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

Israel Shamir: ZENO'S ARROW

Expand Messages
  • World View
    In the present war, Jewry is a belligerent party. ZENO S ARROW (or, How to Argue Your Case with Jews) By Israel Shamir Feb 1, 2005, 19:01 We shall win the war
    Message 1 of 1 , Feb 4, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      In the present war, Jewry is a belligerent party.

      ZENO'S ARROW
      (or, How to Argue Your Case with Jews)
      By Israel Shamir
      Feb 1, 2005, 19:01



      We shall win the war if and when we win the argument. This has been
      my conviction since 1991, when I witnessed how the mighty nuclear
      superpower collapsed because they lost a philosophical dispute. In
      the battle for Palestine the same rule may apply. Our adversary is
      protected by mighty Stealth technology made out of best sophisms but
      he has his Achilles' Heel, and Apollo may still point it out to our
      archer Paris.

      Recently we published a tongue-in-cheek essay by Joh Domingo Philo-
      Semitic Attacks on the Rise and received many responses. The Jewish
      responses were expectable and they could be summed by one line: "You
      can't say anything valid about Jews because we all are different".
      Probably you have encountered this line. Without recognising it, the
      responders actually give you the Paradox of Zeno. This Greek
      philosopher 'proved' that Paris did not kill Achilles: at every
      chosen moment, the arrow of Paris was in a certain point of space,
      thus it did not move and couldn't kill. There is a branch of
      mathematics called Integral Analysis that helps to deal with the
      paradox and proves what we know anyway: while an arrow rests at
      every chosen moment, it actually moves and kills. Likewise Jews:
      while being different they are perfectly able to act in unison.

      Here is an interesting letter exchange to clarify the point:

      1. From: Lanny Cotler to Joh

      I am a Jew who is totally against the Israeli occupation.

      Why assert anything about Jews in general? Any generality you
      might make would not, could not, accurately describe me. So what's
      the purpose, except to stir up emotions that do not broaden, but
      narrow, people's mind?

      2. From Joh to Lanny,

      Contrary to what you suggest, we make general remarks about
      people all the time, even negative ones; Blacks, Hispanics, Muslims,
      Christians anyone. What is more, Jews make negative remarks about
      people in general constantly. So what is the beef about making
      general remarks about Jews? Why do you personalize it? Is this not
      taking a 'narrow' view of things?

      Far from 'narrowing' peoples' minds, the non-pejorative term
      is 'focus'. Focus is of course a powerful tool, and it is
      understandable that it be de-legitimised in order to keep people on
      the straight and narrow track. If Jews were not so narrow-minded
      about anti-Semitism, we could pick the guilty bastards off one at a
      time. So, in a way, talk of 'narrow-minds' is an insult to our
      intelligence.

      You ask, why not call them 'chauvinists' instead of 'Philo-
      Semites'? Because I could not give two figs about
      chauvinists. 'Chauvinists', generally, are not planning to bomb an
      entire group of people - Philo-Semites are. Nor is
      it 'bigots', 'racists', 'imperialists' and whatever other cover may
      be put on it, 'philo-Semites' are the culprits.

      3. From JTR:

      I had a similar argument with this very same Lanny Cotler online
      somewhere a year or two ago. With him and so many others, I learned
      that it is a colossal waste of time to try and educate him and his
      many clones. It is impossible to cure anyone of self-delusion.
      Cotler's bottom line is "Anything you say about 'Jews' will be a
      generalization and therefore you are forbidden from saying it."

      This 'generalisation ban' is an integral part of Jewish Stealth
      technology. Without some ability to generalise, we can't answer even
      an innocent question, say, how many apples are there on the desk?
      Otherwise, you will be answered: these apples are all different, and
      can't be counted. In order to count, you have to generalise. No
      political discourse is possible without generalisations. And people
      generalise without difficulty.

      For instance, the declaration Not In Our Name signed by a Rothschild
      and Rabbi Lerner, among others, claims that "The Bush government
      seeks to impose a narrow, intolerant, and political form of
      Christian Fundamentalism as government policy. It aims to strip
      women of their reproductive rights, to drive gay people from public
      life back into the closet etc". Is this generalisation? Yes, and a
      rather misleading one; among Christian Fundamentalists one can find
      Pastor Charles Carlson and his movement We Hold These Truths/Strait
      Gate Ministries, a great enemy of the Bush administration. Pastor
      Chuck supports the people of Palestine and Iraq in their defensive
      war against Israel and America; he is also against abortions. Joh
      Domingo correctly replied that

      " . . .the entire idea of singling out right wing Christians is
      intolerant in itself. Is it extreme to want to outlaw abortion,
      suppress the imposition of homosexual values and argue that there is
      scientific value to spiritual experience? That is intolerance in my
      mind, and a direct denunciation of any alternative worldview;
      dismissal even. In short, it is a sign of a bigoted mind."

