Help Fight Judonia!

Please help sustain EAAZI in the battle against Jewish Zionist transnational political economic manipulation and corruption.

For more info click here or here!

Wednesday, February 13, 2008

US: Job-Related Thought Control

Zionist Control of Medical Profession
 
Last December, Dr. Catherine Wilkerson dealt a blow to local forces of repression when, after a six-day trial, she was acquitted of the bogus charges brought against her by the University of Michigan and Washtenaw County Prosecutor Brian Mackie. She had hoped then to get on with caring for her patients at the Packard Community Clinic but, if anything, local Zionists and their minions seem more determined than ever to punish her for speaking out against the Jewish apartheid state of Israel and its local backers. The management of the Packard Community Clinic has decided to fire Dr. Wilkerson and on February 4th they set February 15th as her last day of work. Below you will find a statement by Dr. Wilkerson explaining more fully what is happening.

The
Committee to Defend Catherine Wilkerson has issued this urgent action alert because we want to encourage the Governing Board of the Packard Community Clinic to stop the firing of Dr. Wilkerson and to stop the harassment of her for engaging in constitutionally-protected free speech activities on her own time and in her own name. Specifically, we are asking supporters of Dr. Wilkerson to do two things. First, please contact the Governing Board as soon as possible. A written letter is considered one of the most effective forms of advocacy. You can mail one to the address in the sample letter below and/or send a fax to the Governing Board at (734) 971-8545. You may also leave a phone message at (734) 971-1073 or send an e-mail to info@packardclinic.org. Second, please sign our online petition, which you can find at http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/keepwilkerson/ . A press conference and a rally in front of the clinic are being contemplated but have not been scheduled at this time pending the Governing Board's response to an appeal by Dr. Wilkerson for a special meeting with the Board.

Sample Letter to the Packard Community Clinic Governing Board

Your Address
Your City, State, Zip


Today's Date

Board of Directors
Packard Community Clinic
3174 Packard Rd.
Ann Arbor, MI 48108

Dear Members of the Governing Board of the Packard Community Clinic:

I am writing to urge you to stop the termination proceedings against Dr. Catherine Wilkerson, MD and, further, to stop the harassment of Dr. Wilkerson by Packard Community Clinic (PCC) Medical Director Ray Rion and Executive Director Kimberly Kratz. It was known when she was hired that Dr. Wilkerson was politically active. Her profile on the clinic web site notes: "she is particularly interested in social and economic determinants of health, gender issues in medicine, and medical ethics. She has been an activist involved in a number of issues related to public health, including the health effects of war and nuclear weapons, and universal health care." The only thing that has changed is that she is now--after successfully fending off a malicious criminal prosecution--being targeted for, on her own time and in her own name only, criticizing racism in the local Jewish community in its support for the apartheid state of Israel. Dr. Wilkerson is the senior and most experienced physician at the PCC and beloved by many of her patients. No good purpose can be served by depriving them of the compassionate care provided by this conscientious physician simply because she has nonviolently exercised her First Amendment rights to speak out against all forms of racism. Please keep Dr. Wilkerson on the staff of the PCC and stop the political harassment of her by PCC management.

Sincerely,

Your Signature

Your Name



Statement of Dr. Catherine Wilkerson Concerning the Termination of Her Employment at the Packard Community Clinic

Despite the exhilarating victory for the First Amendment right to freedom of expression that my acquittal achieved, I remain the target of those who seek to quash that right. Now I am being forced out of my job. For over five-and-a-half years I have worked at Packard Community Clinic, providing medical care to disadvantaged members of the Ann Arbor/Ypsilanti community. Most of my patients are Black, Latino, Arab, or Asian. My patients overwhelmingly come from the ranks of the working class.

These are the people within our own borders who suffer most from the wars and occupations being perpetrated, funded, and otherwise enabled by the US. These are the people whose brothers and sisters disproportionately wind up as cannon fodder. These are the people who struggle everyday to obtain the necessities of life and whose fundamental human right to health care is denied, while billions of dollars flow to wage these wars and occupations.

The wars and occupations currently waged or backed by the US have killed, maimed and sickened millions of Iraqis, Afghans, Palestinians, Haitians and Filipinos. How can a doctor turn a blind eye to this suffering and injustice? How can a doctor, of all people, not take a stand?

It is likely that a good many of those who obtain care at Packard Community Clinic agree with that analysis. The same is true, no doubt, for many of the clinic workers and for many of the clinic's supporters in the community. Yet, Medical Director Ray Rion and Executive Director Kimberly Kratz have deemed me "not a good fit for the clinic."

Months before the trial and the not-guilty verdict, the wheels to force me out had been set in motion. In early October, the Ray Rion called me in for a chat. I was not a good fit for the clinic, he claimed, because of my political activities. He cited the publicity surrounding the approaching criminal trial, my Palestinian human rights activities, and his desire for the clinic to "piddle to the middle." A few people had threatened not to donate money to the clinic. A local doctor threatened not to refer patients to the clinic. Who were these people? What kind of people threaten to withhold their money and not to refer patients in need of medical care to a clinic that is known to provide excellent care and to take all comers?

We talked, for the first time, about the case against me. He disputed my assertion that I had an obligation to help a person in need of medical attention, stating that in Michigan there is no duty to treat. We would have to wait and see how the trial turned out before he would know how that issue would affect my employment. But my Palestinian human rights activities were also a problem. Among those activities was my affiliation with
Jewish Witnesses for Peace and Friends, a group that has stood vigil in front of Beth Israel Congregation for several years, silently holding signs protesting Israeli oppression of Palestinians. He wanted to know why I did that. I answered as I always have, "I do it as an act of solidarity with Palestinians."

I do it because more than four million Palestinian refugees live exile after being violently expelled from their homes by Jewish forces in 1948 and 1967. I do it because another four million or so Palestinians live under brutal Israeli occupation in Gaza and the West Bank. I do it for the more than one million Palestinians who live as second-class citizens in Israel. I do it because Israel's oppression of Palestinians is enabled by the American Zionist community and billions of US-taxpayer dollars that go to support Israel every year. I do it because Beth Israel is a political as well as a religious institution. As Rabbi Dobrusin wrote in the Ann Arbor News in January 2007: "Beth Israel Congregation affirms without any hesitation or equivocation the legitimacy of the existence of the State of Israel as a Jewish state." I do it because the flag of Israel hangs in the synagogue and because the Rabbi Dobrusin uses his influence to defend Israel  I do it because I believe that there is no more appropriate time to think about right and wrong than when worshiping. I do it as an act of solidarity, knowing as I stand there being assaulted with slurs and obscene gestures and swerving automobiles by those heading inside to worship God, that the harassment we endure in front of the synagogue does not even rise to the level of the tiniest smidgen of what Palestinians endure every day and have for decades. I do it to remind those who pass by of the plight of an oppressed people, whose oppression is facilitated by all of us who do not take a stand against it. At least I used to do it. After much soul-searching over the next few days after that meeting last October, I informed the medical director that I had decided to stop participating in the vigil. While I was already facing a criminal trial I didn't want to lose my job, too.

When the jury found me not guilty, I hoped my boss would no longer threaten me with termination. But three weeks after my victory, he presented me with a contract requiring me to "refrain from conduct, both at work and outside of work, which tends to reflect negatively on the reputation and public image of Employer, which may negatively affect the ability of Employer to retain current patients, attract new patients or attract donations, or which may otherwise in the judgment of Employer's Medical Director reflect poorly upon the public image of Employee or Employer."

