is not an issue of the fringe
      (if Goldstein was really fringe). It is question of mainstream
      Zionism.


      Kingscourt and Friedrich hurried to come forth. They traveled on
      the bad railroad to Jerusalem. Even on this route scenes of the
      deepest depravity. Flat land almost only sand and swamp. The
      spare
      cultivated fields as if scorched. Colorless villages of Arabs.
      The
      inhabitants looked like robbers. The children played naked in
      the
      street dust.

      Palestinians in 1900 were perfectly nice people just as they are
      today, and Palestine was a beautiful land in 1900, and they loved it
      even if an Austrian Ashkenazi like Herzl did not.

      I am just tired of Christian and Jewish Americans gathering together
      to discuss how bad Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims are or to make
      excuses for the occasional prominent figure like Shaw that actually
      investigated the issues and sympathizes with Palestinians. If you
      are going to have a discussion of the ME crisis and how it makes
      dialog difficult, you really should invite the victims.
      Unchallenged lies are not good for a genuine discussion.

      If you are not going to invite Palestinians, Arabs or Muslims to
      take part in the conversation, you become part of the system that
      maintains the crisis and prevents any solution. I should be more
      fair.

      Joachim Martillo

      (*) I have to admit that I did not like precis of the lecture very
      much.

      Zionism presupposes that Jewish historical, ethnic or national
      rights to Palestine are superior to those of the native population.
      It is hard to be more explicitly racist. Eastern European Ashkenazi
      Zionists have pursued a policy of Umvolkung (population
      supplantation -- if the term is unfamiliar, read Weinreich's
      Hitler's Professors) by any means since the late 19th century. The
      State of Israel continues this policy to the present day. I would
      not have written "the Middle East conflict." I would have
      used "Zionist racism and crimes." The question of Palestine is an
      ethical no-brainer. Zionists are the bad guys, and after the
      Holocaust it is completely unacceptable for a state to be
      consolidated on volkisch racist principles. Do Ashkenazim get
      license to commit crimes against Palestinians because Nazis murdered
      Jews? Fairly simple ethics tell us that two wrongs do not make a
      right (especially when the second wrong is committed against
      innocent bystanders). If you do not address the main issue directly
      as well as the immense complicity of so many Jewish and Christian
      Americans including our highest leaders, as Zion's professors, you
      become just as complicit as Hitler's professors and probably a good
      deal more complicit than the German population was in the Holocaust.

      *********************************************************************

      WORLD VIEW NEWS SERVICE

      To subscribe to this group, send an email to:
      wvns-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

      NEWS ARCHIVE IS OPEN TO PUBLIC VIEW
      http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/wvns/
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.