| Author | Message | | dangerousdna | | Posted: Sun Jan 05, 2003 8:15 pm Post subject: Jewish Fundamentalism In Israel |
| http://www.cactus48.com/fundamentalism.html
Jewish Fundamentalism In Israel*
The fundamentalist wing of the Jewish religion, while certainly not representative of
Judaism as a whole, is influential in Israel, and is the ideological basis of the settler movement in the West Bank and Gaza (except for "Greater Jerusalem" where many secular Jews have moved because of cheap, subsidized housing) The following quotes show the racism inherent in this world-view and why its influence should be opposed by all rational people.
Ideological basis of racism in Israel
"The Talmud states that...two contrary types
of souls exist, a non-Jewish soul comes from the Satanic spheres, while the Jewish soul stems from holiness...Rabbi Kook, the Elder, the revered father of the messianic tendency of Jewish fundamentalism said, "The difference between a Jewish soul and the souls of non-Jews...is greater and deeper than the difference between a human soul and the souls of cattle.' "Israel Shahak and Norton Mezvinsky's "Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel"
Racism - continued
"Gush Emunim rabbis have continually reiterated that Jews who
killed Arabs should not be punished, [e.g.]...Relying on the Code of Maimonides and the Halacha, Rabbi Ariel stated, 'A Jew who killed a non-Jew is exempt from human judgement and has not violated the [religious] prohibition of murder'..The significance here is most striking when the broad support, both direct and indirect, for Gush Emunim is considered. About one-half of Israel's Jewish population supports Gush Emunim." "Israel Shahak and Norton Mezvinsky's "Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel"
Jewish fundamentalist rationale for seizing Arab land
"They argue that what
appears to be confiscation of Arab owned land for subsequent settlement by Jews is in reality not an act of stealing but one of sanctification. From their perspective the land is being redeemed by being transferred from the satanic to the divine sphere...To further this process, the use of force is permitted whenever necessary...Halacha permits Jews to rob non-Jews in those locales wherein Jews are stronger than non-Jews." "Israel Shahak and Norton Mezvinsky's "Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel"
*Note:
The webmaster of cactus48.com received an e-mail challenging the quotations in this section. We forwarded the challenge to the authors, and Israel Sahak replied with a detailed response. In fairness to both positions, we have posted the challenge and the response on another page, from which you can easily return to this page. Read the comments below:
The Situation
On this web site we have posted the complete text of "The Origin of the Palestine-Israel Conflict," a commentary published by Jews for Justice in the Middle East, an organization that we support.
One chapter of that commentary is titled "Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel," and has several quotes from the book of the same title, written by Israel Shahak and Norton Mezvinsky.
We received an e-mail from Stefan Bialoguski, who challenged this section of the book, and the quotes from the book by Shahak and Mezvinsky.
We forwarded the challenge to the authors of the book, and they replied in detail.
We have decided, in fairness to both parties, and in support of freedom of expression, to post the exact e-mail message, and the exact response.
.
The Challenge...from Stefan B.
Subject: Jewish Fundamentalism
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 10:42:20 +1100
There is a link on your website to information provided by a Berkley, California-based group calling itself Jews for Justice in the Middle East.
Regardless of anyone's political views, I believe there is an obligation to be truthful and accurate in information provided. The quotations from "Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel" by Israel Shahak and Norton Mezvinsky provided by Jews for Justice in the Middle East are dishonest and misleading. Indeed, the following excerpts from the book quoted by Jews for Justice in the Middle East contain references puporting to represent Jewish religious law that are usually found on avowedly antisemitic websites such as neo-Nazi sites and Holocaust denial sites:
"Gush Emunim rabbis have continually reiterated that Jews who
killed Arabs should not be punished, [e.g.]...Relying on the Code ofMaimonides and the Halacha, Rabbi Ariel stated, 'A Jew who killed a non-Jew is exempt from human judgement and has not violated the [religious] prohibition of murder.'"
Also: " ... Halacha permits Jews to rob non-Jews in those locales wherein Jews are stronger than non-Jews."
Even a cursory glance at the Halachic (Jewish religious law) authorities proves that the above references have been taken out of context.
The standard compendium of Jewish law, the Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 158:1, rules that it is forbidden to kill non-Jews - even idol worshippers or members of the seven nations that the Jewish People have a Biblical obligation to destroy (not the Arabs who fulfill neither category). The Shulchan Aruch (the author of the book, who is also known by the title of the book itself) repeats himself, which is a rare occurence, in Choshen Mishpat 425:5. These Halachos (laws) are not contested by other authorities and they are sourced in much earlier works; see Babylonian Talmud Tractate Avodah Zarah 26a-b, Rambam (Maimonedes) Mishna Torah Madah Avodah Zarah 10:1.
With regards to whether it is permissible to steal the Talmud, Tractate Bava Kammah 113b, states that it is forbidden to steal from non-Jews. That opinion is the only view mentioned in the Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 348:2. The Shulchan Aruch makes no diferentiation between Jews and non-Jews. The Siftei Kohen, ibid., states categorically that to steal from a non-Jew is a transgression of a negative Torah commandment. He writes that the Rambam (Maimonedes) and the Maharshal rule in accordance with this view. The Vilna Gaon rules, ibid. 8, that not only is it forbidden but that if someone did so the money cannot be used for any dvar Mitzvah (the fulfilment of a religious obligation) .
I hope your concern for truth and accuracy and a desire not to incite hatred of Jews or any other ethno-religious group will induce you to check the information I have passed on to you from Rabbi Lauffer of Jerusalem with a competent Halachic authority (eg an Orthodox rabbi) of your choice and, once confirmed, remove the defamatory material from your website.
Yours,
Stefan B.
.
The Response...from Israel Shahak
Israel Shahak, Tel. and Fax 02-5633-99
2 Bartenura St. Jerusalem 92184, Israel
A VINDICATION
Answer to the slanders of Stefan Bialoguski against "Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel" by Israel Shahak and Norton Mezvinsky (Pluto Press, 1999 ISBN 0745312764)
Stefan B. thinks that intellectual and often public terror employed in the USA and other countries against Jews who speak the truth about Judaism, whether in form it took after the inception of Talmud or its continuation in Orthodox Judaism will succeed against an Israeli Jew like me.
Contrary to the great majority of American Jews, Israeli Jews enjoy three great advantages with regard to the freedom of expression on Jewish issues: they read Hebrew and can read Halacha and other Jewish documents in the original, and are not dependent on the falsehoods circulated about those by rabbis and Jewish organizations.
They see, with the help of their Hebrew press, whose behavior is much more honest when reporting Jewish issues than the American one, what Orthodox rabbis (almost all Israeli rabbis are Orthodox) do when they have political power, and many of them noted long ago the close resemblance the Orthodox rabbis bear to the Ayatollahs in their aims, and also the close resemblance between the Halacha and the religious law now established in Iran. I have no doubt that had the common Israeli slogans "Israel will not be an Iran" or "Israel will not be rules by Jewish Ayatollahs" meaning the rabbis been raised in the USA, American defenders of Jewish zealotry and discrimination if directed against non Jews, would have protested as strongly against such typical Israeli slogans as they do against "Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel".
Let me add that increasing numbers of Israeli Jews are beginning to see that it would be a very good thing for Israel if something similar to the First Amendment to the USA Constitution would become the law in the State of Israel. Even the Israeli Jews who did not yet adapt this view usually despise the American Jews who want to carry the separation of the church from the state to its greatest extent in the USA (because they think it is in the Jewish interest) and vehemently oppose it in Israel (because they think that in this case it is against the Jewish interest).
Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, the secular part of the Israeli Jews has been educated, to large extent, on Prophetic books of Old Testament, and its other parts such as the Psalms, which contrary to the Talmudic literature, attack especially what the great majority of the Jews regarded as authoritative when this literature was composed. Therefore for us, the secular Israeli Jews, to attack Jewish institutions and laws, even when hallowed by time, and use the sharpest language while doing so, as the Prophets and other Jewish poets preserved in the Old Testament did when criticizing Jews (usually they used much sharper language than I am using), is the most normal thing; it is something which preserves our freedom and our sense of continuity as Jews.
Let me add that the best hope of better future in the Middle East lies in all its peoples criticizing their religions, customs and past. Continuing to be enslaved to past leads to perpetuation of all conflicts.
