The Pattern of Ethnic Ashkenazi Genocidalism: The Jewish Century by Yuri Slezkine

The Jewish Century targets the popular audience more than scholars because a lot of the common beliefs that Yuri Slezkine debunks were long ago disproved in scholarly journals. The book is not really a detailed history, and it has some serious flaws because Slezkine, a history professor at UC Berkeley and specialist in the Soviet period, does not read Yiddish or Hebrew. The value of Slezkine's Apollonian/Mercurian interpretive framework is questionable, for it identifies Eastern European Ashkenazim and Eastern European Romany as anthropologically similar.

The book is a sort of extended essay or memoir-like reflection of the role of Soviet Jews (more precisely Soviet Ethnic Ashkenazim) during 20s and 30s when Russian Ethnic Ashkenazim became the quintessential Soviet nationality. They lost this privileged status after the establishment of the State of Israel because at that point Russian ethnic Ashkenazim could claim a homeland outside the Soviet Union just like Soviet Chinese, Estonians, Finns, Germans, Iranians, Koreans, Kurds, Latvians and Poles, who were all persecuted and deported internally during the 1920s-30s often under the supervision of Soviet ethnic Ashkenazi officials in an official policy of alienization.(+)

Slezkine clearly mourns the passing of the Golden Age of Soviet Russian Ashkenazim in 1948 and hates Zionism with obvious venom, for every reference in the book to Zionism and to any Zionist leader is full of scorn.

Yet, he clearly misses the fundamental similarity in thinking and behavior of Soviet Russian Ashkenazim and Zionist Russian Ashkenazim.

On p. 310-311 he tells the following story of the Markish family.

For the first time, the Soviet state had turned on some of its loyal and privileged subjects [Russian ethnic Ashkenazim] according to a clear -- and apparently non-Soviet -- principle. [Slezkine discusses the issue somewhat differently, but Stalin and other non-Jewish Soviet officials probably felt that they had been swindled by politically connected ethnic Ashkenazim into granting de facto recognition to the State of Israel.] For the first time, Hodl and her children [a reference to Sholem Aleichem's character Tevye the Milkman] found themselves among the aliens. For the first time, many of them began to doubt their Soviet faith -- and the culpability of previous aliens. As Ester Markish put it,

Only our own grief made us realize the horror of our lives in general: not only the suffering of the Jews or the suffering of the intelligentsia, but the suffering of the whole country and all the social groups and peoples that lived in it. After the arrest of [Perets] Markish, our maid, who had lived in our house for more than fifteen years and had, in effect, become a member of our family, said to me: "You are crying now, but you did not mind when my father was being dekulakized, martyred for no reason at all, and my whole family thrown out in the street?"

Ethnic Ashkenazi Soviet officials played the main and leading role in dekulakization/collectivization. Very few (I can only identify one with certainty) have ever expressed regret for their actions, which lead to the death by starvation of approximately 7 million people (all non-Jews of course).

Just as the Soviet elite (often Russian ethnic Ashkenazim) made native populations of the Russian Empire aliens in their own country, stole everything they had, deported them, and murdered them, likewise Zionist Russian ethnic Ashkenazim made the native population of Palestine aliens in their own country, stole everything they had, deported them, and murdered them.

We have here two levels of obliviousness: the inability of the author Slezkine to perceive the similarity of Soviet Russian ethnic Ashkenazim to Zionist Russian ethnic Ashkenazim in their thinking and behavior as well as the complete unawareness of the Markish family about the true feelings of their maid.

I attended a panel discussion at Harvard on The Jewish Century and afterward spoke with Steven Zipperstein, who was one of the panel members. He is The Daniel E. Koshland Professor in Jewish Culture and History and Co-Director of Jewish Studies at Stanford University.

I described the reaction of the reviewer from the Israeli Paper Yediot Aharonot (Late News) to Hanna Elias' movie The Olive Harvest, which is a love story/family drama set in the context of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank. One of the characters early in the movie remarks that the settlements are a cancer on the land. The reviewer completely missed the movie's story, and only expressed shock and outrage that Palestinians would actually say and believe that "we Israelis are a cancer on the land."

I would almost equate the reviewer's obliviousness to Palestinian hostility to the Markish family's lack of awareness of the maid's anger except that after working in Israel and the Occupied Territories for 10 years, I cannot believe that any Israeli would be surprised by the hatred of Palestinians. I have to consider the reviewer to have been posturing in order to portray Hanna as some sort of propagandist.

Zipperstein only remarked sarcastically that Slezkine gets the translations wrong and a reviewer from the Israeli paper Haaretz (The Land), would have agreed with the Palestinian character. The blindness of the Markish family and the convenient obliviousness of Zionists seems to persist as denial among ethnic Ashkenazi Americans like Professor Zipperstein.

(+) The whining of American Ashkenazim and Russian ethnic Ashkenazim about mistreatment since the 1950s was somewhat hypocritical because treatment of Russian ethnic Ashkenazim was hardly unique in the Soviet Union. In fact after the establishment of the State of Israel, the Soviet Union applied a formula to Russian ethnic Ashkenazim that had for the most part been developed by Russian ethnic Ashkenazim for other nationalities within the Soviet Union. Russian ethnic Ashkenazim were angry that they were being hoist upon their own petard. It is hard to sympathize.

NOTE 1

Slezkine uses Tevye the Milkman's daughter Chava as a symbol for American Russian ethnic Ashkenazim and Zionist Russian ethnic Ashkenazim because she unlike Tseitl renounces traditional Russian Ashkenazi culture but does not marry the proletarian revolution like Hodel.

I suppose there is some similarity to Jabotinsky, who loved Russian culture and then became a Zionist leader, but most Zionists are more like Tevye, who was supposed to immigrate to Palestine but backed out, while others are perhaps like Shprintse, who is sacrificed when Tevye's machinations fail.

Beilke, whose husband was probably a fraudster and who ended up fleeing with him to America, is probably a better metaphor for American Russian Ashkenazim.

Overall Slezkine's attempt to map social currents among Russian Ashkenazim to Tevye's daughters may be somewhat labored.

In their rejection of parental authority and break from tradition, Tevye's daughters could be viewed as representations of a sort of cultural parricidal tendency in their generation of Russian Ashkenazim.

Tevye also has a tremendous anger toward traditional Eastern European Jewish culture, and I have the impression it is rather common in members of his generation even if they could not break from Jewish tradition.

I am somewhat surprised that Slezkine did not look for a metaphor in Tevye's relationship with Menachem Mendl.

NOTE 2

While I was not impressed by Professor Zipperstein's sensitivity to Palestinian feelings, he is actually one of the better historians of Russian Ashkenazim. I can recommend his book entitled, The Jews of Odessa, A Cultural History, 1794-1881, with the qualification that his focus on the Jews of Odessa is sometimes too narrow. He describes the conflicts of Odessan Jews with other Odessan ethnic groups but never seems to have researched such conflicts from the standpoint of any group but that of the Jews.

Sphere: Related Content

Battle waged in Boston over new mosque

There is an extremely interesting story in the Boston Mosque controversy, but the CS Monitor article ("Battle waged in Boston over new mosque", http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0105/p13s01-lire.html) missed it. Boston ethnic Ashkenazim have mounted a wide-ranging and highly coordinated mostly surreptitious campaign -- it should probably be called a conspiracy -- not only "to deprive ... members of the Boston Muslim community of their basic right of free association and the free exercise of their religion" but to shut out American Arabs and Muslims from input into American public, political and academic discussion about American policy and interest in the Middle East.

I did read the notice that was posted on the Boston-Net mailing list and that requested members to thank the CS Monitor for the article. The author of that email message was simply wrong to believe that the presentation of the issues was balanced. Unlike anyone associated with the Cambridge Mosque, I actually have been a newspaperman, and I have a background in Judaica, which includes in-depth knowledge both of the classic period and also of modern Eastern Europe.

Here is how I would have approached the writing of the article. Below, I address the following questions, with which the original article should have dealt.

What is the real story?

Who made the initial charges?

What were the initial charges?

Who made the countercharges?

What are the countercharges?

What was left out of the story?

Who is paying for the legal expenses?

Why is there such an effort against the Roxbury Mosque?

Background information on some key players.

What is the real story?

I probably would have entitled it: Boston Jews Muslims Trade Charges.

Several media outlets, local political groups and one apparently unaffiliated individual have combined to charge, try, judge, convict and execute the local Muslim community (actually the ISB is purely a Sunni organization) in the court of public opinion. The ISB leaders feel that they have not received a fair hearing in the public media and have resorted to the state courts to get relief.

Who made the initial charges?

From the article, apparently the Boston Herald, Boston's Fox TV station, the David Project, and Citizens for Peace and Tolerance (CPT) constitute the main antagonists to the Roxbury Mosque project. Who are the people behind these charges? The article does not identify the Fox or Herald reporters. It does not list the directors of the David Project, a 501 (c) (3) organization, which makes public tax filings yearly. And it does not name the leaders of Citizens for Peace and Tolerance, which is probably a fake organization set up by the David Project. (Boston College Professor Dennis Hale, who is supposed to be president of CPT, seems to work as a speaker for the David Project.)