When in the course of my attempting to negotiate with the Medical and Executive Directors of the clinic, I protested the vague and restrictive clause. I asked for more specific language and for guidance about what kinds of activities would constitute violation of the contract. They repeatedly criticized my political activities, and finally, the executive director terminated the negotiations, declaring that it was clear that my continued employment would not work, and that we should proceed with determining the terms of my severance.

No one should have to forfeit her constitutional right to freedom of expression to keep a job. It was not a fair contract and I believe that it was presented to me, on a take-it-or-leave-it basis, for the purpose of strong-arming me out the door. I believe that we could have negotiated a fair contract if both parties had negotiated in good faith. If it were not true, as I believe, that my termination is the culmination of months of efforts to force me out, they would have done so. But the saddest part of this story to me is that the needs and desires of so many of my patients to continue their relationships with me don't seem to matter.
 




The year's hottest artists on the red carpet at the Grammy Awards. AOL Music takes you there.
Sphere: Related Content

Fighting the JDL at CSUN

Finkelstein, California State University Northridge
from Hey, Hollywood

No Apology

First off, I want to say happy Darwin Day to everyone!

Second, I have the best story ever. Okay, so Norm Finkelstein came to talk in the CSUN library. He's this rad author who writes about the Middle East and war and all that. So I show up wearing a pretty dress, a peace sign T-shirt over it, and my keffiyeh to show support. Things go pretty calmly until three members of the Jewish-Defense League show up. Now, I have no problem with Jewish people as a whole (I'm part Ashkenazi Jew, by the way), but the JDL, geez, they are zionist trash. Literally, zionist trash. This one fat bitch sitting in the front row wouldn't shut up. So the audience gets annoyed and they move her to the back. Prof. Finkelstein keeps talking. Soon, she's shouting from the back calling Finkelstein a cretin, a holocaust denier, and whatever else. So I, being annoyed as hell, turn around, shout back at her, and tell her to shut up. She charges right at me and screams her head off. Out of nowhere, this man who's covered in Ron Paul '08 buttons stands in front of me. The trashy woman keeps yelling at me, telling me to hang myself with the keffiyeh around my neck (classic). I shout at her and tell her to leave if she's going to disrupt Prof. Finkelstein. She shouts somemore. Prof. Finkelstein signals at me to calm myself. More insanity. Soon, they have to sit her down because by now she's apsolutely nuts. Well, I felt pretty bad about shouting and I apologize to Prof. Finkelstein right afterwards. He shruggs it off and continutes. Later on in the presentation I'm getting worried that trash is going to come back and start harassing me some more. The Ron Paul supporter sees me and tells me that they're all gone. Thank God!

After the presentation was over I felt I had to go up to Prof. Finkelstein and apologize again for my actions. As I'm waiting in line a bunch of other audience members, including a journalism professor, shook my hand and started talking to me. I finally go up to Prof. Finkelstein and tell him I'm sorry for the outburst. He then touches me on the shoulder and tells me I shouldn't apologize at all. He said the only reason why he wanted me to calm down was because he's dealt with those types of people before and they're just asking for the presentation to turn into the WWE. He tells me he did the same thing when he was in college, and that I should never apologize for speaking out - ever. I felt so much better! I got a picture with him and I'll put it up on Facebook this afternoon. But wow, just being told by Norm Finkelstein that I should always stand up - that made my whole semester!

I can't wait to see how the Sundial is going to deal with this...





The year's hottest artists on the red carpet at the Grammy Awards. AOL Music takes you there.
Sphere: Related Content

Monday, February 11, 2008

Letter to the Editor: What is Really Left Unsaid

Subject: The Globe Misses the Problem Because of the Issues
by Joachim Martillo (ThorsProvoni@aol.com)
 
Dear Editor:
 
The February 10th Boston Sunday Globe editorial entitled "What is left unsaid" describes a number of foreign policy and security issues that all presidential candidates except Ron Paul have failed to address and in so doing demonstrated that the Globe itself is as much to blame as the candidates themselves.
 
Professors Mearsheimer and Walt attempted to explain the clamp down on the debate over foreign policy questions in The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy and argued as foreign policy realists
  • that Israel protects no important US interests,
  • that it is a foreign policy liability,
  • that it arguably never has been a strategic asset despite the claims of Organick in The 36 Billion Dollar Bargain, and
  • that the disappearance of the Zionist state from the Middle East would at worst harm the USA in no significant way whatsoever.
A very big problem that all Americans, the media, and the candidates should be discussing is the US relationship with Israel.
 
Jacob Heilbrunn's book They Knew They Were Right indicates that the US is suffering a foreign policy disaster because Neoconservatism is a Jewish 'special interest' that duplicitously misrepresents itself.
 
The Globe wants the presidential candidates to show some courage in discussing issues. Will the Globe show some courage in discussing the real problems and specifically the domination of US foreign policy by a Jewish 'special interest'?
 
As the candidates grovel for campaign contributions from wealthy Jewish donors, a debate on the topic is not only appropriate, but it is also a necessity.
 
Sincerely yours,
Joachim Martillo
Boston, MA
 
PS. A shorter but more general discussion of the problem can be found at Judonia Rising: The Israel Lobby and American Society.
 
 
GLOBE EDITORIAL

What is left unsaid

FOR ALL the high drama and personality clashes of this primary season, John McCain, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama have said far too little about crucial issues of foreign and security policy that the next president will have to address. And as the economy worsens, the temptation for these three senators - one of whom, presumably, will be the next president - to ignore major looming problems abroad will only grow.

Apart from repeating their talking points on troop levels in Iraq, the would-be commanders-in-chief have mostly kept a discreet silence both about grand strategy and particular hot spots on the map. Whoever is elected in November will not have the luxury of evading these issues. President Bush will be leaving his successor a daunting legacy of squandered opportunities, diminished influence, and dangerous mistakes.

Achieving the least harmful end to the war in Iraq will be the most conspicuous need. But instead of arguing mainly about troop levels and timetables for withdrawal, candidates should be telling voters how they propose to avoid sectarian conflict, a lasting Al Qaeda infestation, and Iranian dominance in Iraq.

Undoing the Bush doctrine
Iraq cannot be disentangled from rivalries in the surrounding region. And the next president cannot hope to tackle those complex conflicts without scrapping a failed Bush doctrine of superpower self-sufficiency.

Obama has said he opposes "the Bush doctrine of not talking to leaders we don't like." But what would he replace it with?

Clinton has said "we have a failed policy in Afghanistan as well as in Iraq" and articulates well the problems in the region, but is less clear on the solutions.

As for McCain, he has offered little detail on how he would approach the many currents at work in the Middle East, apart from energetically defending last year's troop surge in Iraq.

Voters deserve a deeper discussion. The candidates ought to spell out their views of what Bush has labeled a war on terror. In the aftermath of Sept. 11, US foreign policy has been permeated by the nebulous notion of a long war against an enemy defined only as "evil."

This year's campaign would benefit from a critical evaluation of Bush's war on terror. This discussion must acknowledge that Al Qaeda and like-minded groups are committing more terrorist acts today than they did before the US invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq - not within the United States, perhaps, but in many other places around the world.

Instead of sowing democracy in the Muslim world, Bush's war on terror has led to billowing instability from Gaza and the West Bank to Lebanon, from Syria and Iraq to Turkey and Iran, and from Afghanistan to Pakistan.

The candidate most apt to rectify Bush's errors is the one who best understands that radical Islamism is above all a threat to states and societies of the Muslim world - that the jihadist movement is both cause and symptom of an internecine conflict there. The threat from stateless holy warriors should be countered with international intelligence cooperation, police action, and diplomatic initiatives that make America more, not less, respected in the Muslim world.