Therefore, before I begin my answer, let me quote three Biblical passages. I doubt whether the usual American Jewish audiences fed on the stuff approved by the ADL are aware of their existence, but those passages will help to explain to people with open minds not only what I am saying but also the way in which I express it. Prophet Ezekiel, speaking in the name of the Lord says: "Moreover, I gave them statutes that were not good and ordinances by which they could not have life" (chapter 20, verse 25). I say about the Halacha what Ezekiel said about some Biblical laws. The poet of Psalm 50, says: "But to the wicked God says: 'what right have you to recite my statutes, or to take my covenant on your lips? For you hate morality and you cast my words behind you. If you see a thief, you are friend of his; and you keep company with adulterers'" (verses 16-18).The last words apply with particular force to the Orthodox rabbis in Israel and also the USA. A few months before the Israeli elections of 1996, it was found that Netanyahu was an adulterer, as he himself had to admit. This fact and the Halachic view of adultery as one of three most heinous sins did not diminish the support Netanyahu got from Orthodox rabbis.
It is known to the readers of the Hebrew press that majority of Orthodox rabbis have the greatest regard for Jewish thieves (and one can add drug smugglers and moneylaunderers) who donate a part of their ill gotten money to Jewish religious institutions, but eat kosher food. Prophet Micah says: "Hear this, you heads of the house of Jacob and rulers of the house of Israel, who abhor justice and pervert all equity, who build Zion with blood and Jerusalem with injustice. Its heads judge for a bribe, its priests teach for hire, its prophets divine for money; yet they lean upon the Lord and say: 'Behold, the Lord is among us! No evil shall come upon us'" (chapter 3, verses 9-11).
The beginning of any struggle for justice in the Middle East must be recognition of the fact that for the last 52 years Zion, that is State of Israel, had been built with blood, mainly of the Arabs, and founded on the most horrifying forms of injustice which when applied to the Jews are rightly condemned as anti-Semitism. Let me give here give only a single example, before entering Halachic argument. During 18 years of Israeli occupation of Lebanon about 25,000 Lebanese and Palestinians lost their lives as compared with about 800 Israeli soldiers. It is a significant fact of Israeli politics that numbers of non Jews killed in Lebanon had little or no influence on Israeli decision to leave it, even when they were members of South Lebanese Army, allied with Israel. On the other hand, the relatively small numbers of killed Jewish soldiers were the chief factor, even in the eyes of Israeli organizations calling for withdrawal, to mobilize the Jewish public opinion and force the government to withdraw.
The great majority of the Orthodox and traditional Jews (in the USA even more than in Israel) is quite indifferent to numbers of non Jews killed by the Jews, while it is very sensitive to a single Jew killed by non Jews. The same happens with discrimination: there is very little, if any protest from great majority of the Orthodox and traditional Jews when Jews discriminate against non Jews, in our case the Arabs, together with screams of fury against any hint of discrimination (or abuse) against the Jews themselves.
Surely, such an attitude by a public so devoted to the worship of the Jewish past must be influenced by that past. As I have shown (especially in my book "Jewish history, Jewish religion"; chapter 5 "The Laws Against Non Jews"), this attitude derives from the many Halachic laws against non Jews.
After this necessary preface, let me answer in some detail the accusations made by Stefan B.. I hope that when I have dealt with them, the malicious ignorance on which they are based will became apparent. As to his quoting rabbi Laufer of Jerusalem as his authority, this only reminds me of the faithful communists during Stalin who used to quote a "an authority" from Moscow to confirm the usual falsehoods of another totalitarian system. Such "authorities" may have known all works of "Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin" as the phrase was then, but they used them only in order to be approve Stalin's crimes.
Similarly, Orthodox rabbis, whether in Israel or the USA were silent, for example, when quite recently one of their colleagues, Rabbi Yitzhak Ginsburgh proposed in major Hebrew paper that the State of Israel should slaughter "women, children and old folks" in Palestinian towns and villages and, in generally do to them what was done in Sodom and Gomorrah (the case will be discussed in detail below).
Not rabbinical competence is needed here but a protest against Orthodox rabbis proposing, supporting and defending atrocities when committed by Jews in name of Halacha.
In any case,Stephen B. forgot, or perhaps never learned, the basic halachic rule in case of a dispute: "let us bring the book and see". My answer is full of references to books; let him check those references by himself and not be enslaved to any rabbis.
Let me begin with the lesser issue of stealing and robbing which will illustrate the systematic falsification of Halacha used by Bialoguski. What he quotes is the halachic prohibition of stealing from anyone. But on this issue there is a crucial difference in Halacha between Jews stealing from non Jews and Jews robbing non Jews. The difference between theft (in Hebrew "gne'iva") and robbery (in Hebrew "gezel") is the same as in most systems of laws. Theft is defined as taking one's property by stealth while robbery is defined as taking one's property openly, using violence.
It is clear that the stealing of Palestinian land in the Territories (and before this inside Israel in the early 1950s) was done by employing state power, indeed often by employing army units, and is to be defined as what was done to the land of the Indians by the USA as robbery.
As I will show below, the Halacha makes a distinction (known to anyone who has even a minimal knowledge of the subject) between theft committed by a Jew, which is totally forbidden no matter from whom, and robbery committed by a Jew. While it is forbidden to Jews to rob a fellow Jew under any circumstances, the situation is quite different in Halacha in the case of a Jew robbing a non Jew, where under well defined circumstances Jews are indeed permitted to rob non Jews.
Accordingly, there is in Halacha a special issue known by the name of "robbing the non Jew" (in Hebrew "gezel hagoy"), which appears under this name in the authoritative Talmudic Encyclopedia, and the circumstances in which such robbery is either permitted or forbidden are discussed in great detail, as I will show below. Here I will only remark that Bialoguski omits this.
But before discussing robbery, let me return to the issue of stealing and show that behind the prohibition of stealing from anyone, there is in Halacha the most glaring discrimination between Jews and non Jews, omitted by Bialoguski and most "authorities" who write about Judaism. This is the issue of punishment to be inflicted according to Halacha on a Jew who steals. If he steals from a Jew he has to pay twice the value of what he had stolen, or return what he had stolen, if possible, and pay its value in addition. The first part is regarded as the restitution and the other as the punishment. But in case of Jew stealing from a non Jew he is only to pay the value of what he had stolen, only because he had stolen from a non Jew.
The reason given by Maimonides, following the Talmud, is that in Biblical verse specifying the punishment for theft it is written "he will pay twice to his fellow" and according to Halacha the word "fellow" means only Jews, and excludes the non Jews (Maimonides, Laws of Theft, chapter 2, rule 1).
The important commentary on Maimonides' Code, "Magid Mishneh", written by rabbi Yoseph Karo, the author of Shulchan Aruch, and other commentators fully agree with this shameful discrimination.
Let me add two observations you will not hear from "experts" on Judaism in the USA. If, for example, somebody would have proposed that Jews in the USA would be discriminated in exactly the same way as the Halacha discriminates against non Jew; that is he would propose that any non Jew stealing from a Jew would be exempt from punishment and will have only to pay the value of what he had stolen, but not be punished in addition, he would be justly regarded as anti-Semite. It would not help him if he would sanctimoniously exclaim, as Bialoguski does, "but I am against stealing from anybody, including the Jews!"
This example shows that what Bialoguski is doing with his selective quotations from Halacha is similar to what the worst anti-Semites do when their tenets are attacked.
Second, this example shows that most Americans, including the educated ones, know nothing about the real Judaism because they were brainwashed by apologists and propagandists and are in now in the same situation as were the faithful communists before the famous Krushchev's speech of 1956, who also were sure that they know about "the true situation inside the USSR", but in realty knew nothing about the reality of Stalin's regime, because they were brainwashed by authorities they had blindly followed.
Let me now deal with the views of the Halacha in the case when a Jew robs a non Jew. As is told in great detail in both Babylonian (the usually used one) Talmud and the Jerusalemite Talmud, the earlier talmudic Sages had disputed whether it is permitted or forbidden for a Jew to rob a non Jew and in what circumstances. Those disputes are studied by present day talmudic students as boys (I too studied this subject at the age of fourteen), since an important part of them is contained in a popular Talmudic Tractate, Baba Kama (p. 113b) in addition to other places. Although the more offensive passages have been censored out in most of printed texts, they are preserved in booklets, used on such occasions, called "The omissions from the Talmud", so that the entire dispute, of great length and many complications, is explained and its effect can be imagined.
Briefly, the Sages who permit Jews to rob the non Jews (recorded especially in another popular Tractate of Babylonian Talmud, Baba Metzi'a, p. 111b) and in the Jerusalemite Talmud, Tractate Baba Kama, chapter 4, halacha 3) opine, for example, that since it is written (Leviticus, chapter 19, verse 13): "You shall not oppress your friend or rob him", the words "your friend" mean that those prohibitions apply only to the Jews.