      Well, but so what? One can argue against this generalisation until
      one is blue in the face, but I bet these guys won't dignify your
      objection with their reply. The ban on generalisation applies to
      Jews only, and only to negative assessments: you can write about
      wonderful Jews day and night, and no Lanny Cotler will waste your
      time with his objections.

      However, Zeno-like sophism is not limited to Jews. One can find it
      in the writings of Joseph Massad, a Columbia Professor and a
      disciple of late Edward Said. Massad is now attacked by Zionist
      Jews, and we wish him the very best in overcoming his adversaries.
      But in his articles he exhibits same logical faults one finds in an
      average Jewish letter writer. He writes:

      "Jews, whether in America, Europe, Israel, Russia, or Argentina,
      are, like all other groups, not uniform in their political or social
      opinions. There are many Israeli Jews who are critical of Israel
      just as there are American Jews who criticise Israeli policy. I have
      always made a distinction between Jews, Israelis, and Zionists in my
      writings and my lectures. It is those who want to claim that Jews,
      Israelis, and Zionists are one group (and that they think exactly
      alike) who are the anti-Semites. Israel in fact has no legal, moral,
      or political basis to represent world Jews (ten million strong) who
      never elected it to that position and who refuse to move to that
      country. Unlike the pro-Israel groups, I do not think that Israeli
      actions are "Jewish" actions or that they reflect the will of the
      Jewish people worldwide!"

      Massad denies that "Israeli actions are 'Jewish' actions". But now
      the Israeli government has confiscated thousands of acres of non-
      Jewish land and houses in Jerusalem by applying the Absentees Law.
      The Absentees Law made a clear distinction between Jew and non-Jew;
      a non-Jew lost his home and land even if he went to the next village
      or ran away from shelling to the forest. Thus villagers of En Hod
      lost their property though they moved some three km away, and
      villagers of Biram lost it if they went to the nearby Jish. On the
      other hand, Jewish property has to be 'restored' to Jews even after
      fifty years of absence and immigration, as it is happening now in
      Iraq and Libya, and in Eastern Europe some time ago. The
      confiscation is a "Jewish" action, for Jewish Halachah rejects the
      very concept of Gentile ownership. For the Jewish law, Gentile
      property is free for grabs. Thus massive confiscations of 1950s and
      of today are "Jewish" actions per se.

      Massad asserts that "Israel in fact has no legal, moral, or
      political basis to represent world Jews who never elected it to that
      position and who refuse to move to that country." Now, this is a
      strange claim for a Columbia Professor. Elections are not the only
      legitimate way to become a representative or a ruler of a body.
      Kings were not elected, but they duly represented their people.
      There are a few Jews who would agree with Massad; but they are rarer
      than the Americans who claim that President Bush does not represent
      them - see the Not in Our Name initiative of Kerry Democrats . It
      should be taken as a figure of speech, as an expression of
      disagreement with Israeli (or Bush's) policies rather than an
      assessment of reality. In reality, support of Israel by people who
      define themselves as Jews is very high (by the US statistics, well
      over 80 per cent) but even more important is the non-Jewish
      acceptance of Israel as the Jewish state that represents Jewish
      interests.

      The legal basis of Israeli representation is well established:
      Germany, a prominent member of the family of nations, transferred to
      Israel the intestate properties of Jews - German citizens who had no
      connection to Israel. Israeli law allows for persecution of every
      person on earth who has acted against a Jew, even if the Jew had no
      connection to Israel. The Eichmann trial was an example of such a
      rough justice, and Israel was not reprimanded by any considerable
      body of Jews or by states.