Credibility in the Middle East
Accordingly, the candidates should spell out their plans for shepherding Israelis and Palestinians into a negotiated two-state solution of their conflict. Such an agreement will not come easily, and it will not miraculously heal the other political and social maladies afflicting Arab and Muslim lands. Regardless, the next president must not waste several years - as both Bush and Bill Clinton did - before committing presidential power and prestige to a negotiated end of the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.

The candidates should also describe what they are willing to offer Iran if it verifiably suspends its enrichment of uranium. This would mean replacing Bush's fantasies of regime change and coercive threats with old-fashioned haggling.

Such a change in statecraft would also help outside the Middle East. A similar conversion to diplomacy and military restraint will be needed to cope with instability in Pakistan and with the growing tendency of Russia and China to collaborate in counter-balancing American unilateralism under Bush.

Without saying as much, Bush himself has shown what it might mean to abandon his good-vs.-evil rhetoric and its assumption that rogue regimes can only be coerced into changing their behavior. Bush's deal with North Korea offered Kim Jong Il the economic and political benefits he wants in exchange for complete and verifiable denuclearization.

The candidates should seize on this example to outline their plans for coping with Iran's nuclear program and its drive for regional predominance. And no contest for the White House should exclude a serious testing of ideas about the proper American approach to China - its swelling financial power, its military modernization, and its pursuit of energy reserves around the world, particularly in Africa.

A complicated world
The public also deserves to know what the next president would do about Burma, Darfur, and Sri Lanka - places where the immediate threat to US economic or military interests is not obvious, but where human suffering is acute.

And what of the near nations to our south, which have been all but ignored since Sept. 11? The many fitful democracies there, from Argentina to Brazil, need economic and political attention from the United States. If not, China will be happy to fill the gap. And all of the candidates need a policy ready for the inevitable death of Fidel Castro in Cuba - an event that will be sudden even as it is utterly predictable - the best opportunity in 60 years to forge a more rational policy there.

The candidates should be talking to voters about these matters. Whichever one takes the oath of office next winter will need, and should want, a mandate to change America's relations with the rest of the world. 

 

 
 



Sphere: Related Content

Friday, February 08, 2008

Israel Lobby and American Society

Judonia Rising: What the Israel Lobby Really Is
How It Hurts the USA
What to Do About It
A Working Paper
Part I: The State of the Lobby
by Joachim Martillo (ThorsProvoni@aol.com)

The discussion of the Israel Lobby that Professors Walt and Mearsheimer created inadequately focuses on the effect of Israel advocacy on American society.

I am trying to address this issue in Judonia Rising: The Israel Lobby and American Society, which is also accessible via the resources section of my blog for Ethnic Ashkenazim Against Zionist Israel (http://eaazi.blogspot.com). The current version is an early draft. It needs more work, more explanations, appendices, some reorganization, and references (as well as removal of some redundancies). Yet, the issues that it raises are probably sufficiently important that it is worthwhile to make the document available for comments and discussion as is.

A pdf version is available at http://www.eaazi.org/ThorsProvoni/C__Judonia1.pdf.



Sphere: Related Content

Mondoweiss on Ron Paul's New Advisors

Ron Paul has hired Leon Hadar and Robert Pape.
Sphere: Related Content

Truth About the Katyn Massacre?

"better to forget some things"
 
I tend to agree in terms of relations among nations and particularly in cases where the truth is extremely hard to determine or history is used to create hostility instead of understanding, but comprehending how the Katyn Massacre has been used historically from Nuremberg until today is worthwhile if only because it is still being used politically -- Joachim.
 

Our British reader, Martin Webster (once a prominent far-right leader) wrote about the Katyn film:

Polish film about Katyn Massacre

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/andrzej-wajdas-katyn-receives-nomination/story.aspx?guid=%7B9301083A-EA86-4D6C-BA10-A35FB0F1F7DB%7D

The above is the link to a review about a new Polish film which a Polish friend tells me deals with the massacre by the Soviet Union of the Polish officer corps -- a crime which for years was blamed on the Germans.

It seems that this film is so good it is up for some kind of a film industry prize, even an Oscar.

I doubt if any such film will be granted high accolades. The people who run the movie business may not be too keen on allowing a prize to go to a film which places the blame for a notorious war crime on the Communists rather than the Nazis!

And as it happens, the Zionists have just commenced a propaganda initiative in Poland designed to make the Poles feel co-responsible with the German Nazis for "the Holocaust".

Recently Jan Thomasz Gross, a Polish Jew who left Poland in 1968 to become a U.S. citizen and a history professor at Princeton University, has returned to the land of his birth to promote his latest book "Fear: Anti-Semitism in Poland after Auschwitz".

His technique for securing publicity for his book has been to stage provocative public meetings in Polish cities at which he accuses the Polish people in general and the Polish Catholic Church in particular, of responsibility for massacres of Jews during and after the German occupation.

These meetings caused uproar for, as Time magazine of 23rd January 2008 [ http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1706315,00.html ] reported: "......Poland, which lost about 6 million of its citizens in the war -- half of them Jewish -- prides itself on being  the only country in Nazi-occupied Europe that did not have a collaborator government."

This kind of vilification of the Polish people by Zionist propagandists has been part of Israeli school curriculum for decades past and it has clearly inculcated among Israelis a hatred for Poland and its people.

Shamir replied to Martin:

Dear Martin,

This is your mistake: "The people who run the movie business may not be too keen on allowing a prize to go to a film which places the blame for a notorious war crime on the Communists rather than the Nazis!" And this is an archetypal error of the Right. Your "The people who run the movie business" are Jews, and associated with them forces. You think that for Jews, Nazis are forever the most evil force, while Commies are akin spirit.

Jews are not such idealists, as you think. "The people who run the movie business" are first of all American Jews, and they are fully siding with the US, so they want to eliminate every independent force and cause everybody, all mankind to submit to the will of the US, and by proxy to their will. Russia is the real enemy for them, as well China or Iran, Cuba and Venezuela, but they are first of all enemies of Russia, the militarily strongest one.  They want to cause more hatred between Russians and Poles in order to implant the US missile stations in Poland and move Nato troops eastwards.

This is important real stuff, while fight with Nazis is a nice entertainment. Nazis were defeated in 1945, and modern far right is too weak to matter. 

"The people who run the movie business" will give this film an Oscar if it will help to undermine Russia's independence.

Israel Shamir

Joachim Martillo proposed to shift the blame for Katyn on the Jews:

Here is the Katyn Massacre Recommendation/Order . Investigating Beria's background leads to the same sort of confusion that is associated with Lenin's ethnic heritage shown later to be in part Jewish.

The signers of the massacre order are all reputed to have been members of the Kremlin Jewish Faction.  From what I have read practically everyone up and down the chain of command in the killings of Polish leaders and intellectuals was Jewish. It takes a little digging to get the backgrounds, and I have yet to see it published in a popular journal.

It took 90 years for the NY Times to admit that all the killers of the Czar and his family were Jewish. Probably around 2030 the NY Times will publish the complete story of the Katyn Massacres including who conceived the idea and advised Stalin.

Shamir concludes on Katyn:

This is far from clear who, how many and when was shot at Katyn. There is a whole literature of blame-shifting and denial, much of it in Russian, Polish, German. Nurnberg Tribunal decided that the massacre was done by Germans, and denial of Nurnberg is illegal in many countries – but you may do it as much as you wish, if you aim against the present enemy, the too-independent Russia. Probably you may also blame it on Muslims, or Palestinians – as it was almost done by Dershowitz.