I grant that most CS Monitor readers know what the Boston Herald and the Fox network are.

What about The David Project and Citizens for Peace and Tolerance?

From http://www.guidestar.org/pqShowGsReport.do?npoId=100180092, (entire text posted at the end of this letter) we learn that the David Project's stated mission is "diminishing the impact of Israel's detractors, increasing the support of Israel on campus, and reclaiming the moral status of Zionism."

According to IRS Form 990 (http://www.guidestar.org/pqShowGsReport.do?npoId=100180092), the directors of The David Project are the following.

Charles Jacobs (see below).

Ralph Avi Goldwasser, who is former CFO of Avici and currently director of Telaxis Communications Corporation (Nasdaq:TLXS), a leading developer of wireless fiber optic connectivity products and who produced two recent propaganda films that The David Project exhibit. (One is entitled Columbia Unbecoming. It slanders Arab faculty at Columbia University. The other film entitled The Forgotten Refugees misrepresents the recent history of Jewish Arabs and Jewish Iranians.)

William Hamilton, who is the Rabbi of Kehillath Israel in Brookline and who recently published a fairly silly column, http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/12/05/confronting_the_haters/, in the Boston Globe. (The column focuses on the practically unreadable Protocols of the Elders of Zion as a source of anti-Semitic hatred even though ethnic Ashkenazim are some of the most prolific producers of racist demonization in the world today.)

Richard Mann, who is the president of the Greater Boston chapter of the American Jewish Committee.

Shulamit Reinharz, who is a Professor at Brandeis as well as wife of the President of Brandeis. And

Seth Klarman, who is president of the Baupost Group Inc., a private money management firm launched in 1982 with $27 million under management and now managing $400 million. (He received an MBA from Harvard Business School and a BA in economics from Cornell.)

Charles Jacobs is the most interesting from the standpoint of charges and countercharges in the Roxbury Mosque controversy.

From http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Charles_Jacobs, we find the following about the foreign-born founder of The David Project.

Charles Jacobs is an extreme zionist apologist who co-founded CAMERA, the David Project, American Anti-Slavery Group, and is a member of Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.

Affiliations

• CAMERA -- a pro-Israel media watchdog group and disseminator of flak
  
• Israel on Campus Coalition (ICC) -- a project developed by: Hillel and Charles and Lynn Schusterman Family Foundation. The ICC has a single "affiliate member": the David Project.
  
• David Project -- founder
  
• American Anti-Slavery Group -- co-founder
  
• Foundation for the Defense of Democracies -- member

External Resources

• Scott Sherman, "The Mideast Comes to Columbia (http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20050404&s=sherman)", The Nation, March 16, 2005.

What were the initial charges?

1. Some society leaders are Islamic extremists (Herald, Fox, David Project, CPT).

2. Boston could become a radical Islamic center (CPT).

3. There is widespread extremist influence in US mosques including religiously bigoted Saudia Arabian literature in mosque libraries and sympathy for various Islamic movements (Steven Emerson).

4. The ISB has close ties to radical Islam, to wit, Abdurahman Alamoudi, who is supposed to be "the founder" of the ISB and who was recently convicted and jailed in an assassination plot against a Saudi official (Herald).

5. The ISB has ties to Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who is a prominent cleric living in Qatar and who albeit reformist on some issues holds a controversial stance on suicide bombing, to wit, general opposition to them including 9/11 and the London bombings but support for them in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and in Iraq (Herald).

6. A unnamed current ISB leader has published "anti-Semitic" reports in unnamed British newspapers. (Herald)

7. Mosque leaders are not moderate (Jeffrey Robbins, attorney for the citizens groups).

8. The leaders and the teachings of the Boston Mosque will not be acceptable (Dennis Hale, President, CPT).

9. Boston improperly sold the land for the Roxbury Mosque site for less than the valuation (unnamed Boston resident).

Presenting these charges to the CS Monitor readership requires far more clarification than the article provided.

The meaning of "extreme" in the original CS monitor article is simply unclear.

Zionists generally refer to anyone that supports equal human rights for Jews, Muslims, and Christians in the Holy Land as an "extremist."

Eastern European ethnic Ashkenazim generally believe they had the right to steal Palestine from the native population on the basis of an etymological relationship between the word "Jew" and the word "Judea." The same reasoning would lead to the conclusion that the Irish have the right to ethnically cleanse and steal Rome because the Irish mostly practice the Roman Catholic religion, which contains the word "Roman" in its name. Zionist ideology is so extreme that it is practically psychotic.

Interrogating the accusers with regard to Zionism would have been a good way to understand what they mean by "extreme."

The journalist should have asked the accusers what they mean by "radical Islamic center." American Arabs and Muslims consistently prove to be one of the most loyal subpopulations within the USA and have no issue of divided loyalties as do ethnic Ashkenazi American Israel-advocates. The ISB Mosque on Prospect Street does not fly foreign flags, but Rabbi Hamilton's synogogue on Harvard St. flies the Israeli flag. Anyone that examines contemporary Jewish literature finds pervasive foreign influence. When I visit synagogue libraries, I generally find extremely hostile anti-Arab, anti-Muslim, anti-Catholic and anti-Gentile literature, which is often published in foreign countries but also very often in the USA. I am not sure why local origin would make such literature any more acceptable. Most synagogue libraries contain a Talmud, which attacks Christian beliefs, calls Jesus the son of a prostitute and declares the execution of Jesus by an ancient sanhedrin to have been completely legitimate.

It is not a bad technique of misdirection for disloyal extremists and radicals like Charles Jacobs and friends to project onto others the crimes and misbehavior of which they themselves are guilty. The article should have included questioning the accusers to illuminate whether this sort of diversionary tactic is an aspect of the controversy.

Interrogating the Herald reporter about the disingenuousness of trying to create guilt by association with Abdurahman Alamoudi would have been worthwhile. Alamoudi had long association with the Clintons and was a Washington insider for approximately a decade. From what we have been learning about the techniques the US government has been applying to trials of alleged "Islamic radicals," I have to have some doubts about the justness of his conviction. In any case, the Herald has long been hostile to Saudi Arabia and its ruling family. I have to wonder why this newspaper is suddenly so concerned about the assassination of Saudi officials, for whom the Herald has practically proposed a violent overthrow. Asking the reporter about the apparent contradiction in attitude towards Saudi Arabia between the anti-Mosque story and previous Herald articles would have been valuable.

I would also have asked the Herald reporter what problem he has with al-Qaradawi's position. Does he believe that Jews should have the right to plunder and murder non-Jews with impunity? Every American that I have met who has spent more than four months living among Palestinians in the Occupied Territories concludes that the Zionist colonizers constitute a criminal population of murderous genocidal thieves and interlopers. Resistance against a military occupation is completely legal. As for Qaradawi's position on suicide attacks on US troops and collaborators in Iraq, today, there is no doubt about the nature of the American invasion of Iraq. The USA waged illegal aggressive war against Iraq for the sake of making the Middle East safe for Zionism and has killed approximately 100,000 Iraqis since the start of the war in this vile cause.

See A Clean Break, A New Strategy for the Defense of the Realm (http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/archive/1990s/instituteforadvancedstrategicandpoliticalstudies.htm). Why would anybody be surprised that lots of Arabs, Muslims, and decent people throughout the world consider suicide attacks on US troops and collaborators completely legitimate?

As for the anti-Semitism charges, it is hard to make a comment without actually reading the alleged anti-Semitic remarks, but many racist ethnic Ashkenazim and their panderers define hating Jews for any reason to be anti-Semitism. In non-scholarly discourse I define anti-Semitism to be hating Jews for being Jews, and such hatred is, of course, totally wrong, but hating Zionist colonizers and racist ethnic Ashkenazim for what they do -- to wit, atrocities in Palestine and supporting atrocities in Palestine -- is completely justified. To help the reader understand and judge the accusation of "anti-Semitism," the article should have pinned down the definition of anti-Semitism that the anti-mosque groups and individuals are using.

The charges of "lack of moderation" and "lack of acceptability" are totally nebulous and probably racist. The article should have explained what the anti-mosque activists consider moderate. After reading through the website of The Episcopal Jewish Alliance (http://www.episcopaljewishalliance.org/), an organization founded by Charles Jacobs and Dennis Hale, I have to believe that in the minds of the accusers "moderation" means accepting the legitimacy of the State of Israel. The issue of Israel is simply an ethical no-brainer. In 1947-8 racist Eastern Europeans stole the territory of pre-1967 Israel from the native population. They ethnically cleansed that territory of the native Palestinian population, murdered many Palestinians, expelled the rest and robbed them all of practically all their movable and immovable property. Zionist colonizers have continued this program practically non-stop ever since. It is perfectly reasonable to object to the existence of the State of Israel, and there are many Jews that do not consider the Zionist state legitimate. Should they be forbidden from building synagogues? Why is it perfectly acceptable for any other American to object to Apartheid Israel, but Muslim Americans must be silent?