      Another convincing proof was fashioned this week, when Auschwitz
      commemoration ceremonies were accompanied by Hatikwa, the Israeli
      national anthem and chaired by Israeli officials. Massad invents a
      claim of his opponents, who imply, in his view, that "all Jews,
      whether Israelis or non-Israelis (and the majority of world Jews are
      not Israelis), are responsible for all Israeli actions and that they
      all have the same opinion of Israel. But this is utter anti-Semitic
      nonsense", he writes. Now, it is not "utter anti-Semitic nonsense",
      but utter nonsense. Naturally, there is a whole range of opinions
      among Jews in Israel and outside of Israel; actually there are more
      Jews in Israel who object the government policies than there are in
      the US. And again we come to Zeno: this plurality of views does not
      mean that the arrow does not fly and kill.

      Beyond the denial of Massad and of many antizionist Jews, there is
      another denial: that of Jewish polity. It is supposed to be a purely
      metaphysical entity, without any material signifiers. But Massad
      could make a trip to Jerusalem and find there an imposing mansion in
      Talbiye carrying a clear sign: The Jewish People Policy Planning
      Institute (see the picture). Thus when Zeno claimed there is no
      movement (for what is valid for an arrow is valid for every 'moving'
      body) Diogenes quietly walked in front of him. This demonstration of
      movement was a fine refutation of Zeno's sophistry.

      As for responsibility, it is a moot point. Is Joseph Massad, an
      American citizen, responsible for the war the US carries out in
      Iraq? If the answer is 'yes', a Jew is equally responsible for the
      actions of the Jewish polity. If the answer is 'no', the very
      concept of individual responsibility for a polity's decision
      collapses and war loses its legal base. If and when the Iraqi
      patriots extend their defence of their land to their enemy's
      territory, the accepted theory of War will justify them, as it
      justifies the actions of Palestinian fighters, for it establishes
      the right of belligerent response. This right of response is based
      on the individual responsibility for a polity's decision -
      otherwise, the response would be just unlawful killing.

      Massad states: "I have always made a distinction between Jews,
      Israelis, and Zionists". Good, but in the Middle East war, who of
      these three is the belligerent adversary of Palestinians (and
      Iraqis, Iranians etc)? Is it the Israelis? But the 'Israelis'
      consist also of one million Palestinians and of other Christians,
      Muslims, even Bahais. Is it the Zionists? But there are very few
      Israelis who describe themselves as 'Zionists' - the name of Uri
      Avnery is one of these few for this fighter for freedom has this
      title defended in an Israeli court of law. Even the virulently anti-
      goy Lubawitsch movement does not consider itself 'Zionist', though
      it demands the expulsion of the Palestinians from the Holy Land.

      This question is far from trivial; "know thy enemy" is the first
      political decision, stated the legalist Carl Schmitt. We can't win
      until we identify the adversary. For pure Hegelians, "the spirit of
      Judaic supremacy" is the most suitable culprit, but if the choice is
      between "Jews, Israelis, and Zionists" the belligerent party is
      probably the Jewish polity, world Jewry, despite their plurality of
      opinions. It is not an enemy of our choosing: it would be easier to
      have just Hebron and Gaza settlers as the enemy; or some Zionists,
      at least. But the Jewish polity decided to wage war, and thus became
      a belligerent party.

      Massad and other friends do not dare to come to this conclusion for
      fear of 'bigotry', this second universal Jewish defensive device. In
      my article Tsunami in Gaza I compared Jewish obsession with separate
      (from goyim) burial, as manifested during the tsunami, with their
      obsession of living separately as manifested in the weird idea of
      bodily removing the Jewish settlers from Gaza. In my view, the
      settlers may stay if they wish and if they can manage to live in
      peace with their neighbours. This comparison annoyed some Jews on an
      ad hoc mail list, and they attacked it as 'bigotry'.

      1. Brian wrote:

      -I am JewishÂ… In this article, when Shamir writes that the
      attitude he's criticizing is "part and parcel of the Jewish faith,"
      I think he's stepping over into bigotry.

      2. Donna wrote:

      Bigotry should not be tolerated by any of us towards anyone. i
      am learning from this discussion, in the past few years people have
      made bigoted comments to me about jews and i am speechless.

      3. Liat wrote:

      We need to openly discuss bigotry against Jews, and you say that
      it isn't necessary. I am asking for your partnership in this
      movement. And that to me means that I expect you to take anti-Jewish
      oppression (sic! - ISH) seriously. Especially when four Jews raised
      questions about bigotry in the posting that you sent, I expect that
      you will consider us as partners in this work and worth your while
      to examine how your posting might have affected us.