Their opponents, especially Rabbi Shimon speaking in the name of Rabbi Akiva, admit the force of this reasoning and have recourse to a specious kind of argument. They argue as follows (I am slightly paraphrasing): "How do we know that robbing a non Jew is forbidden? We learn in the case of a Jewish slave sold to a non Jew that he must be redeemed and not taken by force, since it is written: 'after he is sold he may be redeemed' (Leviticus, chapter 25, verse 48) and this means that another Jew is forbidden to liberate such slave by force. Therefore we learn from this case that other forms of robbery from a non Jew are also forbidden". Other rabbis argued that if a Jew robs a non Jew he causes a "desecration of the Lord's Name", since the robbed non Jew will curse the God of the Jews when he knows who had robbed him. This in their view and not the fact that robbery took place - is the reason why Jews should not rob non Jews.
However, this reason for prohibiting Jews to rob non Jews will operate only when the identity of the Jewish robber is discovered. It follows that according to those Sages a Jew can rob non Jews on condition that he is sure that he, or his identity will not be discovered. A very nice lesson in ethics, indeed! Some Sages who prohibited Jews from robbing non Jews introduced an important distinction, much favored now by Gush Emunim rabbis and others of their ilk. They reasoned that robbing or not the non Jews is determined by the verse: "You shall eat all the nations that the Lord your God will give you". This is supposed by those holy
Sages to mean that the Jews can rob non Jews only when the latter "are given to them," meaning when they rule them (Baba Kam, ibid.).
Other Sages have said (more honestly in my view) that when "the Jews are powerful" (in Hebrew "yad Israel takifa") they are permitted to rob the non Jews but they are not permitted to do so when they are not powerful. Some of the Sages who permit Jews to rob non Jews under all circumstances have added an argument worthy of our consideration. They argue that robbing non Jews is permitted since it is written: "He stood and measured the earth; He looked and shook the nations" (Book of Habakkuk, chapter 3, verse 6). This verse is alleged to mean that the Lord had seen non Jews not keeping the Seven Noachide Commandments and because of this allowed the Jews to take their property (in Hebrew "amad ve'hitir mamonam le'Israel", Baba Kama, p. 38a).
Finally, let me note the fact about which most American (with the exception of Orthodox or, possibly, Conservative Jews too) are ignorant: this halachic dispute is possible because the prohibition "You shall not steal" in the Decalogue is considered in Halacha to mean not what it says, but to prohibit "selling (that is kidnapping) Jews into slavery". Halachic prohibitions of stealing and robbery derive from other biblical verses; in case of stealing from the verse "You shall not steal, nor deal falsely, nor lie to your friends", and in case of robbery from the verse "You shall not oppress your friend or rob him" (Leviticus, chapter 19, verses 11 and 13).
Both verses contain a qualification of the prohibition: the acts are forbidden only if done "to your friends" or "your friend" (Hebrew terms used in those verses which mean without any ambiguity "friend", are mistakenly translated as "neighbor" or by other neutral term in standard English translations). Because of this qualification, Halacha needs special reasons for prohibiting Jews from stealing or robbing non Jews, or, the case of robbery, halachic authorities can permit it, either in general or on some occasions. This is also the reason why the punishment for stealing is absent in the cases where a Jew steals from a non Jew. It should be clear that this discussion still goes on and is all the time modified by new circumstances, of which the most important is the fact that the Jews in the State of Israel have power over non Jews, even more in the Territories than in Israel itself, contrary to Jewish situation which existed and still exists in diaspora. Halacha is a dynamic system both for good and evil, and the Jewish power, coupled with almost total absence of any criticism of Judaism by Jews themselves has caused as usual a great change for worse in the area of Halacha in the last
50 years, especially on the issue of how Jews should behave to non Jews according to their religion when they are the powerful group. It is a fact that the views I have quoted above are regarded as sacred texts whose study is the surest way to bring a Jew to Paradise, and that no rabbi (not only among the Orthodox and the Conservative rabbis but even among the Reform ones) will say what should be said, namely: those are wicked and immoral views who have a highly corrupting influence both on those who regard them as sacred and on those who do not condemn them as wicked.
Indeed, the verses from Psalm 50 I quoted above, "But to the wicked God says: 'what right have you to recite my statutes, or to take my covenant on your lips? For you hate morality and you cast my words behind you.", apply, first of all, to all rabbis who do not condemn such opinions. Thus, quoting isolated halachic pronouncements made some hundreds years ago, without the reasoning that stands behind them, as Jewish apologists are usually doing, is highly misleading.
I will not attempt to multiply quotations on the subject of stealing and robbing, although because of conditions of intellectual terror and threats of worse employed habitually by such Jewish organizations as ADL, and the falsification of Jewish history and halacha carried out by most of Jewish scholars, all what I have quoted or paraphrased must be unknown in the USA. Let me add that until not many years ago, and for similar reasons, most of what had been done to Indians in the USA was likewise unknown. I have quoted enough to show that the assertions of Bialoguski about halachic attitude to Jews taking the property of non Jews is a false generalization, either based on gullible ignorance or on a wish to hide injustice when committed in the name of Jewish religion.
It is known in Israel that most of religious, that is Orthodox Jews, whether in Israel or the USA did not protest against massive take over (in my view robbery) of Palestinian property solely for the benefit of Jews, taking place now for 52 years. (The few exceptions merely confirm the rule.) The Jewish opposition to this robbery mostly comes from Jews who are opposed often violently opposed to the Orthodox form of Jewish religion. One of the reasons for this politically very important difference is the halachic attitude to non Jews and their property.
Let me now pass to the more important issue of prohibition of killing in the cases where a Jew kills a non Jew. (There is no dispute that Halacha prohibits both Jews and non Jews to kill a Jew, except under special circumstances, and also prohibits non Jews to kill each other.) As in the case of stealing, Bialoguski quotes at me the general prohibition out of Shulchan Aruch that Jews are prohibited to kill non Jews, even idol worshippers. Jews should be the first to beware of using such general prohibitions as their only defense, since during all the times when they were killed or exterminated the general prohibition against killing was present in the codes of law of the states or religions responsible for their killing. Let me add that when the Indians were massacred in all parts of American continent, often by forces of the state, a law prohibiting killing of anybody was always in the code of the state guilty of murdering or condoning the murder. Legally, and in practice condoning a killing of a person because he belongs to a certain group is done by keeping a general prohibition against killing followed by laws permitting or even enjoining the prohibited act in certain circumstances, or making the killing of human beings of a certain category or under certain circumstances into an act which is not punished or even enjoined.
Let me give some examples of such attitudes out of Halacha itself in case of killing of non Jews by Jews. Since Bialoguski is quoting Shulchan Aruch, composed by rabbi Yoseph Karo, I will quote Karo's opinion about what should be done to non Jews with whom Jews are at war. When Karo comments on Maimonides' rule about Jews "with whom we are not at war" which states that they should neither killed nor saved when in danger contrary to the treatment meted to Jewish heretics who should be killed by any possible way (Maimonides, of Murderer and Preservation of Life, chapter 4, rule 11; quoted in full in "Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel", p. 120), in his commentary "Kesef Mishneh", he adds what should the Jews do with the non Jews with whom they are at war. Writes Karo: "Our rabbi (i.e. Maimonides) used a precise language when he wrote 'non Jews with whom we are not at war', since it is written at the end of Tractate Kidushin, and also in Tractate Sofrim 'You should kill the best of the non Jews'; that means [you should do so] during a war". This horrible law did not remain buried in abstract rabbinic discussion but has been frequently quoted by important rabbis as a guidance to what the State of Israel, and also individual pious Jewish soldiers should actually do.
Out of many such instances which sometimes but not always, I am sorry to say caused a scandal among secular Israeli Jews and the media, but never among the rabbis in the USA, let me quote just three cases. Quite recently, rabbi Ginsburgh (about whom more below) was interviewed by the Hebrew paper "Maariv", one of the three major Israeli papers. When asked how Israel should behave in the current war, Ginsburgh first proposed destroying of Arab property and then: "Secondly, I propose to liquidate all saboteurs. Any who has blood on his hands should be liquidated at once, and let us not to wait for him to sit in prison and be freed afterwards. Nests of saboteurs can be liquidated within one hour. Yamit (a settlement in Sinai, evacuated by orders of Begin in 1982. I. Shahak) which was a worthy Jewish town, was evacuated in one hour. It is possible to do the same to Beit Jallah. Places where are shootings or confrontations should be blown up immediately" Question: "Even if innocent people live in such places?" Answer: "According to Halacha, during the war one makes no distinction. One gives an opportunity to those who want to escape to do so; afterwards one fights against everyone, including children, women and old folks. The entire village should be destroyed. We are speaking about what was done to Sodom and Gomorrah. But under Arafat we speak about murderous leadership hating us, and doing everything until it gets the entire State of Israel. Thus, just as it happened in Sodom and Gomorrah, had there been there a few innocents we, perhaps, could consider further. . But under Arafat most people are totally wicked. Therefore we should say to the few righteous ones: 'go out' and then blow up the entire city" Maariv Friday Supplement, 12 January, 2001).