The leaders of the Mosque are likely to teach that theft, ethnic cleansing and murder are unacceptable. Islamic teachings are good ethics and make good citizens. It is totally obnoxious that racist Ashkenazim and their panderers believe that they have some inherent right to judge acceptability of mosque leaders and teachers. Maybe we should start monitoring the religious services of ethnic Ashkenazi Zionists. Those synagogues that support or advocate the use of US tax dollars collected from hard-working Americans to finance the genocidal expansionist State of Israel should be closed. If the properties on which such synagogues have been constructed were purchased from government entities, the sales should be voided by the logic of the ethnic Ashkenazi anti-Mosque activists.

The whole anti-Mosque campaign is completely un-American, and I am hardly surprised that a Polish-born ethnic fundamentalist extremist like Charles Jacobs seems to be at the center of the operation.

Who Made the Countercharges?

Searching on-line for the public filings of the Islamic Society of Boston brings up information on the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA). Because the address is 204 Prospect St in Cambridge, I assume that I found the correct documents. As I understand the operation of ISNA, it is a national organization that often finances mosques through local advisory boards.

The web page http://www.guidestar.org/pqShowGsReport.do?npoId=336328 gives the following information.

MISSION AND PROGRAMS

Mission

MEET THE SPIRITUAL NEEDS OF MUSLIMS

Programs

1. HAVE FIVE TIMES DAILY PRAYERS THROUGHOUT THE YEAR. HAVE A RELIGIOUS SCHOOL EVERY SUNDAY. PROVIDE A SPIRITUAL GUIDANCE TO OVER 5,000 MUSLIMS

IRS Form 990 can be found at http://www.guidestar.org/pqShowGsReport.do?npoId=336328.

The directors are:

1. Osama Kandil, who lives in Virginia,

2. Ali Tobah, who lives in Virginia,

3. Suod Ahafi, who lives in Cambridge, and

4. Walid Fitaihi, who lives in Saudi Arabia.

Salma Kazmi is the full-time assistant director.

If more investigation of the original anti-Mosque charges had determined what the anti-Mosque accusers had meant by extremism, moderation, anti-Semitism and acceptability, and if the definitions had, as I believe, really related to the acceptance of the legitimacy of Israel, the article could have included some interviews with the ISB directors with regard to the question of Israel. In truth, the Mosque has not, to my knowledge, made any outspoken comments in regard to Israel. The anti-Mosque group is merely making assumptions based on some very obscure connections.

American Arabs and Muslims tend to be evasive on the question of Zionism because they have some perfectly justified trepidation about the power of ethnic Ashkenazi Americans in US society, but a little research shows that the vast majority of American Arabs and Muslims, like Arabs and Muslims outside the USA support the human rights of Palestinian victims of Israel's Apartheid with perfectly legitimate and good reason. (Muslims in general have no fixed view on a one-state or two-state or any solution.)

An open discussion of the wrongful nature of the Zionist state would have been a valuable contribution if it had been included in the CS Monitor article. An ever increasing proportion of the general American population is beginning to realize the irredeemably vile nature of the Zionist state, which is a fossilized remnant of the worst aspects of 1930s Poland and Germany. American Muslims are hardly alone in the frustration with Israel shared by many American Christians and many American Jews.

What are the Countercharges?

According to the article,

[in] its defamation suit, the ISB charges that the media, the local groups, and several individuals have joined in "a concerted, well-coordinated effort to deprive ... members of the Boston Muslim community of their basic right of free association and the free exercise of their religion."

While the article contained a lot of mostly ambiguous charges from the anti-Mosque forces, this paragraph really does not provide an effective counterbalance. Americans deserve to know more about the concerted, well-coordinated attempt by the pro-Israel advocacy groups to deprive Americans of their basic civil liberties. I have not read the ISB complaint and associated affidavits, but they must have included more details and specific examples, which could have made the article more informative. Contacting the directors to get interviews or statements or telling the readers that no director provided any information would have been useful.

Cursory analysis of the people associated with the anti-Mosque forces does in fact suggest some sort of coordinated effort that includes well-connected and wealthy ethnic Ashkenazi American individuals in the Boston-area business, media, academic (BC and Brandeis) and organized Jewish communities. Such analysis also indicates that Charles Jacobs may be providing the coordination. Investigating the public filings of CAMERA, one of a plethora of anti-Islamic and anti-Arab organizations of which Jacobs is identified as a founder, provides the following list of officers, directors, and key employees:

Andrea Levin,

Alex Safian, Ph. D.

Joshua Katzen

Leonard Wisse

Carol Greenwald

Charlse S. Cramer

David Wolf, Esq.

Richard Allen

David Cayne

Marshall Cooper

Linda Frieze

Eli E. Hertz

Leo Kahn

Amelia Welt Katzen

David Kudish

Henry Lerner

Kenneth Levin

Winifred Meiselman

Frank Resnek

Evelyn Rubin

Mark Rubin

Fred Schwartz

Henry Sherman

Hillel Stavis

David P. Steinmann

Saul Stern

Pastor Roy Stewart

Herman Swartz

Judith Swartz

Harry C. Wechsler

Robert Weisberg

Maxine Laura Wolf

I have not investigated these individuals, but two names jump out at the reader at first glance, Leonard Wisse, who is the husband of Professor Ruth Wisse at Harvard, and Hillel Stavis, who was the proprietor of the Cambridge Bookstore Wordsworth, which recently closed.

The Wisses link this web of interconnected organizations to Martin Peretz, the Cambridge-resident arch-Zionist owner and editor-in-chief of The New Republic. Peretz funded the professorship that Ruth Wisse currently occupies. He is also a major contributor to the Democratic Party in Massachusetts and nationally. Ruth Wisse is also a close defender of Lawrence Summers, president of Harvard University. Summers has sacrificed all semblance of commitment to free academic discourse upon the altar of defending Zionist racism. He accused the Harvard Divestment movement of "anti-Semitism in effect if not in intent." Summers effectively thwarted a $2 million contribution by the late Sheikh Zayed, a leading Arab humanitarian, to the Harvard Divinity School and thereby severely impaired the ability of Arabs and Muslims to have any input into discussions of future development of Harvard University.

In the course of this particular controversy, a Harvard Divinity student (now alumna), Rachel Fish, founded Students for an Ethical Divinity School, apparently with secret help from Charles Jacobs. She later went to work for The David Project. The David Project has for years placed racist anti-Arab and anti-Muslims speakers on Harvard Campus. These speakers routinely engage in discriminatory defamation of Arabs and Muslims, and the Harvard administration has been completely deaf to the complaints of concerned students and alumni.

Hillel Stavis has been a large contributor to WBUR/NPR and has worked very hard to influence WBUR/NPR coverage the Middle East. This coverage is highly slanted in favor of Zionism and Israel. A recent "Inside Out" program, Exodus 1948, is quite typical. It provided a laudatory examination of the efforts of ethnic Ashkenazi-run ships to bring Jewish displaced persons to Palestine in 1948. The narrator never mentioned that the ultimate purpose of this transport of Europeans to Palestine was to provide cannon fodder for the theft of Palestine from the native population. The narrator also did not mention that the vast majority of Jewish DPs had no desire to emigrate to Palestine (according to the research of Lucy Dawidowicz and of Yosef Grodzinsky).

With people like the Wisses and Stavis on-board with Charles Jacobs, coordinated efforts to defame Arabs and Muslims apparently extends to Harvard University, at least one national political journal (The New Republic) and National Public Radio.

Analyzing more such connections in the organized ethnic Ashkenazi community would probably have shown many more suspicious connections and assisted in concretizing the complaint of the ISB.

What Was Left Out of the Story?

In comparison with other articles about the Boston Mosque controversy many details were missing from the CS monitor that were present in other reports. Perhaps the most glaring omission were the details of the suit that James Policastro has brought against the Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA) for selling the Roxbury property to the ISB for less than the city's valuation. It is a strange lawsuit. Cities tend to overvalue assets because the more assets a city has, the higher the bond rating that it can obtain. It is not unusual to give a cash buyer a break, and the goods and services that the ISB has offered to the city are worth far more than the $225,000 difference between the price paid and the city valuation. For example, the ISB agreed to provide Roxbury Community College with a 5,000 book Islamic library. A good 5,000 volume Arabic and English Islamic research library of the sort I might put together could easily run to $500,000 because the books would generally cost $50 -- $200 each.

How are the Parties Paying Legal Expenses?

The Poliscastro-BRA lawsuit is potentially expensive with no obvious remuneration to the plaintiff because relief would be the reversal of the property sale. How is Policastro paying for his attorney, Evan Slavitt?

Are the very wealthy associates of Charles Jacobs paying for the lawsuit?

They certainly have the resources.

Is Slavitt doing the case pro-Bono?

Slavitt is general counsel to the Massachusetts Republican Party and has run for State Attorney General in the past. Romney has tried to generate political capital by talking up the monitoring and bugging of mosques in Massachusetts. Is Slavitt trying to jump on this xenophobic anti-Muslim bandwagon?

Is there perhaps another conduit covering the costs? Jacobs seems to have backdoor access to the Harvard and Boston College administrations via Ruth Wisse at Harvard and Dennis Hayes at BC. Both universities are buying up lots of property. As I understand Harvard intends to acquire a lot of property in Alston and Brighton while BC is looking at a lot of property in Brighton. Jacobs is an Alston-Brighton real-estate investor and slumlord. If he received insider information on upcoming Harvard or BC acquisitions, he would be able to buy low and sell high in order to obtain more than enough money to fund numerous lawsuits as well as the activities of The David Project and his other extremist Zionist endeavors.