      Instead of discussing the actions of Israel: that is, mass
      confiscation of goyim's land and enforced separation of Jews and non-
      Jews, the peace-loving Jews on the group steered the discussion
      into "anti-Jewish oppression" and "anti-Jewish bigotry". These four
      Jews in one group have succeeded in slanting the discourse as they
      often do They have terrorised and intimidated the group moderator,
      and I am not sure their contribution to the struggle in Palestine
      justifies the bother.

      Here is their summing up of the argument:

      Israel's actions in the tsunami disaster are completely
      irrelevant to shedding light on the occupation. But the issue of
      whether or not an article that you, Alison, sent is bigoted against
      Jews is absolutely relevant to our work. If we are Westerners, we
      have grown up with a huge legacy of anti-Jewish oppression. It's
      important that bigotry against Jews be addressed head-on, rather
      than avoided. I think that much of Shamir's work, included the
      article below, is bigoted, and I think that it's incumbent upon all
      of us to do the necessary personal work against all kinds of
      bigotry, for bigotry against Jews is a bad thing, as is bigotry
      against any other group.

      Where is the fault in this apparently impervious argument? Bigotry,
      i.e. prejudice against an imaginary non-structured and non-
      belligerent group - say, blondes, or blacks, or people
      called 'Peter' - is not nice. It is a moral fault like hypocrisy or
      stinginess. "This is utterly inexcusable. So was your failure to
      answer Aunt Bee's last letter.", - in words of our Michael Neumann.
      For instance, a blonde girl from Eastern Europe has a hard time to
      enter Israel as she is automatically suspected of being a
      prostitute. But some sort of prejudice is normal - it is a
      calculation of expectation. For instance, there are posters calling
      upon young persons to use condoms while having sex with strangers.
      It is an expression of prejudice - one can get venereal disease from
      one's own partner as well; but it is a useful prejudice; as is a
      poster warning you to beware of pickpockets in certain places. Would
      you consider the statement: "a banker/ a lawyer will rip you off" -
      a bigoted statement? If so, I am all for bigotry. The chances are, a
      banker or a lawyer will rip you off given a slight chance to do so.
      Yes, there are exceptions: Lenin and Robespierre were lawyers - but
      they would be the first to agree with the prejudice.

      Moreover, the concept of bigotry can't be used in relationship to
      belligerent groups. It is false to call any attitude to, say, the
      Communist Party, or Neo-Cons - "bigotry". At war, structured groups
      fight; for instance, Catholics fight Protestants in Northern
      Ireland; in Palestine, Jews fight non-Jews; in the World War Two,
      Russians and Americans fought Germans and Italians; in Iraq,
      Americans fight Arabs. Israeli soldiers are under order shoot to
      kill every armed Arab, every suspicious non-Jew, as it happened in
      case of the English peace activist Tom Hurndall. Bigotry is not
      coming into it at all: this is war.

      As for Jews - they are a structured belligerent group presently at
      war. For the American Jews - a structured sub-group - there is a
      colonial war they carry out (not just support) in Palestine. They
      are as hostile to pro-Palestinian forces as the Americans are to the
      Arabs in the Iraqi war. It does not mean that every American (or
      Jew) is an enemy; moreover, there are many good Americans (or Jews)
      who are against the Iraqi (or Palestinian) war. Let these Jews (or
      Americans) be proud that they crossed the lines, for this is a great
      individual achievement. However, their presence on our side does not
      cancel the war. Likewise, there were good and brave Americans who
      hailed to Hanoi during the Vietnam War, but the war continued
      unabated.

      This understanding of the Jews as a belligerent party fully conforms
      to the declaration of war on Germany by Hayim Weitzman on behalf of
      the Jewish People. This does not mean that we approve of total war.
      There are unacceptable things in war as well. We do not wish to
      revive the thoroughly Judaic diatribes of Iliya Ehrenburg who called
      on the Russian soldiers to kill 'females and unborn whelps of the
      accursed [German] race'. This war is not forever, it does not have
      to be total, but it is a war; and B la guerre comme B la guerre.
      Where there is war there is no bigotry, but normal warfare; the
      prejudice is called 'presumption' and is considered to be acceptable
      behaviour.

      Another peace-loving Jew, Alan Levin, argued against it:

      What you say in your message is that "we" (and here I think you mean
      all those seeking the liberation of the Palestinian people) are "at
      war with the Jews", in much the same way as America was at war with
      Germany. Your argument follows a pseudo-logical path, describing the
      somewhat innocuous bigotry towards blonds and lawyers, preparing the
      way for bigotry against Jews (as the nation, not of course the
      individual Jews) with whom "we" are at war. And since we are at war,
      this is not bigotry.