This Katyn Massacre was chosen by our enemy. Otherwise, who would give a damn about a few thousand soldiers and officers' fate in the war where millions perished? More Poles died at Monte Cassino, not to mention Warsaw. What actually happened in Katyn?

It is perfectly possible that as many as four thousand Polish officers were actually executed by the Soviets as enemies: do not forget that Napoleon executed six thousand POWs, the whole garrison of Jaffa, after they have surrendered. There was much bad blood between the Red Army and the White Poles: over one hundred thousand of the Red Army POWs were killed or starved to death by the White Poles after 1920.

On the other hand, some of the Poles exhumed in Katyn were undoubtedly killed by German weapons. The place could be a preferred place for mass killings, as the Babi Yar in Kiev was, and it was used by whoever was in power.

As far as I understand, one may consider the background, Eastern Poland/Western Ukraine, a piece of land that was shifted from Austro-Hungarian empire to independent Poland after Versailles and to the Ukraine in 1939. There was extreme animosity between ruling Poles and peasant Ukrainians; it is considered that the Ukrainians were harshly treated by their Polish masters, and this animosity caused severe persecution of the ethnic Poles when the Polish rule was over. Whoever ordered to shoot the Polish officers – the Soviets or the Nazis – it was anyway done by the Ukrainians, the pro-Soviet Ukrainians or pro-German Ukrainians, for there was nobody else to do the job. In other words, Katyn fits well into Volyn, the place where tens of thousands of ethnic Poles were massacred by Ukrainian nationalists. One may compare it with the massacre of whites in Haiti after their colonial rule was over; and many other unpleasant events in human history. 

 I agree with our Polish friend Marek G, with Treanor and Joh Domingo: it is better to forget some things, using the Greeks example: they had capital punishment cure for those with over-long memory. It is better for Russians and Poles to be good neighbours; but the enemy wants them to fight. Likewise, the enemy wants the Arabs to fight Iranians, as our next item shows:
______________

The rest of the discussion appears at http://pkn.blox.pl/html




Sphere: Related Content

Thursday, February 07, 2008

Long History of Hindu Judeophobia

Poor Looser Cries Anti-Semitism
by Joachim Martillo (ThorsProvoni@aol.com)
 
The following story from the Boston Globe is hilarious.
 
He probably networked with all his friends. She probably worked the Oxford University Jewish Society and all the Jewish klatsches, groups and organizations.
 
He won. She accused him of "soliciting votes" and got a lawyer (!).
 
Then -- I suspect --  all the phone calls and emails to the Oxford Club started (especially from Jewish alumni).
 
The club found a violation to disqualify him.
 
All his pissed off friends dis her, and she screams anti-Semitism.
 
There are bigots at Oxford, but they are not the Hindus.
 
Just take a look at the invitation to the Oxford Jewish Society Winter Ball after the article.
 
Will the Oxford University Jewish Society do a minstrel show in black-face for the Spring Festival?

At Oxford club, a less than civil presidential election

OXFORD, England - Corrupt campaigning practices. Charges of sexual harassment. Racial and gender issues. A presidential election thrown out, the winner disqualified, the loser withdrawn.

One can only hope the race for the White House goes more smoothly than the election of a president for the Oxford Union Society, one of the world's foremost debating clubs.

The 185-year-old society, a jewel in Oxford University's crown, is a bastion of free speech where the elite of Britain and many other countries have cut their debating teeth. The framed photos in the entryway honor luminaries from Queen Elizabeth II and Sir Winston Churchill to Robert Kennedy and Yasser Arafat, who have addressed the Oxford Union.

But its most recent election has degenerated into farce. It started with the November victory of Krishna Omkar, and a prompt challenge from runner-up Charlotte Fischer, who, with the help of a lawyer, managed to convince investigators that Omkar should be disqualified for violating election rules.

"It's a tragedy that this has happened," said Jason Keen, a history student who backed Omkar. "One person wins, one person loses, and the person who loses steps aside. But Charlotte didn't want to step aside."

Omkar's misdeed? An internal tribunal found that he had violated the rules by actively soliciting votes. The tribunal ruled that he should be stripped of the presidency and barred from running again.

Omkar, 23, has proposed a rule change to the Oxford Union that would allow him to stand in a new election expected within weeks; a hearing is set for today.

Omkar's disqualification left Fischer, 20, poised to accede to the presidency. Instead, she resigned from the Union's officers' committee - she had served as librarian - and temporarily left Oxford University to return to her parents' home outside London.

One reason, she said, was a string of vulgar, sexually suggestive text messages sent to her cellphone by other Oxford Union officers. She has not made any formal complaint about these messages and it is not clear who sent them.

Some Oxford Union members say Omkar's disqualification smacked of racism, and his rise and fall have become front-page news in India, his homeland. Meanwhile, supporters of Fischer, who is Jewish, say she has been the victim of anti-Semitism.

The media coverage has hurt the reputation of the Oxford Union, said Emily Partington, the current president of the debating club.

"It's a private club," she said when asked for comment. "It's not relevant to the rest of the world." 

© Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company
 
______________________ 
 
 

An Arabian Night - JSoc Winter Ball

** INDULGE YOUR SENSES IN A 3 COURSE BANQUET IN A LAVISH BEDOUIN TENT **

** Champagne reception accompanied by a 25 piece jazz band

** Sit-down sumptuous middle-eastern style dinner with entertainment from an arabic band, belly dancer and henna tattooist

** To end the night on a high - dance the night away to tunes from a RADIO 1 DJ!!

DON'T miss out - reserve your ticket now!

Dress: black tie £50 ** all proceeds of the event go to a worthy charity **

To reserve your ticket:
email:

 



Sphere: Related Content

Monday, February 04, 2008

Making YIVO a Zionist Organization

New Overt Unofficial Israel Lobbying Organization
Followup:
Ahmadinejad, Columbia Faculty Politics, Martin Peretz, Islamic Fascism
by Joachim Martillo (ThorsProvoni@aol.com)
 
According to Philip Weiss at Mondoweiss,
A friend just got the latest YIVO bulletin, which is not available at the Yiddish institute's website, and reports the following:
It includes a full page diatribe against Walt-Mearsheimer that concludes that W and M "presented a one-sided version of Israel and Middle East history by manufacturing fictional arguments for the sole purpose of supporting and furthering anti-Semitism throughout the United States and the world."
 
Unbelievable.  YIVO is a scholarly institution whose goal is to preserve the language and culture of Eastern European Jews.  In joining this debate in this way they are enlisting the 6,000,000 Jewish martyrs in the AIPAC cause, as if millions of the 6,000,000 weren't socialists, communists, and anti-Zionists along with Orthodox Jews, Zionists, assimilationists, etc.
 
YIVO has nothing to do with Israel.  And they are willing to forego donations from all those who do not believe that endless war is in the best interests of Israel
It is dismaying to me because Yivo is the place where these things ought to be discussed openly. But Martin Peretz is a leading figure on Yivo's board, and he has helped to sacrifice the institution's scholarly purpose to one of essentially dual loyalty.
This development makes me think of Nadia Abu el Haj's book Facts on the Ground, Archaeological Practice and Territorial Self-Fashioning in Israeli Society. Peretz is applying the same tools he uses in pro-Israel political manipulation to refashioning the YIVO Institute for Jewish Research and by logical extension Yiddish history as well. The region being excavated is not Palestine/the Land of Israel but is instead the territory of historical-political discourse.
 