No Orthodox or Conservative rabbi said a word against this view about what Halacha says Jews should do to Arabs, presumably because they all know that it is the correct view. I also presume that whatever Bialoguski, the ADL and similar Jewish organizations say against me for having translated the learned ruling of rabbi Ginsburgh, none of them will dare to say in public that he misrepresents the Halacha and enter into learned discussion with him about the question whether the Jewish religion in its Orthodox form really enjoins the killing of "children, women and old folks" during war, or whether Palestinians should be compared to the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah and the Israeli army to angels of the Lord who had destroyed them.
The second example was already quoted in my "Jewish History, Jewish Religion (pp. 77-79). It concerns a case of pious Jewish soldoer in the Israeli army who studied in the prestigious religious college "Midrashiyat Noam", who asked his teacher, rabbi Shimon Weiser, "whether it is permitted to kill unarmed men or women and children? Or perhaps we should take revenge on the Arabs?" noting that standing regulations of the Israeli army prohibit such acts. His questions, the learned answer of rabbi Weiser, who condemns the regulations of the Israeli army for being derived from non Jewish sources, and the answer of the soldier in which he specifies what he has learned, were published in the 1974 yearbook of that college. Rabbi Weiser quotes in full the dictum shortened by rabbi Karo. "Rabbi Shimon used to say: 'kill the best of the non Jews, dash the brain of the best of the snakes" as being applicable to what the Jewish soldiers should do during a war. After learned halachic discussion his instructions to pious soldiers are to kill all non Jews except if "it is quite clear that he has no evil intent". The soldier responds: "As for the letter itself, I have understood it as follows: In wartime I am not merely permitted, but enjoined to kill every Arab man and woman whom I chance upon, if there is reason to fear that they help in the war against us, directly or indirectly. And as far as I am concerned I have to kill them even if that might result in an involvement with the military law". I heard about no rabbi who questioned that ruling. My last example is chosen in honor of our newly elected Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon. His first major exploit was the massacre of Kibyeh, in which many Palestinian civilians, including women and children were killed. Since some Israeli Jews (not too many) protested against this, many rabbis rushed to Sharon's defense, proving that the massacre was conducted according to the strictest standards of the Halacha. The most eminent of those rabbis was Rabbi Shaul Israeli, for many years one of the highest rabbinic authorities of the National Religious Party and of the religious Zionism in general, who published an article entitld "Kibyeh Incident According to the Halacha" in the yearly rabbinic journal "The Religion and the State" (in Hebrew "Hadat Ve'Hamdinah") for the year 5713 (1953). The article, a dazzling display of halachic scholarship quoting and discussing every possible source from Talmud till the modern times, comes to following conclusion: "We have established that there exists a special term of 'war of revenge' and this is a war against those who hate the Jews and [there are] special laws applying to such war Accordingly, if the enemies of the Jews had attacked them once but retreated, and they intend to attack them again they are to be defined as the haters of the Jews and a war of revenge should be waged against them. In such a war there is absolutely no obligation to take precautions during warlike acts in order that non-combatants would not be hurt, because during a war both the righteous and wicked are killed. But the war of revenge is based on the example of the war against the Midianites (see Numbers, chapter 31) in which small children were also executed (verse 17, ibid. "Now, therefore, kill every male among the little ones") and we might wonder about this, for how they had sinned? But we have already found in the sayings of our Sages, of blessed memory, that little children have to die because of the sin of their parents And our final conclusion is that we should continue with acts of retaliation and revenge against the haters of the Jews and such acts are considered to be a war of religious obligation (in Hebrew "milhemet mitzvah"). Every calamity and hurt that happens to the enemies, their allies and their children from such actions is caused by them and is [merely] the reward of their sins. There is absolutely no obligation to refrain from acts of retaliation out of an apprehension that innocents would be hit by them, because it is not we who are causing all this but them, and we are innocent".
Indeed, the learned opinion of Rabbi Israeli has been followed, so far as I know, by all Orthodox rabbis of any standing in the case of wars waged by the Jewish State. It is only in wars waged by non Jewish state such as the USA, which does not enjoy the benefit of Biblical and Talmudic precedents, that some of such rabbis have permitted themselves (hypocritically, in my view) to raise humanitarian objections and castigate non Jewish authorities.
Our next consideration will be the issue of punishment prescribed by the Halacha for a Jew who killed a non Jew, compared with punishment for killing a Jew. After all, spitting on the street and murder are both forbidden by law but are, nevertheless, very different acts. The punishment legally inflicted for a given offence shows us the view of the authors of the code about its gravity, and to a great extent also the opinion of the society about it. In case of a religious code, such differences also show us the view about the gravity of the sin committed when a believer does something prohibited by the code of his religion. Just as in Christianity there is a great difference between a mortal and venial sin, so in Orthodox Judaism there is a graduation of sins according to punishment to be inflicted, if possible, for committing them.
The greatest sins are those meriting the punishment of death and the smallest those where no human punishment is to be inflicted, but are left to God's judgment. Killing a Jew is regarded as one of the three worst sins of the first category. However, Maimonides, who like Shulhan Aruch begins his "Laws of Murderer and Preservation of Life" with a general prohibition of killing anybody (chapter 1, rule 1), states a few rules afterwards: "One who kills a resident alien is not to be put to death by a rabbinic court because it is written 'If a man willfully attacks his friend to kill him' (Exodus, chapter 21, verse 14), and it is unnecessary to add he is not put to death for killing a non Jew" (ibid. chapter 2, rule 11). "Mechiltah", an important and ancient collection pf laws from the Talmudic period, states explicitly that the punishment of a Jew who kills a non Jew is "reserved to Heaven" (chapter "mishpatim", section 4).
In the next rule Maimonides states that a Jew who kills a non Jewish slave of any Jew is put to death because "the slave had accepted the commandments of the Jewish religion (in Hebrew "mitzvoth") and became a part of God's inheritance". The same distinction is repeated in the case of accidental killing. In case of Jew who had accidentally killed another Jew the penalty is exile to a special refuge town. A Jew who killed incidentally a non Jew is not punished. In case of a non Jew, even a residential alien, who had accidentally killed a Jew, death penalty is inflicted. (See Maimonides, ibid. chapter 5, rule 3). The Halacha has no system of alternative penalties. One who, for whatever reason, is absolved from a punishment due to him, is free from any further human punishment, except in the case of killing a Jew which will be described below (Maimonides, Laws of Murderer and Preservation of Life, chapter 4, rule 9).
Therefore when Halacha states that a Jew who killed a non Jew is not put to death, this means that he will not receive any human punishment, exactly as stated in "Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel". Bialoguski who object to this statement, cleverly refrains to state that according to Halacha a Jew who killed a non Jew should not be punished; instead he prates about the prohibition of such killing. Yes, killing of non Jews by Jews is prohibited by Halacha in the same way that spitting on street is prohibited in a city; such killings are treated by Orthodox Jews as being venial sins. This is the real reason why Gush Emunim rabbis and let me add, other rabbis as well, who anyhow object to the Israeli code of laws as being "un-Jewish" because it is based on English and latterly also on American law which, contrary to the very Jewish Halacha punishes killers without a distinction of the religion of their victims, try to obtain amnesties or reductions of punishments for every Jew who killed an Arab, but make no such effort in the case of a Jew who killed a Jew. The Hebrew press discusses such cases, which occur frequently, in great detail. I forbear to discuss the purely hypothetical case of an extreme anti-Semite daring to propose in the USA that there should be difference in legal punishment inflicted on one who killed a Christian and one who killed a Jew and try to excuse his offence by claiming that he is, nevertheless, against killing of Jews, just as Bialoguski does.