Miscellaneous Issues

Evan Slavitt's father, David R. Slavitt, who is a poet, translator, and -- if I am not mistaken -- a pornographer, has run for the office of State Assemblyman to represent several wards in Somerville. I have to wonder whether this political effort might be related to the activities of the Somerville Divestment Project, a local organization committed to ending the application of Somerville's public funds to financially risky and morally reprehensible Israel Bonds and similar instruments of investment. Even though the Somerville Divestment Project has no links to the ISB, the organized Boston Jewish community has probably convinced itself that there are connections. (I hypothesize that the anti-Mosque forces are working to intimidate the Muslims either from making any public statements in support of the Divestment movement or from providing logistic or tactical support.) Many groups involved in the anti-Mosque effort are simultaneously fighting Divestment and the Roxbury Mosque. The David Project maintains the Judeo-Christian Alliance, whose specific purpose is focused on preventing American churches from divesting from Israel.

Why Is There Such an Effort Against the Roxbury Mosque?

Boston ethnic Ashkenazim know very little about Muslims. Even though Zionist propaganda refers to the ages old conflict between Muslims and Jews, ethnic Ashkenazim are Eastern Europeans, who have essentially the same connection to the Middle East (including Palestine) and Muslim populations as the Irish have.

They tend to view the conflict over Palestine through the lens of the conflicts in Eastern Europe between ethnic Ashkenazim and non-Ashkenazim (including Jews that belong to other ethnic groups). Because ethnic Ashkenazi Americans generally know very little about the facts of the history of ethnic interrelations in Eastern Europe, generally believe in a false pogrom and persecution version of their own history, and have developed an extremely ornate anti-Gentile (antigoyizm in Yiddish, Antigojismus in German), the organized ethnic Ashkenazi community reacts with total paranoia to perceived threats. The Boston ethnic Ashkenazi communal structure, developed in the 1930s as a reaction to Father Coughlin, is exceptionally vindictive and aggressive in comparison with other Ashkenazi communities throughout the USA.

When Boston ethnic Ashkenazi leaders view the Roxbury Mosque plans, they see an impressive Muslim counterpart to the Combined Jewish Philanthropies (CJP) building on High Steet. The Roxbury Mosque and its congregation even with the Mosque in its current unfinished state is already more well integrated with the surrounding neighborhood than ethnic Ashkenazi synagogues and their communities ever manage to be. While ethnic Ashkenazim keep themselves aloof from Americans long after they have ceased to practice the remnants of Jewish religion, Muslims have no history of communal separation, work for integration with their neighbors, feed the poor and visit the elderly.

The CJP building serves as command center for Zionist activities along the East Coast of the United States and at least as far west as Michigan. The CJP certainly will not sit by idly as Muslims create (from the standpoint of ethnic Ashkenazi paranoia) an anti-Zionist command center right in the CJP's own backyard.

In fact, as I have learned from attending ISB services and activities, the ISB is almost completely innocuous and focused on religious activities unlike the Boston ethnic Ashkenazi community, which is almost entirely secular and focused on ethnic Ashkenazi ethnic fundamentalist politics. The ISB, which mostly serves Sunni Muslims, faces challenges alien to the experience of ethnic Ashkenazi Americans because the Boston Muslim community is extremely heterogenous and consists of subpopulations from an exceptionally large number of ethnic, cultural and linguistic backgrounds unlike Boston ethnic Ashkenazim, who are almost entirely homogenous in language, culture and ethnicity. As a result, the Muslim community has not found time nor the will to engage in Israel/Palestine debates.

Perhaps the anti-Mosque forces fear above all the possibility of general American realization Muslims and Arabs are also people too not much different from the vast majority of Americans. Such a revelation would send the Neoconservatives and other Zionist subversives into total political isolation even as it rendered unsustainable continued American financial support for Israel, Israel's racism, and Israel's aggression..

Conclusion

Because of the difficulties with which the ISB is faced and because most Muslims, who come from almost entirely Muslim countries, have no experience with the sort of coordinated attacks that the organized Boston ethnic Ashkenazi community has mounted on them, the ISB response has been for several years quite ineffective, but from my observation, the organized Boston-area Muslim community that is coming into being is learning fast.

The Boston Mosque controversy is a small piece of a very large picture that harms not only America but the world. The organized Ashkenazi American community is attempting by every means possible to deprive American Muslims and Arabs of their basic right to freedom of expression. All patriotic US citizens committed to American values and principles should be completely offended by the David Project and related organizations and should feel threatened by this racist ethnic Ashkenazi conspiracy against freedom.

The CS Monitor has failed its journalistic responsibility and duty to cover this story.

[BTW, a very similar controversy may be in the process of erupting in Dearborn, Michigan.

Take a look at http://cbn.com/cbnnews/news/060110a.asp.

[I think this article has been moved to http://www.cbn.com/media/browse_videos_info.aspx?s=/vod/michigan.]

I have not been able to connect Debbie Schlussel directly with Boston anti-Mosque forces, but she has made public appearances with Charles Jacobs.]

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

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Report on Robert Spencer and the Boston Anti-Islamic Controversy

By Joachim Martillo

Anti-Islamic and anti-Arab talks/propaganda sessions that have been taking place with increasing frequency in the USA since the beginning of February seem to be coordinated (at least in the Boston and the New York/New Jersey area where I spend most of my time). The current increase in defamation of Arab and Muslim spokesmen throughout the USA and the world is probably connected with such indoctrination sessions. Robert Spencer's February 3rd talk, which took place in Newton, Massachusetts, and which is discussed below, is fairly typical. *

Spencer spoke a little about the Roxbury Mosque and tried to identify as jihadists some people, who in the past had some association with the Islamic Society of Boston, but most of the talk was a sort of rambling attack on Islam that cherry-picked verses from the Quran, commentaries, ahadith, historical incidents, cultural practices, Islamic legal theory, fatawa of various degrees of importance, and various historical, philosophical and political works by Muslim intellectuals over the last millennium. If you want to get an idea of the nature of the talk, you could peruse Islam Unveiled: Disturbing Questions About the World's Fastest Growing Faith at the library. Please do not buy it. Or if you do so, get it secondhand so that he gets no royalty.

Spencer's approach was similar to the anti-Jewish polemic that was common in Germany and Eastern Europe in the late 19th century and early 20th century. (To be honest, I consider Rohling's Der Talmudjude to have been a good deal more coherent and erudite albeit equally wrong and malicious.**) Spencer made a big deal about taqiyah even though Maimonides gives in the Mishneh Torah exactly the same sort of permission to dissemble in the same way under exactly the same circumstances. Spencer has more or less recreated the anti-Semitic calumny that Jews give themselves permission to lie every year during the kol nidrei prayer at Yom Kippur and transformed it into an anti-Muslim slander.

Spencer does not like the Quranic verse that assigns authority to men over women even though Abraham Geiger correctly pointed out over 100 years ago that the verse is practically identical to traditional Jewish interpretations of the punishment of Eve in Genesis. Spencer also made a big deal that the Quran characterizes Sabbath-breakers as apes and pigs and that this language creeps into anti-Israel and Zionist polemic. Perhaps, American Jews are sensitive about the issue because 90% of them are Sabbath breakers, but the Hebrew Bible records in Numbers that Moses ordered the summary execution of a Sabbath breaker. Name calling is mild by comparison. I do agree that the terminology is probably inappropriate when attacking Israel and Zionism. Identifying Zionist colonizers as murderous genocidal racist thieves and interlopers corresponds much more closely to my observations of Zionist behavior in Stolen Palestine (pre-1967 Israel) and Occupied Palestine (the lands conquered in 1967).

Spencer ranted for a while about dhimma even though this area of Islamic jurisprudence is quite similar to the canon law and halakhic rules about nonbelievers under Christian or Jewish authority. In any case, the rules for dealing with nonbelievers in all three religions have historically been mostly theoretical because Jews have only rarely been in a situation where they held sovereignty over non-Jews in recent times, and the major Christian and Islamic political entities over the last 500 years have usually used ad hoc systems in place of the specific ordinances of religious law.

He cited out of context a lot of verses that discussed struggle with idolaters or unbelievers and tried to argue that Islam was incompatible with the idea of universal human rights (as if Zionism is). He also cited Kabbani and another Sheikh (probably out of context) in a sort of ipse dixit argument.

Later during questioning he tried to demonize as uniquely evil the desire of ibn Khaldun for the expansion of Sharia throughout the world as if ideas like manifest destiny, mission civilatrice and the white man's burden did not express a similar mentality in the most positive interpretation and a very racist mentality in a more realistic interpretation.

Over all, Spencer seems to have intended to use the talk to rally the troops against the Mosque and Islam or Muslims in general. Many of the Jewish attendees were quite offended by the thrust and the content. Several questioned Spencer's competence in interpreting the texts and asked why he cited questionable Orientalist literature instead of asking Muslim scholars. Two compared Spencer's talk with traditional anti-Jewish polemics. The reaction was to some degree correlated with age. The older people seemed somewhat more anti-Muslim, but on the whole amount of criticism from the audience suggested that anti-Mosque activity is probably on the decline.