In the future, Oyf vas badarfn yidn a land (Why do Jews Need a Land of their Own) by Sholem Aleichem will almost certainly be politically correct at YIVO, but  ישראל ארץ אין רײזע מײן (Meyn Reyze in Erets Yisroel) by the mainstream Yiddish journalist Dr. B. Hofman will almost certainly be on the index of forbidden books.*
 
For Phil such a change a YIVO shows even more reason to talk about the Israel Lobby.
Meantime, the left will have to conduct the discussion. Lately the estimable blogger Tony Karon wrote that Walt and Mearsheimer got it wrong about the Israel lobby because they failed to recognize the "deeply-entrenched [pro-Israel] tropes in U.S. political and civil society — tropes which now function quite independently of the lobby's interventions." I don't think he's right about those "tropes." As Eban says, the State Department wanted to cut and run on partition after it proved that it would produce endless strife in Palestine. Even Truman was going wobbly. Yes there are militarists and Christian Zionists who play a role in the policy-making. But the realest trope is the lobby itself, which has been around now for over 60 years...
Time.Com senior editor Tony Karon replied,
The point I was trying to make is that a lot of the general AIPAC lines have been internalized in the U.S. political mainstream. And in the process, AIPAC has established itself as synonymous not just with Israel, but with philo-Semitism. What you see at that annual AIPAC conference where Democrats and Republicans line up to kiss ass is a graphic demonstration of the fact that AIPAC no longer even needs to go after the politicians, they come to AIPAC cap in hand.
It's not even a behavior or a principle about which mainstream politicians bother to think any more, it's par for the course. I guess that's what I was trying to get at...
Tony Karon's original blog entry concluded,
Remnick's own Israel bubble has been taking a bit of a battering of late: Just three weeks ago, he found himelf compelled to write a subtle smear of Avrum Burg, largely attributing the former Knesset speaker's renunciation of Zionism to his supposed personality defects! Plainly, Remnick has little appetite for engaging with Burg's notion that, as he put it, he had always considered himself a human being, a Jew and a Zionist until he began to recognize that his Zionism negated the other two aspects of his identity.
 
Burg, like Mearsheimer and Walt, had clearly made Remnick uncomfortable. But he's substantially correct in challenging the M&W idea that the lobby is singularly responsible for policing America's public discourse on Israel. After all, nobody asked Remnick to write these pieces. Nor did anyone tell Kinsley to try and shoot down Jimmy Carter's apartheid argument. Just as important as challenging the Israel lobby is drawing attention to the deep-rooted tropes of knee-jerk defensiveness in sections of the liberal-Jewish intelligentsia that allows them to avert their eyes and cling to fantasy when Israel is an agent of oppression. [Remnick's criticism of The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy appeared in the September 3, 2007 New Yorker.]
The claim above in red is only superficially true from my limited observation of the journalistic industry and from my greater observation of the finance industry.
 
One can build up a lot of credit with the powers that be with the sort of effort and content that Remnick put into his articles.
 
Jonathan Wells's attacks on the Islamic Society of Boston at the behest of the David Project, which is an Israel Advocacy organization, got him his transfer to Fox News even though in theory Fox News and the Boston Herald are supposed to be independently owned.
 
[It boggles the mind, but the FCC relaxed the rules on media cross ownership shortly after I began to make my concerns about the Fox Herald relationship public among my contacts in the Boston news industry. See http://eaazi.blogspot.com/2007/08/sale-of-boston-herald.html , which I published several months after looking into conflict over the Roxbury Mosque and after discussing the issue with several local attorneys specializing in media regulations and law.]
 
In the finance industry there are networks of Jewish professionals that protect one another and that pass around insider info. Someone that advances the wrong opinion on Israel can get cut off. Someone that expresses the right opinions advances.
 
There are payoffs for pro-Israel support and not deep tropes.
 
Another source of common pro-Israel opinion is the movie industry. Melani Macalister discusses the relationship between pop culture and perceived national interest. See http://www.eaazi.org/ThorsProvoni/history/naaplecture.htm#_ednref26 .
 
Yet, every marketing study that I have read on the subject indicates that what pro-Israel film has created, anti-Israel film can uncreate.
 
No one should be particularly surprised that the Hollywood Crowd (powerful Jews in the film industry) make it really difficult to produce and distribute Palestinian-sympathetic film.
 
Look at the grief that Spielberg got for giving approximately 20 seconds to the Palestinian point of view in Munich  -- my investment models, which now taken into account Zionist and Palestinian-sympathetic content, indicate that the gross ticket revenue was only 1/3 what it should have been. Was there purposeful mismarketing  at the lower ranks?
 
Note
 
* Like many American Jews today, Hofman  (Tsivyon) naively supported Zionism in 1919 according to the NY Times ("Expects Migration of the Jews," January 19, 1919, Sunday, Page 17) but changed his mind after visiting Palestine and seeing Zionist behavior for himself.
 



Sphere: Related Content

Sunday, February 03, 2008

Gaza and International Humanitarian Law

DIAKONIA REPLIES TO ISRAELI MISREPRESENTATIONS
 
Does the opening of the Gaza border with Egypt change the legal status of Gaza?
 
As a response to statements from some Israeli officials that Gaza is now "Egypt's responsibility", Diakonia has issued a legal notice, posted on our International Humanitarian Law website, concluding that the opening of the Rafah border between Gaza and Egypt does not change the status of the Gaza Strip as occupied by Israel. In its capacity as the occupying power, Israel still has the obligation to ensure the welfare of the Gaza population, including guaranteeing the availability of food, medicine, fuel and water supplies.
 
Does the opening of the Gaza border with Egypt change the status of Gaza?  
On 23 January 2008, Gazans broke down the iron wall that stands on the border between Gaza and Egypt at Rafah and reportedly around 750,000 Gazans visited the Egyptian towns of Rafah and al-Arish on the other side to buy essentials such as food and fuel.
 
The Rafah action came after a week of particularly strong Israeli actions against Gaza (leaving around 40 dead and 130 injured) and an almost complete closure of the Strip to fuel, medicine and food. Hospitals cut down operations and fresh water supplies as well as sewage systems came to a halt while Israeli military actions, including targeted killings, intensified. At the same time, Palestinian resistance groups continued firing rockets from Gaza into Israel. 

Immediately after the wall at Rafah was broken down, Israeli government officials stated that Gaza was now "Egypt's responsibility".  Is this correct, in law?

Is Gaza still occupied if the Rafah border is open?

In Israeli (and international) political circles the wish has at times been expressed to revert control over the Gaza Strip back to Egypt, which governed Gaza between 1948 and 1967. If the border between Gaza and Egypt is now open, and remains so, possibly under the joint control of Egypt and the Palestinians, has this changed the legal status of Gaza?
 
Legally speaking, for Gaza to remain occupied by Israel there is no need for actual Israeli "boots on the ground". It is sufficient for Israel to be in effective control of Gaza, with the ability to enter at will. In the past year and especially in the past week, Israeli ground troops have entered Gaza on a regular basis. Israel also attacks Gazan targets from the air, and occasionally also from the ground outside of Gaza, and has several unmanned balloons constantly observing the population's every move.
 
Israel also controls the Gaza population registry, the tax and customs collection, and, importantly for this discussion, Israel controls the Gaza borders, including the movement of people, goods, fuel, and money.
 
In the current scenario, Israel has allowed one border point to become porous, but it could close this at will, instantly.
 
 
The opening of the Rafah border does not mean that Gaza is no longer occupied while the current military actions in Gaza, military surveillance, administrative control and land and sea restrictions prevail.

In sum, the opening of the border at Rafah and the ability of the Gazans to buy some of their essentials in Egypt, are a long way off changing the legal position of the Palestinians and Israel. Israel still occupies the Palestinian territory and people, with the obligation to safeguard their humanitarian situation. 
 