Even though it is very difficult to inflict a death penalty on a Jew according to the Halacha (it is much easier to inflict it on a non Jew, but this is another issue), murderer of a Jew is put to death in a most barbarous way, described by Maimonides. "One who kills a Jew (literally "who kills souls", in Hebrew "horeg nefashot"), without presence of two witnesses who saw him at the same time but was seen by one after the other; or if he killed before witnesses who did not warn him; or if witnesses were found invalid during a check but not in interrogation (those are necessary conditions to inflict death penalty on a Jew according to the Halacha); then those murderers are imprisoned in a small cell and fed with small amount of bread and a little water until their guts become narrow, and afterwards they are fed with barley until their belly bursts and they die from seriousness of their illness" (Maimonides, Laws of Murderer and Preservation of Life, chapter 4, rule 8). The difference between this treatment, amounting to torturing a person to death, in case of one who killed a Jew and the absence of any human punishment in the case of a Jew who killed a non Jew, shows us the difference between the value of life of a Jew and non Jew in the Halacha, and also explains many things in Israeli politics. It also affords us a glimpse about the kind of state Israel will become, if it becomes a state according to the Halacha, fully attuned to ancestral Jewish morality and tradition, as so many Orthodox Jews desire. It can be presumed that Bialoguski is a part of this tendency.
Let me add that the wish to establish Halacha as law of Israel is particularly strong among those whom "Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel" calls "Messianists" because they believe that they prepare the way for the coming of the Messiah who will, of course, rule according to the Halacha. Gush Emunim movement can be regarded as the most active part of the Messianists.
One of most important aims of "Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel" was to warn people outside Israel, but especially the American Jews (who because of their ignorance of Judaism tend to be especially gullible about the aims and the principles of Orthodox Jews in general and those in Israel in particular) about what Israel influenced by Jewish Orthodoxy might do when Halacha will fully determine its policies. In my view, proved by the examples I quoted above, influence of Halacha will bring about atrocities worse than any committed by Israel so far, but also dangers. Many American Jews may not be very concerned by dangers to Arabs or to world peace, but it is obvious that policies based on Halachic ruling of what the Jews can do to non Jews when they are powerful enough will turn to be also dangerous to the Jews themselves. In the first place, they will corrupt them.
The trivial value of life of non Jew in Halacha is shown also by its manner of reasoning why Jews are prohibited to kill non Jews and by Halachic laws about life of non Jews both ancient and modern. According to great majority of Halachic authorities the prohibition to kill non Jews is not derived by the Halacha from the commandment "You shall not kill" (in Hebrew it is "You shall not murder") in the Decalogue, just as we have seen above that the prohibition not to steal from not Jews is not derived from the commandment "You shall not steal" in it (see the detailed survey in Talmudic Encyclopedia, the original Hebrew, volume 5, article "goy", pp. 355-356.
The survey adds that the prohibition of killing non Jews is valid only in the absence of war, since "during war the saying 'kill the best of non Jews' applies.) In fact, Halacha is based on complete separation between Jews and non Jews. I will illustrate this attitude by one law not affecting the lives of non Jews, showing both the extent of the separation and the extent of tolerance granted by Halacha to non Jews when Jews have the power. Writes Maimonides: "A non Jew who studies Torah (Old Testament and Talmud are included in this term) is guilty of offense meriting death. He should study nothing except their Seven Commandments (the sa called Noahide Commandments given to Noah). In the same manner a non Jew who did not work on Sabbath, even [if he did not work] on another day of the week, if he made it into a Sabbath, is guilty of offense meriting death. Needless to say he is guilty [of offence meriting death] if he had established a holiday.
The general rule is that one should not allow them to innovate about religion from their own reasoning. A non Jew should either convert to Judaism and accept all commandments, or stay in his religion without either adding or subtracting anything from it. [However], if he (a non Jew) did study the Torah or refrained from working on the Sabbath, or innovated anything, he should be beaten up and punished and be told that he is guilty of offence meriting death for what he had done, but he is not executed" (Laws of Kings, chapter 10, rule 9).
Let me add a few other laws or modern rabbinic pronouncements where disregard for a life of a non Jew or even putting him to death is especially glaring. Let us begin with the case of sexual intercourse between Jewish male and non Jewish female, regarded as much worse by the Halacha than the equally forbidden sexual intercourse between Jewish female and non Jewish male, one presumes because of the attitude to the female as a temptress prevalent in Judaism no less than in other religions. Maimonides pronounces: "If a Jew has coitus with a non Jewish woman, whether she is be a child of three or an adult, whether married or unmarried, and even if he is a minor aged only nine years and one day because he had a willful coitus with her, she must be killed as is the case with a beast, because through her a Jew got into trouble (Laws of Prohibited Intercourse, chapter 12, rule 10; the law is also enunciated in the article "goy" of the Talmudic Encyclopedia). The words "as is the case with a beast" refer to the halachic law stating that a beast with which a Jew had sexual relations is to be killed, for a similar reason to the killing of non Jewish female. Even more important is the prohibition on the Jews to save the life of a non Jew in normal times, and especially the prohibition to violate Sabbath for the sake of saving a non Jewish life as the Jews are enjoined to do for sake of saving a Jewish life. The subject is treated in "Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel" (p. 120), and I have treated it more extensively in my "Jewish History, Jewish Religion" (pp. 80-87), so I will quote here only one law. If Jews see on the Sabbath a ship in danger of sinking they are forbidden to violate the Sabbath in order to save it "if nothing at all is known about the identity of those on board", because the probability is that passengers are non Jews. This pronouncement occurs in one of the major commentaries on Shulchan Aruch written by renowned Rabbi Akiva Eiger who died only in 1837, and the commentary is printed regularly with the text (ibid. Orach Hayim, paragraph 329). I assume that Bialoguski can ask rabbi Lauffer of Jerusalem about his behavior when he sees on the Sabbath a ship in danger in the case he was not previously informed whether there are Jews among the passengers. Rabbi Lauffer must be thoroughly familiar with this law. I have not yet heard about one Orthodox rabbi opposing rabbi Eiger or any Reform rabbi referring to this law, although I should add that opposing him is not enough: he should be condemned as an immoral person, in the same way as the worst anti-Semites are.
After many quotations from Hebrew let me finish my vindication with an English language quotation, taken from an important Jewish publication appearing in New York, and so easily available to all, about the real attitude of Orthodox Jews to non Jews. On April 26, 1996 "Jewish Weekly" important American Jewish magazine published a long and very respectful interview of its staff writer, Lawrence Cohler, with rabbi Yitzhak Ginsburgh, under the title: "Hero Or Racist? Are Jewish lives really more valuable than non-Jewish ones? Radical rabbi just freed from an Israeli prison thinks so".
Let me explain that Ginsburgh was imprisoned without trial some time after the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin, because as one who had publicly approved from the halachic point of view the massacre of Baruch Goldstein, and lauded that murderer to the skies, was suspected of some involvement in encouraging the murder of Rabin. Let me quote from that interview (worthy of being studied by everyone who wants to know what Orthodox Judaism is. Ginsburgh is correctly described in that interview as an important leader of the Lubavitch Hassidic sect. Let me quote some of Ginsburgh views from that interview. "Citing explicit instructions he says he received from the late Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Ginsburgh has also strongly defended Jewish revenge attacks on Arabs, at least after-the-fact.
Whether he would tell a Jew to engage in in such a random attacks beforehand 'is a different story', Rabbi Ginsburgh said. But after such an attack took place in response to an Arab provocation, 'You can't even hint it was a bad thing'. Among other things, he explained, the jurisdiction of an Israeli court in such a case is illegitimate because 'Legally, if a Jew does kill a non-Jew, he's not called a murderer. He didn't transgress the Sixth Commandment: Thou Shall not murder. This applies only to Jews killing Jews. Therefore [in a Jewish state] his punishment is given over to heaven' rather than to a secular court". Let me emphasize the key word in this morally repulsive passage is "random", and that Halacha as correctly enunciated by Ginsburgh permits Jews to kill not only Arabs but non Jews in general at random, if other non Jews "made a provocation". In other words, Halacha allows Jews to lynch non Jews.
In terms of the Halacha Ginsburgh is simply accurate and no rabbi had tried to prove him wrong. What I had stated above and what was written in "Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel" is only a milder version of what Ginsburgh said, but the real offence was to say it to everybody and not to a Jewish audience. The interview says that "in 1989, Rabbi Ginsburgh was personally involved in the events that led to such a killing when he led a large group of his yeshiva students on an armed West Bank 'walking tour' that slipped around Israeli Army restrictions and assertively through a Palestinian village. The tour ended in a melee that saw the rabbi stoned by angry villagers, the yeshiva boys rampaging through the village setting fires and vandalizing, and a 13-year-old Palestinian girl who was sitting in her house shot by one of the yeshiva tourists". In other words, the event described by The Jewish Week as "tour" was just a pogrom, one of the many organized in the West Bank by Halacha-keeping Jews in the last decades. The most interesting thing about those Jewish pogroms was that no rabbi of importance condemned any of them. In this case, no Orthodox rabbi found a word to say about that "13-year-old Palestinian girl", who was murdered by Halacha-keeping Jews. "At the trial of the yeshiva boy charged with the killing, Rabbi Ginsburgh said bluntly, "The people of Israel must rise and declare in public that a Jew and a goy are not, God forbid, the same. Any trial that assumes that Jews and goyim are equivalent is a travesty of justice".