      Even if you believe this kind of sophistry, you may at least concern
      yourself with the practical consequences of such an argument. A
      growing number of Jews are shifting their understanding about Israel
      and moving towards support of ending the occupation and even a
      growing number are understanding the inherent problem of a "Jewish
      state". Do you think your rhetoric will help with this movement?
      Likewise, there is a growing understanding within the Palestinian
      and Arab world of the distinction of Jews and Israel and opening to
      alliances with Jews and Jewish groups. Do you think your war
      rhetoric will help with that?

      It sounds reasonable and wise, but on second thought we find yet
      another instance of sophistry. Indeed, Levin's argument is
      applicable to every war. Many, probably a majority of Palestinians
      are not connected with the Resistance and prefer to live in peace
      even under the sub-human conditions imposed by the Jewish state.
      However, the Jewish state does not apply Levin's argument to itself
      but carries out a merciless war against civilians. Many, probably a
      majority of Iraqis prefer peace to the American attacks, but the US
      troops keep attacking them. Levin says "A growing number of Jews are
      shifting their understanding about Israel". Very good, but it does
      not end the war. "Shifting of understanding" is not enough.

      Millions of Germans did not just 'shift their understanding' but
      voted against Hitler in the last free elections. Still, it did not
      stop the American and British Air Force from bombing millions of
      perfectly innocent Germans - women, children, anti-Nazis. The
      Americans bombed Belgrade and Baghdad - did they care who is for and
      who is against Saddam or Milosevic? Millions of Americans
      demonstrated against the war in Vietnam, but in the same time Mi Lay
      village was razed.

      This is the logic of war. A Jewish child in New York or Montreal or
      Tel Aviv is innocent - but he is not more innocent than a German
      child in Dresden, or a Palestinian child in Khan Yunes. War includes
      the killing of innocents. That is why war is bad. But in the war
      forced upon us, it makes no sense to demand two different approaches
      to Jews and to non-Jews because of the dubious concept of 'bigotry'.

      Coming to Jews active on our side, I would like to quote Zev
      Chafets, an American Jew, who wrote in an American Zionist paper The
      New York Daily News:

      "Edward Said didn't blow up Marines in Lebanon in 1983, ignite
      the Palestinian intifadeh or send Wahhabi missionaries to preach
      violence against infidels. He certainly didn't fly a plane into the
      World Trade Center. What he did do was jam America's intellectual
      radar'.

      Some US Jews do exactly that - by raising the spectre of prejudice
      (bigotry) they try to jam our intellectual radar. They have indeed
      succeeded in jamming the radar of Joseph Massad; he has even
      published a review of a book by Norton Mezvinsky and the late Israel
      Shahak, accusing them of bigotry and antisemitism:

      "For the authors, as for the anti-Semites, it is Judaism, not
      Zionism and a Zionised Judaism, that is the culprit. Baruch
      Goldstein, who massacred Palestinians in al-Haram al-Ibrahimi on
      Purim, is not seen in the context of a racist and colonialist
      Zionism and its myriad massacres against Palestinians, but rather as
      part of a tradition of Jewish murders of non-Jews. The authors'
      commitment to Zionism's assimilationist project of transforming Jews
      culturally into European gentiles while still calling them Jews is
      everywhere in evidence. While the authors have a long history of
      opposition to colonial Zionism, they are in agreement with an
      assimilationist Zionism which borrowed from the Haskala its
      assimilationist impulse."

      There is some poetic justice that Massad, who accused Shahak of
      antisemitism, is now the accused of the same offence: like Zinoviev
      who accused Trotsky of betrayal until he found himself accused of
      treachery. I agree with Shahak, even though Massad lists him
      among 'bigoted antisemites': the crimes against non-Jews in
      Palestine have a quasi-religious context, like the Night of St
      Bartholomew did. Massad is mistaken assuming that assimilation drive
      is limited to Zionists - Soviet Communists and Christians were as
      assimilationist as Zionists. De-judaisation of Israel is a desired
      stage on the way to establish one democratic state - the wish of
      Edward Said. It would represent victory over the main belligerent
      party, Jewry, for a de-judaised Israel will become Palestine even if
      not a single Israeli were hurt or forced to emigrate. Chad Powers
      stated correctly:

      "If rank-and-file Jewry (let alone the Gentile world) were ever
      allowed to freely face the factual hypocrisies, paradoxes, and
      outrages of Jewish identity and history, the community would
      probably self-destruct with an exodus of shame and disillusionment.
      Robbed of their incessantly propagandistic "victim hero" status,
      many "born Jews" would inevitably migrate out of the Jewish Fortress
      Against Other People, seeking new identity allegiances "

      - Palestinian in Palestine and American in the US.