IHL Team
Diakonia International Humanitarian Law Program
PO Box 1411
91013 Jerusalem
www.diakonia.se/ihl
+972-2-532 29 72



Sphere: Related Content

Saturday, February 02, 2008

Followup: Obama versus the Israel Lobby

Philip Weiss has investigated whether Robert Malley really is an Obama advisor in order to verify some of information in Obama versus the Israel Lobby .
Sphere: Related Content

Arun Gandhi and Sholem Aleichem

A Holocaust of Misunderstanding
by Joachim Martillo (ThorsProvoni@aol.com)
 
Arun Gandhi was simply out of his league in discussing Jewish identity and the Holocaust. (See
 
Ethnic Ashkenazim did not embrace a culture of violence because of the Holocaust.
 
For complex reasons Yiddish culture in partitioned Poland developed a core of violence and hatred that was at first self-directed and that later exploded outward in Russian Communism and in Zionism. The Holocaust was a reaction to the fear and loathing engendered by the Soviet Union.
 
Jewish violence was a predecessor and not a consequence of the Holocaust.
 
[The final major push for the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum (USHMM) came as increasing access to Eastern European, Czarist and Soviet archives made it possible to reexamine cause and effect in the lead-up to the Holocaust. The USHMM is a megaphone and a podium for Holocaust Religion to drown out the real history of the Holocaust.]
 
 
Illuminating the dark side of Yiddish
By Matan Hermoni
Haaretz
Kislev 29, 5765
 
"Hatsad haafel betzhoko shel Shalom Aleichem: Al hashivuta shel retsinut beyahas leyiddish ulesifruta" ("The Dark Side of Shalom Aleichem's Laughter: And Other Essays on the Importance of Being Earnest About Yiddish and its Literature") by Dan Miron, Am Oved, 320 pages, NIS 89

In the story "The Man from Buenos Aires" from Shalom Aleichem's train stories, a stranger tells the tale of how he became wealthy to his neighbor in a train compartment, who is the first-person narrator. At the end of the story the narrator asks the traveler what business he is in. The man from Buenos Aires, who has accumulated a great deal of wealth from trafficking in women - a detail that the reader has already figured out for himself even though it has not been stated explicitly - tells the naive narrator, who is perhaps only pretending to be naive: "Not citrons, my friend, not citrons."

The reply of the man from Buenos Aires to his fellow traveler on the train, who prefers only to see the explicit and to turn his gaze away from the cover, expresses the basic problematic aspect of the Hebrew reader's attitude toward Yiddish literature: Whereas Hebrew literature has acquired the status of a high, national literature, a literature that stood at the cradle of the Zionist project, Yiddish literature has been perceived as one that operates by virtue of a popular, inferior tradition that is written in the formulas of the servants' novel, the schund, written by Meir Shaikevitch and other authors in the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th.

In his new book, "The Dark Side of Shalom Aleichem," Dan Miron, one of the most important literary scholars in Israel, shows that Yiddish literature does not only concern itself with citrons, not only with nonthreatening appearances and not only with the comic and the sentimental - but also with the dark, underground forces that impel great literature as such.

In this book Miron brings together a selection of essays in the area of Yiddish that were written beginning in 1982, among them the essay "Between Two Homes" on the split, Yiddish-Hebrew world of Zalman Schneour, which was originally appended to the Yiddish novel "The People of Shklov"; the essay "Fears of All the Days of the Year" on Yehoshua Perla's "Everyday Jews"; and the essay "The Peeling of the Soft Pit," on the "Yash" novels of Jacob Glattstein.

In the only essay that has been published for the first time in this book, the title essay, Miron completes the processes of the revision that has occurred in his perception of the place of Yiddish literature within Jewish literature as a whole, a perception whose beginnings can be found in some of the other texts in the book.

According to Miron, Shalom Aleichem embodies the diametric opposite of the popular image that has clung to him, the image of a good-natured comedian, "a living bone from the people, a kind of essence from the people," as Y.H. Brenner wrote in his article eulogizing the great Yiddish writer. Shalom Aleichem's artistic world, as presented by Miron in the essay, is a world in which the motivating forces seem to be Dostoyevskian (or, alternatively, Freudian): a boy who rejoices in his father's death and the anarchy that prevails after the destruction of the old world in "Motl the Son of Peysi the Cantor," or a father who with his own hands leads his daughter to commit suicide in "Tevye the Milkman," whose character, as Miron analyzes it in the new essay, is so very different from the one played by, among others, Chaim Topol in the film adaptation of "A Fiddler on the Roof" - a kind of harmless, Yiddish Salah Shabati or Everyman.

In order to understand the depth of the change in Miron's perception of Shalom Aleichem, it is necessary to see how he presents the figure of Tevye in 1970, in his book "Shalom Aleichem - Essays." There, Tevye is presented as someone who "though he had taken a heavy beating from the disasters that have befallen him, has repelled the blows as though they had not penetrated to some internal entity inside him, in accordance with which, for the most part, his identity is embodied for us as a comic hero, despite everything." At that time, Miron did not come out explicitly against the perception of Shalom Aleichem that prevailed in Hebrew culture. Just as the disasters that befell Tevye did not succeed in penetrating the inner entity within him, they, it would seem, did not succeed in exploding some inner essence in the Hebrew reader who could see Tevye the Milkman only as a popular, amusing and good-hearted character.

Now Miron is attempting to take apart that "inner entity" inside Tevye and put it back together again, just as he does for other of Shalom Aleichem's characters as well. Miron shows the obverse side of Tevye, who in "The Dark Side of Shalom Aleichem's Laughter" is not a comic hero at all. Miron's fascinating analysis shows Tevye as a person who has destructive urges, for whom the character of the popular fool is just a masquerade. To a large extent, in the same way, the character of the popular storyteller is no more than a disguise to tease the reader.

In effect, it seems that Miron is trying to take from Shalom Aleichem the mantle of the simple Jewish storyteller, in which the latter so loved to deck himself. In the short poem "Inscription on My Tombstone," which is appended to the translation of his autobiographical novel "Fun'm yarid" ("The Great Fair"), Shalom Aleichem described himself as a "a simple Jew who wrote Jewish to delight." Miron shows not only that Shalom Aleichem was not a simple Jew at all, but also that "Jewish" - Yiddish - was not destined only to delight.

But diverting attention to the dark side in the works of Shalom Aleichem serves Miron as only part of a broader process, which attempts to re-examine the role of Yiddish and its culture within Jewish culture. Not as a language that was destined to give birth from within to a new Hebrew literature, as Dov Sadan argued in "Avnei Bedek," one of the cornerstones of literary criticism in Hebrew, but rather as a language destined to make the voice of a culture heard, and which was considered inferior as compared to the elitist Hebrew culture, the national language that had taken on flesh and sinew. In this, Miron in effect carries on a trend that began in the previous decade in the study of Hebrew literature, which examines the subversive potential of writing in Yiddish.

This potential has been examined in various ways by Chana Kronfeld in 1993 in "On the Margins of Modernism: Decentering Literary Dynamics" and Iris Parush who, in her 2001 book "Nashim korot; Yitronah shel shuliut" ("Reading Jewish Women"), presented the phenomenon of the reading of popular novels in Yiddish as a subversive-feminist act that shaped a Yiddish-female world as an alternative to the Hebrew-male world.