In accord with this principle of total difference between Jews and non Jews and absolute inferiority of the latter, Rabbi Ginsburgh asserted that "If every single cell in a Jewish body entails divinity, is a part of God, then every strand of DNA is a part of God. Therefore, something is special about Jewish DNA. Later, Rabbi Ginsburgh asked rhetorically, 'If a Jew needs a liver, can you take the liver of innocent non-Jew passing by to save him? The Torah would probably permit that. 'Jewish life has infinite value' he explained. 'There is something infinitely more holy and unique about Jewish life than non-Jewish life'".
On the day of the publication of this article, the item about halachic permission to stop "innocent non-Jewish passing by" tt his liver, this part of interview was translated into Hebrew and published in Haaretz, the most prestigious Israeli paper, by its correspondent Yair Shaleg. (The story did not appear in the New York Times.) A few days afterwrds, Sheleg called on Orthodox rabbis to oppose this view and declare that it contradicts the Halacha. No one did so till the present day.
Let me add that the few New York rabbis asked by The Jewish Week to comment on Ginsburgh did not say that his views are wrong or that they should be condemned. One said they are based on "statements out of context". Another admitted that "The sad thing is, these statements are in our books," but they are "purely theoretical." (Apparently, the murder of that 13-old-girl was "purely theoretical" because she was not Jewish.)
No one said even a fraction of what I presume he would say had similar statement been made with the word "Jew" and "non-Jew" reversed. In addition to what I had quoted in this Vindication, I conclude from the refusal of any Orthodox rabbi (including "Rabbi Lauffer of Jerusalem" so trusted by Bialoguski) that Ginsburgh's views represent correctly the views of Halacha and of Jewish Orthodoxy about non Jews, and about how Jews should treat them if only they have the power to behave according to Halacha.
Let me add to those who kept silent because, presumably, they agree with Ginsburgh about the non Jews, not only in the Middle East, the Anti Defamation League and similar Jewish organization who follow the media to protest against what they consider a defamation of Judaism. It can be presumed that Ginsburgh's views are for the ADL not a defamation but a part of Judaism. It is against this situation that I wrote this Vindication.
Israel Shahak
# # # # # #
| |  | | dangerousdna | | Posted: Sun Jan 05, 2003 8:30 pm Post subject: Intifada 2000 and The "Peace Process" |
| http://www.cactus48.com/intifada2000.html
Intifada 2000 and
The "Peace Process"
The flaws of the Oslo Accords
"The United States has been a terrible 'sponsor' of the peace process. It has
succumbed to Israeli pressure on everything, abandoning the principle of land for peace (no U.N. Resolution says anything about returning a tiny percentage, as opposed to all of the land Israel seized in 1967), pushing the lifeless Palestinian leadership into deeper and deeper holes to suit Netanyahu's preposterous demands."The fact is that Palestinians are dramatically worse off than they were before the Oslo process began. Their annual income is less than half of what it was in 1992; they are unable to travel from place to place; more of their land has been taken than ever before; more settlements exist; and Jerusalem is practically lost..."Every house demolishment, every expropriated dunum, every arrest and torture, every barricade, every closure, every gesture of arrogance and intended humiliation simply revives the past and reenacts Israel's offenses against the Palestinian spirit, land, body politic. To speak about peace in such a context is to try to reconcile the irreconcilable."Edward Said in "The Progressive", March 1998
The roots of Intifada 2000
"The explosion of Palestinian anger last September 29
put an end to the charade begun at Oslo seven years ago and labelled the 'peace process.' In 1993 Palestinians, along with millions of people around the world, were led to hope that Israel would withdraw from the West Bank and Gaza within five years and that Palestinians would then be free to establish an independent state. Meanwhile both sides would work out details of Israel's withdrawal and come to an agreement on the status of Jerusalem, the future of Israeli settlements, and the return of Palestinian refugees."Because of the lopsided balance of power, negotiations went nowhere and the Palestinians' hopes were never fulfilled. The Israelis, regardless of which government was in power, quibbled over wording, demanded revisions of what had previously been agreed to, then refused to abide by the new agreements. Meanwhile successive governments were demolishing Palestinian homes, taking over Arab neighborhoods in East Jerusalem for Jewish housing, and seizing Palestinian land for new settlements. A massive new highway network built after 1993 on confiscated Palestinian land isolates Palestinian towns and villages from one another and from Jerusalem, forcing many Palestinians to go through Israeli checkpoints just to get to the next town..."According to President Clinton and most of the media, Prime Minister Ehud Barak conceded at Camp David virtually everything the Palestinians wanted, and Yasser Arafat threw away the opportunity for peace by rejecting Barak's offer. In fact Arafat could not accept it. Barak, backed by Clinton, wanted assurance of Israel's continued strategic control over the West Bank and Gaza, including air space and borders, and insisted that Israel retain permanent sovereignty over most of East Jerusalem, including Haram Al-Sharif. This was a deal no Arab would accept."As the protests grew, army helicopters rocketed neighborhoods in several Palestinian cities, destroying entire city blocks and causing scores of casualties. Israeli tanks surrounded Palestinian towns with their guns turned toward the town. Armed Israeli civilians within the Green Line rampaged through Arab neighborhoods destroying Arab property and shouting "Death of Arabs'...Israeli police who were quick to use bullets against Palestinian stone throwers failed to restrain the Israelis and instead fired at Arabs trying to defend their homes. Two Arabs were killed."The uprising was undoubtedly fueled by the resentment caused by years of daily abuse and humiliation under Israeli occupation. On September 6, a group of Israeli border police stopped three Palestinian workers as they were returning home from Israel and, for no reason at all, subjected them to 40 minutes of torture. The San Francisco Chronicle reported on September 19 that the policemen punched the three men, slammed their heads against a stone wall, forced them to swallow their own blood, and cursed their mothers and sisters. The incident only came to light because the policemen took photographs of themselves with their victims, holding their heads by the hair like hunting trophies. Israeli human rights workers said such beatings are a common occurance, but they are seldom reported." Rachelle Marshall, "The Peace Process Ends in Protests and Blood", Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, December 2000.
"Israel has failed the test"
"In the Oslo Agreements, Israel and the West put
Palestinian leadership to a test: In exchange for an Israeli promise to gradually dismantle the mechanisms of the occupation in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, the Palestinian leadership promised to stop every act of violence and terror immediately. For that purpose, all the apparatus for security coordination was created, more and more Palestinian jails were built, and demonstrators were barred from approaching the [Jewish] settlements."The two sides agreed on a period of five years for completion of the new deployment and the negotiations on a final agreement. The Palestinian leadership agreed again and again to extend its trial period...From their perspective, Israel was also put to a test: Was Israel really giving up its attitude of superiority and domination, built up in order to keep the Palestinian people under its control?"More than seven years have gone by and Israel has security and administrative control of 61.2% of the West Bank and about 20% of the Gaza Strip and security control over another 26.8% of the West Bank. This control is what has enabled Israel to double the number of settlers in 10 years..and to seal an entire nation into restricted areas, imprisoned in a network of bypass roads meant for Jews only..."Israel has failed the test. Palestinians control of 12% of the West Bank does not mean that Israel has given up its attitude of superiority and domination...The bloodbath that has been going on for three weeks is the natural outcome of seven years of [Israeli] lying and deception." Israeli journalist Amira Hass, "Israel Has Failed The Test," in Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz, 10/18/00.
Jimmy Carter's simple statement of the facts - November 2000
"An underlying reason that years of U.S. diplomacy have failed and violence in the Middle East persists is that some Israeli leaders continue to 'create facts' by building settlements in occupied territory..."At Camp David in September 1978...the bilateral provisions led to a comprehensive and lasting treaty between Egypt and Israel, made possible at the last minute by Israel's agreement to remove its settlers from the Sinai. But similar constraints concerning the status of the West Bank and Gaza have not been honored, and have led to continuing confrontation and violence..."[Concerning UN Resolution 242] Our government's legal commitment to support this well-balanced resolution has not changed...It was clear that Israeli settlements in the occupied territories were a direct violation of this agreement and were, according to the long-stated American position, both 'illegal and an obstacle to peace.' Accordingly, Prime Minister Begin pledged that there would be no establishment of new settlements until after the final peace negotiations were completed. But later, under Likud pressure, he declined to honor this commitment..."It is unlikely that real progress can be made...as long as Israel insists on its settlement policy, illegal under international laws that are supported by the United States and all other nations."There are many questions as we contine to seek an end to violence in the Middle East, but there is no way to escape the vital one: Land or peace?" Former President Jimmy Carter in The Washington Post, November 26, 2000.