There was a suggestion that there should be an open debate or discussion between Spencer and a Muslim scholar. The proposal is questionable. Spencer can pack an amazing number of lies and misrepresentations into 10 seconds, and the answer to each point would probably require several minutes.

The idea that Muslims must somehow prove themselves worthy to Jews, Zionists or their panderers is simply offensive, and part of the required proof seems to include an affirmation of the legitimacy of Israel even though I can cite hundreds of prominent Rabbinical and Karaite scholars as well as eminent Jewish intellectuals of various ethnicities, who will state unequivocally that Zionism is a vile idea that is either racist or runs counter to the last 1000 years of Rabbinic and Karaite Jewish thought.

If this idea of an open discussion goes forward, the format should provide equality. If Spencer is going to interrogate a Muslim scholar about various religious, cultural, communal, historical, social and political aspects of Islam or about the behavior of Muslims from various ethnic groups or states, the Muslim scholar should be able to pose similar queries to Spencer about various aspects of Judaica, for ethnic Ashkenazi Zionist Neocons have done a tremendous amount of damage to the USA in manipulating the government to make war on Iraq for the sake of Israel. Why does Spencer focus on Arab and Muslim Americans, who have proven time again to be one of the most patriotic Americans, while he ignores the obvious disloyalty of the wealthy and influention Ashkenazi American ethnic group, whose members identify far more with Zionist colonizers than with their fellow Americans?

Spencer seems to fixate on certain aspects of the Quranic text, a few specific commentaries, a very narrow portion of Islamic law, certain cultural practices, and the opinions of representatives of political or fundamentalist Islam. Identifying exactly comparable areas in which to question Spencer would be tricky.

Modern Rabbinic Judaism is historically more the religion of the Talmud than the religion of the Hebrew Bible, but today for most American Jews Jewish religion seems primarily a combination of Holocaust fixation, worship of the State of Israel and ethnic narcissism.

While ethnic Muslim identity exists in Eastern Europe among Polish-Lithuanian Tatar Muslims and among Bosnians, Muslims constitute much more a community of faith than do American Jews or Zionist colonizers. When Muslims use the term Jew, they mean a community that follows the tawrat musa. Before Zionism became the dominant ideology among ethnic Ashkenazim, Ashkenazim typically used Jew (Yid in Yiddish) to mean a member of the Ashkenazi ethnic group, which represents something like 98% of American Jews. In order to legitimize the theft of Palestine from the native population Zionists reinterpreted the Ashkenazi ethnic group as the pan-Judaic ethnonational group of anyone whose ancestors practiced some form of Judaic religion. As a consequence political Islamism is probably much more comparable to Zionism, which Nordau, one of the founding Zionist leaders, called Muskeljudentum (Muscle Judaism).

If Spencer wants to question the role that Saudis play in spreading specifically Saudi forms of Islam, his Muslim counterpart might want to discuss the role that Jewish Hollywood executives play in spreading ideas about male-female relations that seem to have developed in the specifically Eastern European Ashkenazi social context (including the Frankist Jewish heresy that encouraged adultery and promiscuity).

To be frank, Spencer really did not seem to have much in the way of qualifications to write or to discuss Islam, and I do not know of any Muslim scholar that would have sufficient command of Judaica to provide a reasonable counterpoint. A discussion or debate between Spencer and a Muslim scholar would probably generate more heat than light and might even give extra life to the anti-Mosque campaign, which seems to be dying.

* Announcing the event: Thursday, February 3, 2005 8:00 PM The Boston Mosque: Does Tolerance and Diversity Go Both Ways? Robert Spencer, Director of Jihad Watch will discuss the Boston Mosque controversy and why it should be a matter of concern for every defender of Israel and believer in universal human rights. Sponsored by the Temple Emanuel Israel Action Forum. Contact: Denise Telio, 617-558-8100. Free and open to the public.

** Even the titles of books that belong to the modern American anti-Islamic/anti-Muslim polemic are similar to the titles of books that belong to the historic Central and Eastern European anti-Jewish polemic. Robert Spencer's Islam Unveiled is a clear echo of Eisenmenger's Entdecktes Judentum (Judaism/Jewry Uncovered).

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

The David Project, Inc.

From http://www.guidestar.org/pqShowGsReport.do?npoId=100180092.

Who We Are

The David Project develops educated, courageous and skillful leaders to defeat the ideological assault on the Jewish State, which is the new hatred endangering world Jewry.

MISSION AND PROGRAMS

Mission

The David Project develops and strengthens Jewish leaders who will mobilize the community to effectively advocate for Israel and support the Jewish people; take back the campus by diminishing the impact of Israel's detractors, increasing the support of Israel on campus, and reclaiming the moral status of Zionism; strengthen the pro-Israel and pro-Jewish forces within the churches; and partner with Jewish schools across the country to incorporate Israel advocacy and leadership skills into their core curricula.

Programs

---

GOALS AND RESULTS

Accomplishments for Fiscal Year Ending December 31, 2004

1. Created wide awareness of the anti-Semitic imagery used by Sabeel Ecumenical Liberation Theology Center to demonize the State of Israel.

2. Trained college activists from over 41 campuses in effective Israel advocacy.

3. Installed our 14-unit Israel advocacy curriculum into 12 Jewish high schools.

Objectives for Fiscal Year Beginning November 1, 2005

1. Increase the number of Jewish Day Schools using our 14-unit Israel Advocacy curriculum to 20.

2. 100% increase in David Project Campus Fellows participants in Summer 2006.

3. Develop David Project Seminar for Zionist Through and Leadership for synagogue lay leaders; develop the David Project Young Leadership Program featuring nationally recognized faculty to immerse promising Jewish leaders in a transformational experience that fosters courage, passion, skill and commitment to Israel.

Sphere: Related Content

For Tony Blair: The Real Extremism

Someone that believes that Eastern European ethnic Ashkenazim had the right to steal Palestine from the native population on the basis of an etymological relationship between the word "Jew" and the word "Judea" would by the same reasoning argue that the Irish have the right to ethnically cleanse and steal Rome because the Irish mostly practice the Roman Catholic religion, which contains the word "Roman" in its name. Zionist ideology is so extreme that it is practically psychotic, and any Zionist or supporter of Zionism should be denaturalized and treated as a dangerous psychopath. Sphere: Related Content

Some Thoughts on "Islamic Terror" for Professional anti-Islamists like Pipes

ABOUT THE STRUGGLE FOR ISLAM'S SOUL

Like ZIAUDDIN SARDAR in The New Statesman (http://www.newstatesman.com/200507180004), the western-educated Lebanese that run The Daily Star also shout the standard battle-cries of anti-Islamic demonization (see http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=17&article_id=16760), Islamic fundamentalist terror has little connection to Muslim faith. This terrorist program results from a volatile combination of generic religious nativism, communalist primordialism and reaction to Western modernity. A similar collection of phenomena appeared at the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century especially in Central and Eastern Europe. In those days the radical ideological brew also included economic revolutionism, ethnic fundamentalism and organic nationalism.

Today's popular misnomer of Islamic terror is not as unprecendented as Karen Armstrong argues. Ninety years ago the bogeyman of Judeobolshevik terrorism was a major component of political, popular and academic discourse. Honest historians will admit that there was a lot more truth in this historical anti-Semitic slur than there is in modern anti-Muslim terminology even if the vast majority of ethnic Ashkenazim of that time period were neither Bolsheviks nor Communists.

Yet Bolshevism was not the only murderous and radical ideology to take root among ethnic Ashkenazim back then. Stanislawski's Zionism and the Fin de Siecle points out that Herzl, Nordau and Jabotinski, who were the three main founders and creators of Zionist ideology, were strongly attracted to the anti-Semitic mindset. They planted the seeds of an ethnic Ashkenazi variant of such violent, racist and irrational thinking in Zionist ideology. The crop that has germinated from their seminal ideas has reached full bloom in the ongoing anti-Islamic demonization that racist Zionist colonizers and racist ethnic Ashkenazim are incessantly distributing throughout Western and world media.

As a consequence, racist ethnic Ashkenazim and Zionist colonizers provide yet another example of the common historical pattern where the descendants of a victimized population become themselves a population of victimizers. The material that the professional anti-Islamists produce today even almost exactly reproduces the titles of works that professional Judeophobes produced in the past. Probably with no awareness of his far more learned but similarly malicious forerunner, Robert Spencer called his recently published collection of anti-Islamic bigotry Islam Unveiled, a title that has a striking resemblance to Entdecktes Judentum (Judaism Revealed), the name Eisenmenger chose for his epic screed against Judaism and Jewry. Just as Serbs, who viewed themselves as victims of genocide during WW2, fell so easily into a murderous victimization mode during the 1990s, likewise today racist ethnic Ashkenazim and racist Zionist colonizers, who are descended from the victims of incitement that lead to genocide, are now major purveyors or encouragers(*) of very similar incitement against Arabs and Muslims.