      Our friend, supporter of Palestinian cause and a prolific Internet
      writer George Pumphrey, was also taken in by Zeno. For instance,
      Manfred Stricker, following Hanna Arendt, referred to the 'Jewish
      usurers of Alsace'. Pumphrey immediately slapped his hand:

      To speak of "the Jews of Alsace" is a gross generalization, when
      merely addressing the situation of the Alsatian usurers, but not the
      rest of the Jewish population of Alsace. Nor was one claiming that
      all Alsatian Jews were rich or usurers. But the way it is used here
      could (mis)lead to this impression .

      Here again, every generalisation - referring negatively to even some
      Jews - is banned. Pumphrey goes further:

      Thanks to Zionists, no other people on the planet are as
      generalized - both positively and negatively - as Jews. Jews are
      never allowed to be people, with positive attributes and faults.

      This is obvious nonsense. Every group is 'generalised' - not least
      of all the Germans (Pumphrey lives in Germany), but equally the
      Russians, the Arabs, the French. Probably the people of
      Liechtenstein are not generalised for not many are aware of their
      existence; otherwise, 'to be a people' means to be generalised.
      Pumphrey is not above having a go at generalisation about Jews, but
      a positive one:

      Jews, who, in their majority, are universalistic, do not accept the
      chauvinist "ethnic purity" concept for their "homeland".

      In my experience, every word in this generalisation is false. The
      Jews are 'universalistic' if it is good for Jews; and perfectly
      particularistic otherwise. But this is peanuts compared with the
      next claim of our friend:

      Anti-Semitism is a chauvinism. It does not begin with hostility
      toward Semites, but with a feeling of superiority over Semites (and
      eventually anyone else). The choice of the object of the chauvinism
      is a tactical rather than a strategic question. A chauvinist feels
      superior to various groups of people, but lives out his chauvinism
      along lines of momentary/tactical priority.

      It is a factual error: there are hardly any antisemites who feel
      superior to Jews (let us skip this 'semite' stuff). Negative
      feelings towards one's enemies - and we presented (above) the case
      that the Jews are a belligerent party - are normal; they can't be
      described as 'bigotry' or 'chauvinism'. For instance, during the
      Franco-German war of 1870, the French hated the Germans and the
      Germans hated the French. They were not "bigots," as at war this
      concept is not applicable. They needed this hatred as a
      psychological defence in time of war: it is difficult to kill
      without hate. After the war was over, relations soon normalised and
      now they are quite fraternal. Equally, if and when the Jews cease to
      be a belligerent party, they will not be hated.

      The errors of George Pumphrey, a good thinker and activist, are
      based on his obsession with 'bigotry' and 'chauvinism'. He writes:

      In the aftermath of the Second World War the dominating standard of
      civil behaviour was to abhor any ideology based on chauvinism,
      because ANY ideology based on chauvinism as being a precursor to a
      development that could lead toward ethnic cleansing (whether through
      territorial expulsion or through genocide).

      I tend to doubt every dominating standard, for if it were good for
      us, it wouldn't be dominating. The biggest ethnic cleansing(s) were
      carried out after WWII by its victors, without any chauvinist
      ideology: I mean the deportations of ethnic-Germans out of Poland,
      the Czech Republic, and Prussia. Anti-chauvinism dominates the
      discourse for it provides a philosophical weapon to deal with native
      resistance to foreign takeover. Thus Russian opposition to the
      Western takeover is usually described as 'chauvinist' or 'Red-
      Brown'. Anti-chauvinism dominates the West-imposed liberal discourse
      for it allows Transnational companies to operate; to import cheap
      labour, and to sanctify the Jews as the traditional enemies of
      chauvinism.