Oslo and Intifada 2000 - continued
"After three weeks of virtual war in the Israeli
occupied territories, Prime Minister Ehud Barak announced a new plan to determine the final status of the region. During these weeks, over 100 Palestinians were killed, including 30 children, often by 'excessive use of lethal force in circumstances in which neither the lives of security forces nor others were in immminent danger, resulting in unlawful killings,' Amnesty International concluded in a detailed report that was scarcely mentioned in the US."Barak's plan...ensure(s) that useable land and resources (primarily water) remain largely in Israeli hands while the population is administered by a corrupt and brutal Palestinian Authority (PA), playing the role traditionally assigned to indigenous collaborators under the several varieties of imperial rule: the Black leadership of South Africa's Bantustans, to mention only the most obvious analagoue..."It is important to recall that the policies have not only been proposed, but implemented, with the support of the U.S. That support has been decisive since 1971, when Washington abandoned the basic diplomatic framework that it had initiated (UN Security Council Resolution 242), then pursued its unilateral rejection of Palestinian rights in the years that followed, culminating in the 'Oslo process.' Since all of this has been effectively vetoed from history in the US., it takles a little work to discover the essential facts. They are not controversial, only evaded," Noam Chomsky, "Al-Aqsa Intifada", October 2000, on Znet, www.lbbs.org/meastwatch.
America - An impartial mediator?
"America's credibility as mediator had long been
questioned by Palestinians, and with reason. 'The Palestinians always complain that we know the details of every proposal from the Americans before they do,' one Israeli government source told The Independent recently. 'There's good reason for that: we write them.'" Phil Reeves in "The Independent" (U.K.), 10/9/2000
Lockstep U.S. Media tell (some of) the facts but not the truth
"Rarely do American journalists explore the ample reasons to believe that the United States is part of the oft-decried cycle of violence. Nor, in the first half of October, was there much media analysis of the fact that the violence overwhelmingly struck at the Palestinian people."Within a period of days, several dozen Palestinians were killed by heavily armed men in uniform - often described by CNN and other news outlets as 'Israeli security forces'. Under the circumstances, it's a notably benign-sounding term for an army that shoots down protestors."As for the rock-throwing Palestinians, I have never seen or heard a single American news account describing them as 'pro democracy demonstrators.' Yet that would be an appropriate way to refer to people who - after more than three decades of living under occupation - are in the streets to demand self determination."While Israeli soldiers and police, with their vastly superior firepower, do most of the killing...American news stories highlighted the specious ultimatums issued by Prime Minister Ehud Barak as he demanded that Palestinians end the violence - while uniformed Israelis under his authority continue to kill them..."Like quite a few other Jewish Americans, I'm apalled by what Israel is doing with U.S. Tax dollars. Meanwhile, as journalists go along to get along, they diminish the humanity of us all." Norman Solomon, "Media Spin Remains In Sync With Israeli Occupation," from FAIR's Media Beat, October 14, 2000.
Intifada 2000 - An overview
"There is, in the final analysis, only one way to 'stop
the violence,' and that is to end the occupation. The desire for liberation will, eventually, always bring an occupied people out into the streets, stones in hand, ready to face the might of powerful armies, preferring to risk death than live in bondage. This is not extreme nation.0 racism or religious fervor. It is the need to be free..."[Occupation] means a reality of unending violence. It means being surrounded by an abusive foreign army that enforces a social system indistinguishable from apartheid; confiscations of land that is then given to hundreds of thousands of Israeli settlers in Jewish-only communities linked by Jewish only roads; home demolitions; torture; cities cut off from each other, closed down on a regular basis. It means living in a massive prison..."Since 1967, there has been only one workable solution to the conflict. The plan is articulated in U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which sets up a two-part 'land for peace' solution. Part one holds that Israel must withdraw from the territories occupied in 1967. Part two calls for all states in the region to live in peace and security in those borders. The Israeli obligation, withdrawal from the occupied territories, is utterly unfulfilled." Hussein Ibish, communications director of the American-Arab Anti Discrimination Committee, in the Los Angeles Times, October 18, 2000.
Albright stands the facts on their heads
"With the same deadpan, expressionless,
emotionless, glazed look, Madam Albright repeated: 'Those Palestinian rock throwers have placed Israel undeer siege,' adding that the Israeli army is defending itself...[But] It is Israel that is the belligerent occupant of Palestine (and not the other way around) Israeli tanks and armored vehicles are surrounding Palestinian villages, camps and cities (and not the other way around). Israeli (American-made) Apache gunships are firing Lau and other missiles at Palestinian protestors and homes (and not the other way around). It is Israel that is confiscating Palestinian land and importing Jewish settlers to set up illegal armed settlements in the heart of Palestinian territory (and not the other way around). The settlers on the rampage in the West Bank and Israelis terrorizing Palestinians in their own homes (and not the other way around)...Israel is committing atrocities against the Palestinians with total impunity, and yet you maintain, 'Israel is beseiged.'" Hanan Ashrawi, in "The Progressive", December 2000
What Arafat was offered
"In American coverage of the recent Camp David meetings,
the American press obediently followed the Israeli and US government spin that while Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak made courageous concessions for peace, Palestinian unwillingness to compromise caused the meeting to fail."Never mind that Barak's 'courageous concessions' consisted of allowing the Palestinians to have joint administrative responsibility over a couple of remote Arab neighborhoods of Arab East Jerusalem - pathetic crumbs tossed on the floor which Arafat was expected to gratefully pick up." American Jewish reporter, Eduardo Cohen, from "What Americans Need to Know - But Probably Won't Be Told - To understand Palestinian Rage" from Palestine Media Watch, www.pmwatch.org
What Arafat was offered - continued
"Barak appears to be asking for only 10% of
the occupied territories. In reality, it's closer to 30%, taking into account the territories he wants to annex in the Jerusalem area and place under his "security control" in the Jordan Valley. But even worse, in the map submitted to the Palestinians, these percentage points cut the country up from East to West and from North to South, so that the Palestinian state will consist of groups of islands, each surrounded by Israeli settlers and soldiers."World opinion is always on the side of the underdog. In this fight, we are Goliath and they are David. In the eyes of the world [outside the US], the Palestinians are fighting a war of liberation against a foreign occupation. We are in their territory, not they on ours. We are the occupiers, they are the victims. This is the objective situation, and no minister of propaganda can change that." Israeli peace activist. Uri Avnery, "12 Conventional Lies About the Palestine-Israeli Conflict" from Palestine Media Watch, www.pmwatch.org.
An Israeli's "Open Letter to a Friend In Peace Now"
"It has been seven years exactly since I wrote my last letter to you.It was the day after the signing of the Oslo Accords, when you invited me to dance with you in Menorah Square...Permit me to quote for you a few passages from that old letter."'You danced in the square because you were happy about this peace. Not just plain peace, but a blend of peace,security, Palestinian chest-beating over sins committed (renunciation of terrorism), and far-reaching concessions by the other side. A peace that you can be proud of. A peace - so you boast - for which we are giving nothing ("Just a tiny bit," whispers the prime minister) and gaining much; recognition, greater security, a halt to the Intifada, renunciation of terrorism, being relieved of the Arabs and more. You are happy about this peace, and in its honor you invite me to dance with you. No thank you...You got rid of Gaza, you separated Israelis from Palestinians, you gave them the dirty work and you didn't even promise withdrawal or a real state. Could peace possibly be bought more cheaply?""'I, by contrast, see peace as an end and not merely as a means, and call for getting out of the Occupied Territories because we have nothing to be there for, even if the occupation did not cost us even one victim or one cent; and I am against shooting children - and adults - simply because it is forbidden to shoot children or ordionary civilians.'"Since the writing of these lines you celebrated the peace and you became fat and prosperous. The repeated and varied violations of the agreements did not move you, not to speak of any change in our culture of war and occupation, the arrogant tone of those negotiating in our name and their attempts to demand more and more in exchange for less and less..."What is there to be confused about? A conquering army is using tanks and helicopter gunships to disperse demonstrations. What is so hard to understand here?...There is an occupation and there is a struggle against the occupation. There are demonstrators and there is an army that has received orders to shed their blood. And don't come to me with the story of the rifles, Your glorious war record qualifies you to understand that even CNN reporters understand, that those rifles do not endanger either Israel or the soldiers if they don't get too close..."[From 1993 letter]"peace is a tango that takes two equal partners dancing in unity; it is not a dance of one who drags around his partner at will...In your dance of peace you have no partners, only enemies. For your peace is his occupation, your success is his loss...Peace is still far away because peace demands honesty, because peace demands equality. You want to force them to lie, you want of them a peace of surrender, you are celebrating a peace of master and slave. Under such conditions there will perhaps be peace-and-quiet, but Peace, no. Not until you open your eyes and your heart. Not until we are ready for a peace of partnership and equality." Michael (Mikado) Warschawski, "The Party Is Over: An Open Letter to a Friend In Peace Now,", from Znet, www.lbbs.org/ZNETTOPnoanimation.html
"Barak promised peace and brought war, and not by accident."