Joachim Martillo

(*) Spencer is not ethnic Ashkenazi, but most of his readership is.

How to Talk About Zionism, A New Improved Guide By Joachim Martillo

Al-Jazeerah, March 8, 2005

While Israeli law is generally phrased with the use of the terms Jew or Jewish people,(*) Zionism is almost wholly a production of ethnic Ashkenazim.(**) Polish or Russian Jews of Tatar/Turkic, Persian or Georgian ethnicity were not involved in the development of Zionist ideology and generally have not gotten along particularly well with ethnic Ashkenazim even if in recent times racist ethnic Ashkenazim have managed to co-opt, recruit and enmesh Jews of other ethnicities into Zionist crimes.

The point is important because Zionist propaganda reinterprets the Ashkenazi ethnic group as the pan-Judaic ethnonational group in order to make a ridiculous primordialist claim to Palestine just as German Nazi propaganda equated modern Germans to ancient Teutonic and Gothic tribes in order to claim that only pure Germans had a right to reside in German territories. Neither primordialist claim has a shred of truth, but it is worthwhile to remember that the basic ideas of both German Nazi and also Zionist primordialism developed together in the common fields of Central and Eastern European blood and soil nationalism. The poisonous weeds of German Nazism and Zionism cross fertilized each other.

Modern Germans probably have more Celtic, Slavic and Turkic ancestry than they have ancient Teutonic or ancient Gothic ancestry.

Ethnic Ashkenazim have no ancestral connection to Palestine. The culture, language and religion of Roman period Palestinian Galileans, Judeans and Idumeans were completely unlike those of modern ethnic Ashkenazim.

Progressives should not give any legitimacy to Zionist (really ethnic Ashkenazi Nazi) terminology by using the racist language of Zionism. In 1948 racist ethnic Ashkenazim stole Palestine with concommittant plundering and ethnic cleansing of the native Palestinian population. Today, racist ethnic Ashkenazim and racist Zionist colonizers manipulate the US political system to the detriment of the USA for the sake of Israel. These racists squander American wealth and lives to the benefit of their racist tribalism.

Avoiding the terms Jew, Jewish, Judaism etc. provides many benefits.

Ignorant Christians often believe that because the foregoing terms have some sort of etymological relationship to Judea, Jews have some sort of overriding right to claim Palestine. The idea is moronic because the use of the term Roman in Roman Catholic certainly does not give Roman Catholic Irish the right to steal Rome from the residents of Rome.

Furthermore, when people argue that all decent people should criticize racist Jews for what they do (stealing Palestine or supporting the theft of Palestine), many worry that such criticism comes too close to criticizing Jews for being Jews, which is a bad thing. When people argue that all decent people should criticize racist Ashkenazim and racist Zionist colonizers for what they do (stealing Palestine or supporting the theft of Palestine), there is no difference between such criticism and the criticism of German racists during the 30s and 40s for ethnic cleansing, invading Poland, and mass murdering. Most people consider criticism of German racists and German Nazis at that time period to have been a good thing. Likewise today criticizing ethnic Ashkenazi racists and Zionist colonizers is also a good thing. Everyone should do it (especially antiracist ethnic Ashkenazim, who can neutralize bogus accusations of anti-Semitism by taking the vanguard position in demanding the abolition of the State of Israel and the eradication of Zionism/ethnic Ashkenazi Nazism).

(*) Likewise German Nazi law was usually phrased with the use of the terms Aryan or Aryan race. Modern Israeli Hebrew does not make a distinction between people or race, and the words used correspond best to German Volk.

(**) Likewise German Nazism was almost wholly a production of ethnic Germans and not every group that the German Nazis defined to be Aryans. Houston Stewart Chamberlain is one of those few non-Germans that made a fairly large contribution to German Nazi thinking. The Polish nationalist poet Mickiewicz made some similar and early contributions to Zionist thinking among ethnic Ashkenazim.

On Terrorism

By American history and precedent terrorism against state-supported violent racism is completely justified. Palestinian terrorism against Israeli Zionist racists is exactly as justified as hacking slavers to death with swords in Bleeding Kansas. Reverend Professor Ralph Waldo Emerson (HDS, HC 1821) and Henry David Thoreau (HC 1837) raised money in Harvard Yard to support John Brown in Bleeding Kansas. All patriotic antiracist Americans and decent human beings in general should support Palestinian terrorism against Israeli Zionists, who are the enemies of the whole human race.

The only downside to Palestinian terrorism is the death of the Palestinian attacker. There have been no innocent Zionist civilians since the Zionists began their war of ethnic cleansing in December 1947. Suicide attacks against Zionist civilians are no more problematic than suicide attacks against German Nazi civilians during the Hitler period. Even though most Zionist factions effectively collaborated with Nazis from 1933-39 under the Haavarah or Transfer Agreement, Jabotinskians undertook assassinations against German Nazi civilians, and Jabotinsky called for suicide attacks against Germans.

Zionists are waging a dirty demographic war against Palestinians and do not respect the status of protected noncombatants under the Geneva conventions. Racist Zionist invaders, thieves and interlopers have been brutalizing, raping and murdering the native population (including women and children) of Palestine at least since the 19-naughts. Moreover, Zionists have frequently stated since the beginning of the 20th century that every single Jew in Palestine is a weapon or foot soldier in the demographic war against Palestine. The defenders always have the right to destroy the weapons or kill the soldiers of the invaders. Under such conditions Palestinians have no recourse but proportionate response to purposeful and indiscriminate IDF murder of Palestinian civilians.

Americans have been conditioned to believe that Israeli Zionists as Jews could not possibly do the horrible things that anyone will see and experience if he or she lives among Palestinians for a few weeks. (Joshua Hammer, former Jerusalem bureau chief for Newsweek and later a Nieman fellow, made such a statement at Harvard.) In fact, during the 30s many Americans refused to believe that the German Nazis were committing Nazi crimes because such criminality was inconceivable for Germans, a people that had produced Goethe, Lessing, Schiller, Beethoven, Mozart, Bach etc. The idea that German Nazis or Israeli Zionists could not perpetrate the crimes of Nazism and Zionism is simply racist prejudice based in an assumption of German or Israeli Jewish superiority to the people they are victimizing.

Israeli Zionists are the most militarized people on the planet. There is hardly a square centimeter of Israel that is not a legitimate military target, and buses are dual use civilian military vehicles that are used as troop carriers and that service illegal settlements. By US rules of engagement attacking such vehicles is certainly allowable, and during the Kosova war the USA attacked similar and to my mind far less military targets.

Every weapon that the Israeli Zionists criminals use against the native population is bought or provided by the USA. Without the USA Israeli Zionism would just be a bad memory. Palestinians are in fact at least as much at war with the USA, which as been manipulated into a satanic foreign policy by traitorous ethnic Ashkenazi American Neoconservative racists like Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith and Wurmser and by irredentist neo-Confederate white racists like Jerry Falwell, Pat Roberts and Richard Land.

Israeli Zionists are the bad guys and represent an evil in the world today just as the German Nazis did in the 30s. Nowadays, we Americans are the bad guys because we are allied with Israeli Zionists. We Americans have to accept that Americans and Israeli Zionists may be subjected to attacks by billions of people justifiably enraged at our policies, just as Germans whether military or civilian were subject to attacks by the French, Polish, Russian and Yugoslav resistance during WW2. As the bad guys and allies of the bad guys we Americans have no more right to criticize the tactics of the resistance than the German Nazis had. In retrospect and to this day we consider the anti-Nazi resistance heroes that fought for all of humanity. Likewise the Palestinian resistance today is heroic and fights for all of humanity.

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=17&article_id=16760

Copyright (c) 2005 The Daily Star

Thursday, July 14, 2005
Muslims can no longer remain silent about the hijacking of their faith

Editorial

Terrorists continue to take their utter disregard for human life to more and more horrifying levels. Yesterday, a suicide bomber drove an explosives-laden car into a U.S. Humvee in a Baghdad neighborhood, where U.S. troops were handing out candy to Iraqi children. The killers will perhaps claim a victory because their attack killed one U.S. soldier. But their act of violence also killed 27 Iraqi children and maimed 31 other young boys and girls.

It has been said over and over again that such gruesome attacks are a gross affront to humanity, and the vast majority of Muslim scholars have condemned the murder of innocent civilians. The grand imam of one of Sunni Islam's most respected centers of learning, Al-Azhar Sheikh Mohammad Sayyed Tantawi, has said that Islamic law "rejects all attempts on human life and all attacks on civilians." Even "terrorist" resistance groups such as Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood and Hizbullah denounced the killing of innocents in the wake of the recent bombings in London.

But a tiny fringe of fanatics led by the likes of Al-Qaeda leaders Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Osama bin Laden are sending another message, and in doing so, they are tarnishing the image of Islam. This self-styled ulema has issued fatwas in support of indiscriminate killing. Zarqawi has recently said that the killing of innocent Muslims, women and children in in Iraq "is allowed in order to avoid the greater evil of disrupting jihad."