Through his attention to Shalom Aleichem, who perhaps more than any other writer symbolizes Yiddish culture and its literature, Dan Miron attempts to expand this discussion, and it is not by chance that he turns to Giles Deleuze and Felix Guattari. Miron proposes a kind of development of Deleuze and Guattari's theory of minor literature, i.e., literature in a language that is placed in an inferior position within the minority to which it belongs. Thus the oeuvre of Shalom Aleichem, which is written in Yiddish, can challenge the way the world is run, as well as the institutions of Jewish society, both traditional and national.

At the beginning of the book Miron writes in a quasi-confessional mode of his love for Shalom Aleichem: "In my eyes," writes Miron, he "is the greatest of Jewish writers alongside Franz Kafka, and the one who has succeeded more than any other Jewish writer not only in exploiting the comic gap between the modern Jew and the simple Eastern European Jew, but also to eradicate it."

Beyond the fact that the mention of Kafka on the same level as Shalom Aleichem seems almost inevitable, in light of Miron's invocation of Deleuze and Guattari, consideration must be given to another matter that is implied by this. As the greatest Jewish writer in addition to Kafka, in Miron's opinion Shalom Aleichem is greater than any other writer whose works he has researched - greater than S. Yizhar, greater than Gnessin, greater than Mendele and greater even than S.Y. Agnon.

Miron's statement - in which there appears to be something of a display of modesty ("In my eyes") or apology that is directed to his reader, the Hebrew reader - necessitates to a large extent the examination of this essay in a broader context. In other words, it is impossible to read this essay only as an essay on the world of Shalom Aleichem. It has to be read as an essay by Dan Miron on the world of Shalom Aleichem, in which he re-evaluates the status of Shalom Aleichem in Jewish literature. That is, it is necessary to examine in what way the new essay connects with the totality of Miron's historiography.

The interpretation that Miron gives of the artistic world of Shalom Aleichem, a world of anarchy, the breaking of preconceptions and the shattering of taboos, necessarily places this world in juxtaposition to the world of Hebrew literature. And the world of Hebrew literature within the totality of the 50 years of Miron's study of Hebrew literature, and in particular as it emerges from in his monumental 1983 study "When Loners Come Together," is quite different from the nihilist and anarchic world presented in "The Dark Side of Shalom Aleichem." Yiddish literature, as it is represented by Shalom Aleichem, undermined the pillars of society, whereas Hebrew literature, especially as it emerges from "When Loners Come Together," is a literature that established a national-historical social order and narrative.

It is impossible to describe the social climate of the Jewish world at the turn of the last century without discussing the place of Yiddish. However, within Hebrew culture, Yiddish and its culture are perceived, for the most part, as a language and a literature that have remained outside the national camp, never mind outside the boundaries of the literature that accompanies the project of the national revival. Therefore Yiddish literature did not have a place within the borders of the Hebrew literary republic, as Miron defined it in "When Loners Come Together."

Now it appears that Miron is undertaking a revision of the definition of the borders of the Hebrew literary public, to the shaping of which he himself had contributed. As noted, he has been dealing with Yiddish literature for several decades now. However, it seems to me that this placement of it as a minor and subversive literature is what expands the boundaries of the Hebrew literary republic. Moreover, it redefines its realm: a major Hebrew mainstream and working against it the minor stream (with Deleuze and Guattari's determination that a great literature can only be a minor literature reverberating in the background) of Yiddish literature, lead by Shalom Rabinowitz - Shalom Aleichem - who, according to Miron, is the greatest Jewish writer, alongside Kafka.

And one final observation: Miron dedicates the essay to Benjamin Harshav with the words "il migli or fabbro," with which T.S. Eliot dedicated "The Wasteland" to Ezra Pound, and which mean "the most skilled artisan." Both Harshav and Miron, who are among the greatest researchers of Hebrew literature, are now at universities in America, the former at Yale and the latter at Columbia. Both of them devote a considerable portion of their research and publications to Yiddish literature no less than to Hebrew literature. It seems to me that this is more than a coincidence. It is possible that it is in America that the ground is riper for bilingual, Yiddish-Hebrew research - or perhaps it is Harshav and Miron who are taking care, despite everything, that Yiddish will not trespass on Hebrew.

Matan Hermoni is writing a master's thesis in the literature department at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev.





Sphere: Related Content

Friday, February 01, 2008

George Habash Dies

A Eulogy from Robert Lindsay. Sphere: Related Content

Attacking Shohat: Falsifying Jewish History

Ashkenazi Prejudice at the Forward
by Joachim Martillo
 
According to Rejecting the 'Arab Jew' in the Forward.com (Philologos, Wednesday, Jan. 30, 2008), former Saudi ambassador to the United States Prince Turki al-Faisal recently made the following comment in a discussion of the hypothetical state of relations between Israel and the Arab world once Israel withdraws from all occupied Arab territories after the signing of a peace treaty.
"We will start thinking of Israelis as Arab Jews rather than simply as Israelis."
In reply to Turki's rather silly statement, Philologos took the opportunity both
  • to take a nasty pot shot at NYU professor Ella Shohat for rejecting the Ashkenazification of Arab Jewish history (see below) and also
  • to show either willful ignorance or typical Zionist mendacity.
He wrote the following.
It's true that Jews lived for hundreds and even thousands of years throughout the Middle East, and that after the Arabization of the region that started with the spread of Islam in the seventh century, they became linguistically and culturally Arabized, just as Jews in America have become linguistically and culturally Americanized. But it's also true that, in the course of these centuries, no Middle Eastern Jew, if asked whether he was an Arab, would have said yes, no matter how at home he felt in his environment. And for that matter, no Arab would have called his Jewish neighbor an Arab either. Jewishness and Arabness were perceived as antonyms in the sense of denoting two mutually exclusive ethnic identities, just as "Jew" and "goy" were antonyms in Eastern Europe. It was only in the 20th century that small numbers of Jews — most of them communists or on the Anti-Zionist political left — in cosmopolitan Arab cities like Cairo and Baghdad began to argue on behalf of an "Arab Jewish" identity as a way of repudiating Jewish nationalism and justifying their participation in Arab revolutionary politics.
Despite the assertion, from the Medieval until the Modern period, Jewish Arabs frequently identified themselves as Arabs in contexts of interaction between non-Arabic and Arabic speakers. There is no significant difference between Arab Christian, Arab Jewish and Arab Muslim behavior in this regard.
 
On page 358, The Jew in the Medieval World, A Source Book: 315-1791 by Jacob R. Marcus provides a translation of a ninth century Persian language example, in which the Persian ship captain Buzurg ibn Shahriyar describes a conversation between a Jewish merchant and a Himalayan king as related by the Jewish merchant.
"The King of this city was a powerful and respected prince. When I presented myself before him, he was seated on a golden throne encrusted with rubies, he himself being covered with jewels like a woman. The Queen was at his side still more richly apparelled. He had on his neck necklaces of gold and emeralds of inestimable value such as no kings of East or West possessed. Near him there were about  500 young girls of all colors attired in silk robes and jewels. I saluted him.
 
"'Oh Arab,' he said, 'have you ever seen anything more beautiful than this?' He showed me a necklace adorned with enamels."
The text continues with a discussion of a transaction between the king and the Jewish merchant. Nothing indicates that it was at all unusual for Jewish Arabs to identify themselves or be identified as Arabs in such contexts.
 
In contrast, S. D. Goitein recounts that Jewish Yemeni Arabs usually referred to ethnic Ashkenazim and German Jews as Christian Jews, for like other Jewish Arabs, Jewish Yemenis perceived European Jews as belonging to an ethnicity distinct from themselves just as Irish and Sicilian Catholics agree that they share a common religious identity despite different ethnic identities.
 