      But nowadays, only "our side" is afraid of "bigotry". Daniel Pipes,
      a favourite pundit of Bush and a fervent Jewish nationalist, made it
      clear that the Jews are not afraid of this accusation at all:

      "For years, it has been [Pipes'] position that the threat of
      radical Islam implies an imperative to focus security measures on
      Muslims. If searching for rapists, one looks only at the male
      population. Similarly, if searching for Islamists (adherents of
      radical Islam), one looks at the Muslim population. But Leftist and
      Islamist organizations have so successfully influenced public
      opinion that polite society shies away from endorsing a focus on
      Muslims. The intrepid [Jewish] columnist Michele Malkin's recently
      published book, bearing the provocative title In Defense of
      Internment: The Case for Racial Profiling in World War II and the
      War on Terror. She correctly concludes that, especially in time of
      war, governments should take into account nationality, ethnicity,
      and religious affiliation in their homeland security policies and
      engage in what she calls "threat profiling".

      Pipes and Malkin, the cutting edge of organised American Jewry, call
      for the internment of Muslims in detention camps and the stripping
      of their constitutional rights. Guantanamo is a first swallow of
      their success. They are not afraid to use the weapon of prejudice
      against the non-belligerent Muslim community because they rely upon
      our friends Massad, Pumphrey et al to block any similar move against
      them.

      This problem is much in evidence all around the world. In Sweden,
      the activists for Palestine are led by a young man of Palestinian
      origin but Swedish upbringing, Ammar Makboul. This Makboul
      hates 'bigotry' so much that he has forbidden any reference
      to 'Jewish settlers' in Gaza, for reasons similar to those stated by
      Pumphrey concerning Jewish usurers in Alsace. In his view, they
      should be described as 'settlers', without 'bigoted and antisemitic
      reference to their Jewishness'.

      The opponent has no such misgivings. Alan Dershowitz calls for the
      torture of Palestinians and the erasure of their villages; and he is
      still a professor of law at Harvard. Another American Jewish
      professor, Linda Allen of Baruch College, CUNY, New York, calls for
      the transfer of Palestinians to Sinai. This situation is
      unacceptable. The chivalry of our friends reminds me of the
      foolhardy Polish cavalry in 1939 - they actually tried to stop Heinz
      Guderian's tanks on horseback, as they felt tanks were not
      honourable enough for their noble souls. As we know, Poland
      capitulated within one month.

      The friends of Palestine have no problem with individual Jews - they
      could be good or bad, our supporters or our antagonists. But the
      friends of Palestine have a problem with 'Jewry' - the organised
      structure of Jewish communities. A few weeks ago, Haaretz published
      a huge page-long ad signed by all prominent Rabbis of the land -
      three hundred of them - calling for "Vengeance to the Evil Folk"
      [Palestinians] and enforcing religious obligation "never to
      surrender a single inch of the sacred land to them". It is a call to
      holy war.

      A call for war usually is met by war. When the Germans declared war
      on France (in 1939) or on Russia (1941) all Germans suffered the
      consequences, though the decision was taken by a few persons in
      Berlin. Now the vast majority of organised Jewish communities carry
      out their war on Palestine, but our friends (ostrich-like) try to
      see no evil.

      The position of individual Jews is much better than that of any
      other national collective. Individual Jews can opt out of the
      conflict by opting out of organised Jewry. Nobody has to be a Jew -
      every person calling himself 'Jew' has another identity as well. He
      is an American, or an Israeli, or a Frenchman. Thus, the friends of
      Palestine have to confront - not people of Jewish origin, but Jewry
      consisting of people who choose their 'Jewishness' as the most
      important identifier.

      Conclusion:

      In the present war, Jewry is a belligerent party; this polity
      decided to wage war on too many enemies at once. Individuals of
      Jewish origin could be good or bad; but the organisation is hostile
      to us. The victory over it is possible, but we have to pierce its
      Stealth shield manufactured by many skilled hands in many arguments.

      [1] http://groups.yahoo.com/group/shamireaders/message/439

      [2] Zeno's Paradox of the Arrow; A reconstruction of the argument
      (following Aristotle, Physics 239b5-7 = RAGP 10):

      *
      When the arrow is in a place just its own size, it's at rest.
      *
      At every moment of its flight, the arrow is in a place just
      its own size.
      *
      Therefore, at every moment of its flight, the arrow is at rest.

      [3] http://groups.yahoo.com/group/shamireaders/message/448

      [4] http://ww.israelshamir.net

      [5] http://www.jewishtribalreview.org/lapin.htm

      [6] http://groups.yahoo.com/group/togethernet/message/15351
      [7] http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/489306.html

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

      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.