It is because of murderers like Zarqawi and bin Laden that the image of Muslims and Islam has been so badly tarnished in recent years. Islam ought to be known as a religion based on social justice and respect for human life and dignity. But instead, the fanatics are hijacking the faith of Muslims and reinforcing the erroneous belief that Islam is a religion of violence and oppression. Because of these fanatics pose such a serious threat, not only to Westerners, but to Muslims and Islam itself, the Muslim community has every right to disown them from their faith. It has now become a duty for Muslims to unequivocally denounce these killers as non-believers.

The Muslim community can and should go further in condemning such acts of violence. Leaders at the Organization of the Islamic Conference summit will meet later this year in Mecca, where they plan to address the issue of terrorism in Iraq. One hopes that they will issue a strong condemnation of any attack that targets innocent civilians - whether it is in Iraq, London, New York, Madrid or Tel Aviv. No one in the Muslim community can continue to condone or remain silent about these barbarities.

Copyright (c) 2005 The Daily Star Sphere: Related Content

Zionazi Racial Science

[Note this blogentry has been updated for consistency with the Forward website.]

Dr. Mazin Qumsiyeh of Yale University addresses the flaws in Zionazi racial science in a letter to the Society of Histocompatibility and Immunology. (More material can be found at THE AMBASSADORS - OPINIONS - Vol. 5, Issue 1 (January 2002)
http://ambassadors.net/archives/issue11/opinions2.htm).

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

Dear President Bray, President-elect Zeevi, and Society of Histocompatability and Immunology Officers:

I am asking that you print this in the journal as a response to the unfair treatment of Dr.Arnaiz-Villena et al. following publication of their paper and to read and act on my comments.

Arnaiz-Villena et al. published a paper in this journal titled "The origin of Palestinians and their genetic relatedness with other Mediterranean populations (Human Immunology. 62(9):889-900, 2001). It is one of at least 13 papers published in this journal by Dr.Arnaiz-Villena and colleagues (hundreds published elsewhere). The paper demonstrated with ample evidence the similarity of certain Jewish populations to Palestinians. After some pressures because the data appears inconsistent with Zionist ideology and mythology (including the preposterous claims that Palestinians are recent immigrants to the "land of Israel" and Jews as a distinct race), the paper was pulled from web pages and the society took an unprecedented and in my humble opinion illegal action of penalizing an author (removing him from the editorial board) to satisfy a political constituency within the society.

The data provided by the paper is ironically consistent with data published in the same journal by Israeli scientists (Amar et al. "Molecular analysis of HLA class II polymorphisms among different ethnic groups in Israel" Human Immunology, 1999, 60:723-730). Amar et al. showed that "Israeli Arabs" (Palestinians who are Israeli citizens) are closer to Sephardic Jews than either is to Ashkenazi Jews. The data also showed that Ethiopian Jews are genetically very distant from all. Yet, Amar et al. incredibly concluded that "We have shown that Jews share common features, a fact that points to a common ancestry." Amar et al also failed to include Slavic populations in the study which would have revealed similarities between Ashkenazi and these populations in the areas around the black Sea (see below).

Unfortunately, misuse of genetics is not new. Francis Galton coined the term eugenics in 1883 (Greek; eu means "good" and genic derives from the word for "born"). Galton defined it as "the science of improvement of the human race germ plasm through better breeding." At the height of the eugenics movement in the 1920s, the Encyclopedia Britannica (1926) entry on eugenics emphasized that the term connoted a "plan" to influence human reproduction.

Between 1907 and 1960 in the United States at least 60,000 people were sterilized without their consent pursuant to state laws to prevent reproduction by those deemed genetically inferior (especially mentally retarded or those with psychological problems). At the peak of these programs in the 1930s, about 5,000 persons were sterilized annually. Based on the American development (especially the works of the American champion of Eugenics, Harry Hamilton Laughlin), the Eugenics of the Nazis grew to eclipse and the American system and then to become even much more and contribute to the mass murder of Jews, Gypsies and others. These examples (& Lysenkoism in the Soviet Union) are well studied by societies determined not to repeat these horrendous laws. Few now believe it is useful or desirable to limit diversity and enhance ideas of racial purity or protecting the gene pool of a particular population. So how is this relevant to Zionism and Jewish nationalism?

The founders of Zionism were Eastern European Jews (Ashkenazi) who argued that they are fulfilling the ingathering of the Jews to "their ancestral homelands." Many argued that assimilation and interbreeding with communities where Jews exist were very dangerous. Many worked feverishly to establish links (however tenuous) between Ashkenazi Jews are and the ancient Israelites (and named their new country Israel) as evidenced by the published works of Bonne-Tamir and others. Much was spent to explain away the physical differences between Ashkenazi Jews (light skins, fair smooth hair), and Sephardic (oriental) Jews and massage the data to fit the pre-ordained conclusions. Here is an example.

An article titled "Jewish and Middle Eastern non-Jewish Populations Share a Common Pool of Y-chromosome Biallelic Haplotypes" was published in PNAS, vol. 97, no. 12, June 6,2000 (http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/97/12/6769). The article is from the laboratory of Dr. Bonne Tamir in Israel and is co-authored with 11 other authors. PNAS publishes articles based on communication from respected scientists and not by the traditional peer review process (although those communicating the article are encouraged to have them peer reviewed). This particular article was communicated by Arno G. Motulsky.

Of course Ashkenazi Jews would be closer to Arabs than either is to the Europeans studied in the PNAS paper. But Ashkenazim are also clearly closer to Turkic/Slavic than either is to Sephardim or Arab populations. The authors avoided studying Slavic groups that researchers have identified as closely related to hypothetical Slavic ancestral populations of modern Ashkenazi communities. The article seems to have avoided discussing this particularly problematical issue and insisted in the conclusion to reiterate the contention made in the introduction that Jews of today are by and large descendent from the original Israelites. As Daniel Friedman wrote (http://www.khazaria.com/genetics/friedman.html ):

"The relative abundances of specific haplotypes within the Ashkenazi population included in Hammer's study appear to have significant differences from the reconstructed "ancestral Jewish population" and "Separate analysis is also necessary to determine the genetic contribution of the various central Asian Turkic tribes which so strongly influenced European history."

Italian researches studied many more populations including more diverse Turkish and Eastern European populations (American Journal of Human Genetics, 61:1015-1935). The study looked at Y chromosome polymorphisms (genetic variations) in 58 populations including European, Asian, Middle Eastern, and African. That study clearly shows that Ashkenazi Jewish samples clustered distinct from Sephardic Jews and closer to Turkic samples. Overall, the genetic data in that study were congruent with linguistic distances. The authors concluded that genetic data do not justify a single origin for the currently disparate Jewish subpopulations (Ashkenazi and Sephardi). It seems odd though that authors who are accepting of Zionist claims or are Jewish make conclusions not even supported by their own data while authors from other backgrounds based on similar data (showing clear links of Ashkenazim to Turkic populations) make differing conclusions.

The claims of a "single Jewish origin" flies in the face of incredibly rich data from historical and archeological sources including: language (e.g. Yiddish origin and history and absence of use of Aramaic in ancient Khazar Jewish sources), the conversion of Yemenite Arab populations to Judaism and Christianity. There is ample historical evidence that Levantine people and Eastern European Jewish people do share ancestry as well as evidence for significant population mixing. Greek and Turkish populations exported their people throughout the Balkans, Eastern Europe and Asia Minor and the Levant (e.g. the Ottoman Empire and the Hellenistic periods). Similarly Slavic populations have exported people into Asia Minor and the Levant. There was thus tremendous mixing of populations.

Some studies on Eastern European Jewish people have been used to support the idea that the Zionist colonization of Palestine represented a return of a race of Jewish people to their homeland. Valid scientific research must not be shunned by political pressure groups intent on preventing any rational discussion and stifling apparent conflict with the aims of Zionism. Similarly, scientists should not be allowed to publish statements and conclusions not supported by the data simply because they appear "politically correct" at the moment or do not generate an outcry. A statement such as that by Amir et al. that "We have shown that Jews share common features, a fact that points to a common ancestry" should not be allowed to stand. The correct statement from their own data is that some Jews (Sephardim) are more similar to Palestinians than either group is to other Jews (Ashkenazim or Ethiopian Jews).

Of course the transition from any kind of genetic evidence to justify dispossession of the native Palestinians by Ashkenazi immigrants from Europe is in no way justified regardless of population genetics. After all, one would have to be totally immune to basic elements of justice to allow dispossession of people who are native in every sense of the word and whose ancestors farmed the land for hundreds of years (if not thousands) based on any kind of perceived separatedness/uniqueness of gene pools of the new immigrants/settlers. To use "genetic" tools (regardless of their distortion or validity), to justify denying Palestinian people the right of self-determination is of course a travesty of justice. Genetics and eugenics has been used successfully in many other instances to justify the unjustifiable. Distortions of the science of genetics was used for racist and ethnic cleansing many times before. Unfortunately this particular use may not be the last one either.