In general Jewish Arabs, unless indoctrinated by European Zionists, had little interest in the Zionist Jewish national identity that had replaced the Jewish religious identity among some German Jewish and ethnic Ashkenazim,
 
Not only is Ella Shohat is completely correct that the destruction of Jewish Arab communities and the murder of Arab Palestine (the Nakba) have a common origin in the genocidal program of Zionism (see below), but Zionist crimes against the native Palestinian population in combination with Zionist incitement in claiming the equivalence of Judaism and Zionism managed to create hostility where none existed previously.
 
Not only have Zionists attempted to erase the native Palestinian population from Palestine, but they have also attempted to erase and rewrite the history of Jewish Arabs and the history of interactions among Jewish, Christians, and Muslim Arabs.
 
The combined erasure of people and history is the Holoexaleipsis, which is the archetypal crime of genocide and far more disturbing that the Holocaust, which was for the most part an unjustifiable but understandable reaction to the mass murder, ethnic cleansing and genocide in whose planning and execution far too many Soviet Ashkenazim were involved during the creation and consolidation of the Soviet Union.
 
While the behavior of Arab states toward Jewish Arabs could have been better, the destruction of Arab Jewish communities is a crime that must be ascribed to Zionists and that has much similarity to the destruction of Yiddish culture within the Soviet Union by the Yevsektsia (ЕвСекция) or Jewish Section (Еврейская секция) of the Soviet Communist Party.
 
 
Rejecting the 'Arab Jew'
On Language

'A senior Saudi royal has offered Israel a vision of broad cooperation with the Arab world if it signs a peace treaty and withdraws from all occupied Arab territories," a Reuters dispatch reported last week, citing an interview with former Saudi ambassador to the United States Prince Turki al-Faisal. In the course of this interview, the prince was quoted as saying, "We will start thinking of Israelis as Arab Jews rather than simply as Israelis."

Some vision of cooperation!

Needless to say, Prince Turki's use of the term "Arab Jews" reflects either a comically naive misunderstanding on his part of who Israelis are, or the more sinister hope that they will one day cease to be who they are. In the best case, the prince's remarks are ignorant and patronizing, and they reveal how even many supposedly sophisticated Arabs haven't a clue that Israelis, although they live in the middle of an Arab expanse, are a people with a unique language, culture, history and identity of their own. If Prince Turki thinks that once peace is declared, Israelis will cheerfully agree to become another ethnic minority in the Arab Middle East, he is living in a cloud of nargileh smoke.

On the whole, however, one doesn't come across the term "Arab Jews" in this context. Rather, it is used — mostly by Arabs but also by some anti-Israel and anti-Zionist intellectuals in the West — for the close to 1 million Jews who lived in Arab lands prior to the establishment of Israel, after which they left or were expelled from their native countries and immigrated to Israel or elsewhere. Thus, for instance, Ella Habiba Shohat, a professor of cultural and women's studies at New York's City University, writes of herself in an essay titled "Reflections by an Arab Jew":

"I am an Arab Jew. Or, more specifically, an Iraqi Israeli woman living, writing and teaching in the U.S…. To be a European or American Jew has hardly been perceived as a contradiction, but to be an Arab Jew has been seen as a kind of logical paradox, even an ontological subversion [leading to] a profound and visceral schizophrenia, since for the first time in our history Arabness and Jewishness have been imposed as antonyms…. The same historical process [that is, the establishment of Israel] that dispossessed Palestinians of their property, lands and national-political rights was linked to the dispossession of Middle Eastern and North African Jews of their property, lands, and rootedness in Muslim countries…."

There is, of course, a cynical absurdity in blaming Israel for the wholesale plunder of Jewish property by Arab regimes in Iraq, Egypt, Yemen, Libya, Algeria, Morocco and other countries that forbade Jews to take money or possessions with them when they emigrated from or were thrown out of these places. But apart from this, what is it that makes one wince at the term "Arab Jews"? After all, don't Ms. Shohat and others like her have a point? If a Jew living in America is an American Jew, and a Jew living in Europe is a European Jew, why isn't a Jew living in an Arab country an Arab Jew? Is not the objection to calling him that a form of Arabaphobia?

I think not. Anti-Arab prejudice has nothing to do with it. Historically speaking, Ms. Shohat is simply dead wrong.

It's true that Jews lived for hundreds and even thousands of years throughout the Middle East, and that after the Arabization of the region that started with the spread of Islam in the seventh century, they became linguistically and culturally Arabized, just as Jews in America have become linguistically and culturally Americanized. But it's also true that, in the course of these centuries, no Middle Eastern Jew, if asked whether he was an Arab, would have said yes, no matter how at home he felt in his environment. And for that matter, no Arab would have called his Jewish neighbor an Arab either. Jewishness and Arabness were perceived as antonyms in the sense of denoting two mutually exclusive ethnic identities, just as "Jew" and "goy" were antonyms in Eastern Europe. It was only in the 20th century that small numbers of Jews — most of them communists or on the Anti-Zionist political left — in cosmopolitan Arab cities like Cairo and Baghdad began to argue on behalf of an "Arab Jewish" identity as a way of repudiating Jewish nationalism and justifying their participation in Arab revolutionary politics.

One speaks of "American Jews" and "European Jews" rather than of "Jews living in America" or "Jews living in Europe," because Jews in these places think of themselves as Americans and Europeans. But traditionally, Jews living in Arab lands never thought of themselves as anything but Jews living in Arab lands, and I challenge Ms. Shohat to produce a single pre-20th-century text that suggests otherwise. To refer to these communities as "Arab Jews" is not only to imply that Zionism tore them away from their true homelands for the false lure of a Jewish state; it is to demean them by denying them their own sense of themselves. It's a term that justly deserves to be rejected.

Questions for Philologos can be sent to philologos@forward.com.

Wed. Jan 30, 2008
 
 
 




Sphere: Related Content

What is the Islamic Caliphate?

Scare-Mongering Americans into False Consensus
by Joachim Martillo (ThorsProvoni@aol.com)
 
The nonsense about the Caliphate is just Zionist Neocon scare-mongering to create a false consensus. They want us to view Muslims as Nazis with the Caliph as Fuehrer so that Americans will shut off their brains and attack. So what if Muslims have a Caliph? Catholics have a Pope.
 
The crudest and most bigoted political groups used to scare-monger about the Pope. I thought we were beyond such stupidity.
 
Most of Europe had perfectly reasonable relations with the Ottoman Empire at the beginning of the twentieth century. The vivisection of the Ottoman Empire at the end of WW1 was pushed by Zionists among the British political and economic elite. The world would probably have been a lot better off if the Ottoman state had been left intact with the Caliph, who could serve as the titular religious political leader, but an intact Ottoman Empire would have made Zionism and the fulfillment of the Balfour Declaration impossible.
 
In point of fact, the Caliphate had long ago lost most religious significance, and the senior religious of official of the Ottoman Empire was the Sheikh al-Islam of Istanbul. The Caliphate simply does not loom large in modern Muslim thought.
 
Bin Ladin has been angry at the US support for Zionism, US support of corrupt Arab dictators and US support for sanctions on Iraq. His anger (if not his expression thereof) was not particularly unreasonable and was shared throughout the Muslim world.
 
The USA did not pay attention. If the USA refuses to engage in a civil dialogue with critics, it is left with uncivil dialogue (war, terrorism).
 
The USA needs to replace its ongoing mindless internal shrieking about the Caliphate, Islam, and Palestinians with a civil public discussion about Zionism, the alliance with Israel, and the behavior of American Jews.
 
 
As Phil Weiss (a former Harvard classmate) points out far too many American Jews are being very dishonest.
 
Here is another.
 
 
 



Sphere: Related Content