Sincerely,

Mazin Qumsiyeh,
Ph.D.Associate ProfessorDepartment of Genetics
Yale University School of Medicine
Email: mazin.qumsiyeh@yale.edu

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

Dr. Qumsiyeh correctly surmises the connection of modern Zionist racial pseudoscience to 19th and early 20th century racial pseudoscience. For the smoking gun I refer the interested reader to a series of articles written by Vladimir Jabotinsky in Evreiskaia zhizn' (Hebrew Life) between 1904 and 1914. I know that advocates of Zionist racial science like to cite a few articles by Indian scientists, but these researchers are typically associated with the Hindutva movement, which has long-standing ties to Jabotinskians.

Dr. Qumsiyeh also addresses some of the flaws in the PNAS paper but not all. Hammer and Oppenheim in their studies have consistently and quite improperly used self-identification in their research to class an individual as Ashkenazi or Sephardi. Until recent times the population that is considered Ashkenazi probably consisted of at least 3 genetically distinct subpopulations. The modern concept of Sephardim is a rather artificial construct that consists of an Ibero-Berber refugee population and numerous unconnected local communities throughout N. Africa and the Orient. As these communities were generally very small and highly endogamous, we should have expected significant genetic drift among them.

The analysis that Hammer and Oppenheim have carried out implicitly depends on a Palestinian emigrant founder model. Because we have no genetic information on the alleged ancient Israelite population, the Hammer and Oppenheim research begs the question that it is supposed to address. Dr. Qumsiyeh does not explicitly make the claim, but the body of research better fits the hypothesis of a major founder population in Southern Russia that has been exporting population to Judean/Jewish communities throughout Europe and the Mediterranean since the 8th century. Refinements to this hypothesis would include additional founder communities in the Balkans, Mesopotamia and Eastern Europe.

Hammer is also the primary author of Y Chromosomes of Jewish Priests (http://www.familytreedna.com/nature97385.html). It is hard to square Hammer's results current archeological theories about the Exodus (there was none) and the origins of the "ancient Israelite" population. Moreover, the alleged founding modal haplotype of Jewish priesthood is particularly common among Sicilians and Armenians. Lately, Zionist racial scientists have stopped citing the claims of the Cohen haplotype because it only inspires derision among genuine scientists.

Some new theories of the behavior of the Y Chromosome have challenged the fundamental assumptions of the use of haplotypes in genetic anthropology.

More recent studies have shown that certain genetic markers common among Ashkenazim and other European ethnic groups that are hypothesized to be descendants of Central Asian migrant populations are indeed common among certain Central Asian population groups but are not particularly common in the Syro-Palestinian region.

Here is another article that has been completely expunged from the Forward website, that describes the Zionist prejudices associated with research in Jewish genetic anthropology, and that belies the idea of single Jewish origin..

http://www.forward.com/articles/1864

Genetics

A Skeleton in the Jewish Family Closet?

By TALIA BLOCH
August 20, 2004

Has there been a non-Jewish "skeleton" sitting quietly in the Jewish family closet?

That's the implication of a recent genetic study.

The study, "Multiple Origins for Ashkenazi Levites: Y Chromosome Evidence for Both Near Eastern and European Ancestries," published last fall in The American Journal of Human Genetics, suggests that about half of all Ashkenazi Jewish men of the Levite caste may be descendant from one or a handful of closely related Eastern European ancestors who lived about 1,000 years ago.

The problem, for Jews at least, is that those ancestors probably were not Jewish, but Slavic. According to Jewish law, membership in one of the three groups of Cohen, Levi or Israel is passed down from father to son alone. Both the priestly caste of Cohanim (plural of Cohen) and their helpers, the Levites, are said to be descendant from the biblical tribe of Levi. Scientists and historians, therefore, speculate that the evidence uncovered by the genetic study shows that some ancestors who contributed genes in the formative years of the Ashkenazi community either were faking their status as Levites or simply mistakenly believed they were Levites when they were not.

"One would have to assume that at some point close to the founding of the Ashkenazi community, somebody or some people — it doesn't have to be a lot of people — assimilated into Levitical standing," said Lawrence Schiffman, chairman of the department of Hebrew and Judaic Studies at New York University.

This misidentified Levite would have had to either have been a convert himself, or to have inherited his genes from a convert or even from a non-Jewish father, since the genetic markers that are found among Ashkenazi Levites frequently occur among non-Jewish Eastern Europeans, but are extremely rare within the general Ashkenazi population.

"It could have been a conversion or something less pleasant, like a rape or other nonpaternity event," explained Dr. Karl Skorecki, director of the Technion's Rappaport Family Institute for Research in the Medical Sciences in Haifa, Israel, and one of the principal researchers on the study. A nonpaternity event is one in which the father of a child is not known or not acknowledged publicly.
When scientists study the paternal line of inheritance, they look at the y-chromosome, which determines maleness and is passed down from father to son, largely unchanged.

Since the time of the first human male, however, occasional misspellings of the y-chromosome's sequence of DNA letters have occurred, coalescing into what researchers have identified as 18 different primary groupings. Known as haplogroups, these groupings break down along geographic and ethnic lines.

Previous studies have shown that the type of y-chromosome most frequently found among Jewish men falls into the same groups as that of Middle Eastern populations, confirming a Middle Eastern ancestry for Jews.

A landmark study in 1997 determined that a majority of Cohanim not only clustered into the same group, but also shared a more specific identical genetic marker. "Seventy percent of all Cohanim have the same y-chromosomal lineage tracing back to the same common ancestor," said Michael Hammer, a geneticist at the University of Arizona, who was also a researcher on the Levite study. "You would expect the same for the Levites."

Instead, researchers found that while Sephardi Levites had the same genetic lineage as Cohanim, slightly more than half the Ashkenazi Levites had y-chromosomes that very much resembled those of the Slavic individuals included in the study.

"What's also striking," noted Skorecki, "is how closely related the Ashkenazi Levites are. They are so similar to each other, like brothers, over a vast geographic expanse." It is this similarity that led researchers to the conclusion that the progenitor for this group could only have been one man or several men within the same family.

Researchers also estimate that the originating ancestor entered the Jewish gene pool close to the founding of the Ashkenazi community. "It probably happened about 1,000 years ago, early in the genesis of Ashkenazi Jewry," said Neil Bradman of the University College London and a third researcher on the study, which included 12 scientists from Israel, Great Britain and the United States.

It is commonly accepted among geneticists that the Ashkenazi Jewish community started from a very small base — perhaps 30,000 people alive in the year 1500 — but between the 15th and the 19th century swelled from about 50,000 to 5 million individuals.

"The fact that there is not much genetic diversity argues for relatively few founders" of the community, said Dr. Harry Ostrer, director of the human genetics program of the pediatrics department at New York University School of Medicine, who specializes in population genetics.

Yet, in the extant historical records there is never any mention of non-Levites assuming Levitical status. "If your father is not a Cohen or a Levi, there is no way you can become one," said Rabbi Eliezer Diamond, professor of Talmud and rabbinics at the Jewish Theological Seminary. A convert, by definition, could not. But this does not mean that someone couldn't pass himself off as a Levite.

Diamond speculated that confusion might have occurred as the result of a talmudic passage concerning the ritual of pidyon haben or redemption of the first born, in which, at the age of 30 days, a first-born son is symbolically released from Temple service. If a child's father is a Cohen or Levite, no pidyon haben is necessary. The Talmud cites a case in which a woman had relations with a gentile man. "Somewhat surprisingly, the Talmud says that this child is exempt from pidyon haben," Diamond explained. Since the father was not a Jew, paternal identity reverted back to the mother's father, who in this case was a Levite. Since for this one ritual alone, the child is treated as if he were a Levite, Diamond speculated it is conceivable that this may have caused the confusion.

It is also possible that a woman who was married to a Levite but had a son out wedlock, either because of a rape or an affair, still might have raised her son as if he were a Levite.

There is one other possible explanation, researchers say. "I slightly favor the hypothesis that it was one Jew from the Middle East who, because of the bottleneck effect, passed [the chromosome] along," Hammer said. Although highly infrequent, the y-chromosome shared by non-Jewish Eastern Europeans and Ashkenazi Levites does occur occasionally among other Jews. It is therefore possible that one man among the founders of the Ashkenazi community happened to carry it. Because he was just one among very few founders, this man's genes were replicated many times and became overrepresented in subsequent generations — the bottleneck effect.

While Skorecki acknowledged that this explanation also was plausible, he remarked that "it would be a remarkable coincidence to have this set of markers which are the same as the people around them" appear in the Jewish population, but originate with someone who traces his ancestry back to the Middle East.

Another researcher into Jewish genetics who did not participate in this study, Neil Risch of Stanford University, commented that he saw no flaws in the study, but added: "One can never prove where something came from" completely.

Researchers and scholars emphasized that the aim of the Levite study was to illuminate an aspect of Jewish history, and not in any way to determine identity today. "A person's religious or ethnic identity should be separated from anything genetic or physical," Skorecki said when listing the most important conclusions he drew from the study. He saw a "social-ethical imperative not to extrapolate to individual identity."

Ostrer concurred: "If someone has a non-Jewish haplotype, it doesn't mean that person is not Jewish,"

Added Schiffman: "People have to understand one thing. [The study] reflects history and not some form of modernity. We are not going to go around testing to see who is a Levite and then suggest that people should be de-Levitized."

Copyright 2005 © The Forward

Sphere: Related Content