"(Barak) promised peace and brought war, and not by accident. While speaking about peace, he enlarged the settlements. Cut the Palestinian territories into pieces by 'by-pass' roads. Confiscated lands. Demolished homes. Uprooted trees. Paralyzed the Palestinian economy..Conducted negotiations in which he tried to dictate to the Palestinians a peace that amounts to capitulation. Was not satisfied with the fact that by accepting the Green Line, the Palestinians had already given up 78% of their historic homeland. Demanded the annexation of 'settlement blocs" and pretended that they amount only to 3% of the territory, while in fact he meant more than 20% would remain under Israeli control. Wanted to coerce the Palestinians to accept a 'state' cut off from all its neighbors and composed of several enclaves isolated from each other, each surrounded by Israeli settlers and soldiers...Boasts publicly that he has not given back to the Palestinians one inch of territory...When the intifada broke out, sent snipers to shoot, in cold blood from a distance, hundreds of unarmed demonstrators, adults and children. Blockaded each village and town separately, bringing them to the verge of starvation, in order to get them to surrender. Bombarded neighborhoods. Started a policy of mafia-style 'liquidations', causing an inevitable escalation of the violence." Israeli peace activist, Uri Avnery, February 3, 2001, www.gush-shalom.org
A 'benign' occupation?
"Israelis like to believe, and tell the world, that they are
running an 'enlightened' or 'benign' occupation, qualitatively different from other military occupations the world has seen. The truth was radically different. Like all occupations, Israel's was founded on brute force, repression and fear, collaboration and treachery, beatings and torture chambers, and daily intimidation, humiliation and manipulation." Israeli historian, Benny Morris, "Righteous Victims."
What "closure" means"
Just an hour's drive from Jerusalem, a cruel drama has
been underway for the past five months, the likes of which have not been seen since the early days of the Israeli occupation, but the majority of Israelis are taking absolutely no interest in it. The iron grip of the closure in its new format is increasingly strangling a population of 2.8 million people, yet no one is saying a word. . ."It has to be said starkly and simply: There has never been a closure like this there, in the land of barriers and closure. In the worst of times of the previous Intifada, when the iDF was in eveÄr and curfew reigned supreme, there was not a situation in which a whole people was jailed without a trial and without the right of appeal."Israel has split the West Bank by means of hundreds of trenches, dirt ramparts and concrete cubes which have been placed at the entrance to most of the towns and villages. No one enters and no one leaves, not those who are pregnant and not those who are dying. There isn't even a soldier with whom one can plead and beg. A network of bizarre Burma roads that break through the encirclement are sending an entire people along muddy, rocky routes, with the situation aggravated by a substantial risk of getting caught or getting shot by soldiers who often open fire on the desperate travelers. . ."Never before has there been distress and suffering on this scale among the Palestinians in the territories. They will engender unprecendented despair and ultimately they will spark violence more cruel and painful than anything seen so far. . . This is the point: the horrific distress of the Palestinians because of the present closure will quickly turn into the distress of the Israelis. . . The current siege, a shamefully appalling operation, must be lifted quickly. This must not be made conditional on the cessation of the violence, because the siege itself is the most effective spur to violence." Israeli writer, Gideon Levy, in Ha aretz, March 4, 2001 | | | | dangerousdna | | Posted: Sun Jan 05, 2003 8:40 pm Post subject: Views Of The Future |
| http://www.cactus48.com/future.html
Views Of The Future
A future free of ethnocentrism
"The first challenge, then, is to extract acknowledgement from Israel for what it did to
us...But then, I believe, we must also hold out the possibility of some form of coexistence in which a new and better life, free of ethnocentrism and religious intolerance, could be available...If we present our claims about the past as ushering in a form of mutuality and coexistence in the future, a long-term positive echo on the Israeli and Western side will reverberate."Edward Said in "The Progressive", March 1998
The answer? A sovereign Palestinian state.
"The final destination of a Palestinian-Israeli peace settlement has begun to emerge
from the political haze. Such a settlement must...give the Palestinian people a sovereign, uncontested, independent state of their own. This is a matter of justice and practicality. If a truly lasting and stable peace is the goal, there is no other option...The mere trappings of statehood will not suffice. The state has to be real and workable. The following are its essential conditions.
Territorial integrity and contiguity...Any further dissection of Palestinian territory would make it politically and economically impossible to maintain a state...There can be no civilian pockets under Israeli rule on Palestinian land...
A sovereign capital in Jerusalem. East Jerusalem is Palestine's historical, spiritual and commercial heart. To exclude it from a Palestinian state is unthinkable...
"Justice and fairness for refugees...As a matter of principle, the Palestinians right to return or be compensated for their lost homes and land is nonnegotiable...Israel must acknowledge the suffering and hardship Palestinian refugees have faced as a result of their eviction from their homeland, and must assist in their rehabilitation and reabsorption." A.S. Khalidi, Op-Ed piece in the New York Times, February 11, 1997.
Palestinian refugees claim to repatriation is realistic, as well as just
Palestinian engineer and parliamentarian Salman Abu Sitta...(showed) that 'the return
of the refugees is possible with no appreciable dislocation of Jewish residents.' This is because '78 percent of the Jewish population of Israel lives on only 15 percent of the land'...
"Ironically, the land in the upper Galilee from which a very large percentage of the refugees were driven is so lightly populated because most of thÝ immigrants [that] settled there refused to remain so far from the centers of Israeli urban life in Tel Aviv, Haifa and Jerusalem...Of those actually cultivating those former Palestinian fields, many are non-Jewish Thais, Rumanians and others slated to return to their countries at the end of their contracts." Richard Curtiss from June 2000 issue of "Washington Report On Middle East Affairs."
Israeli professor calls for a new Zionism
"It was our nationalism...which drew the country into an occupation and settlement of
the West Bank...None of the leaders of the Labor movement believed that the Palestinians deserved the same right [as Jews] because none of them believed in universal rights. Pretending, like [Arthur] Hertzberg and others do, that the Occupation and the colonial situation created in the last thirty years was merely the product of the Arab refusal to recognize Israel, is no more than looking for an alibi and falsifying history...
"The time has come to say that if the settlements in Judea and Samaria or in the very heart of Hebron are the natural, logical and legitimate continuation of the original intention of Zionism, then we need another Zionism. If a 'Jewish State' that does not recognize the absolute equality of all human beings is considered to be closer to the spirit of the founding fathers than a new liberal Zionism, then it is time to say good-bye to the ghosts of the founders, and to start forging for ourselves an identity detached from the mystical ramifications of our religion and the irrational side of our history." Israeli professor of political science, Ze'ev Sternhell, in "Tikkun", May/June 1998.
Sources for further research on Palestine and Israel
These short quotes do not, of course, prove the assertions made here. The historical
evidence, however, is overwhelming and is available in fully documented form in the books cited. Particularly useful sources are:
1. "Palestine and Israel: A Challenge to Justice" by John Quigley, professor of law at Ohio State University. Duke University Press, 1990.
2. "The Fateful Triangle: The United States, Israel & The Palestinians" by Noam Chomsky, professor at MIT and "arguably the most important intellectual alive" (NY Times). South End Press, 1983.
3."Original Sins: Reflections on the History of Zionism and Israel" by Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi. An honest history of Zionism by a noted Israeli scholar who teaches at Haifa University. Olive Branch Press, 1993.
4. "Bitter Harvest" by Sami Hadawi. A very complete look at the documentary evidence of the creation of the state of Israel, by a Palestinian Christian who lived through that period. Caravan Books 1979.
For articles from the alternative and Israeli press, please see ZNet at www.lbbs.org and www.commondreams.org/viewsarchive.htm.
A wealth of information on Palestine/Israel is to be found at www.geocities.com:0080/CapitolHill/Senate/7891.
Another very useful resource is the Jewish Voice for Peace. To join their mailing list, e-mail shlensky@socrates.Berkeley.edu.
Also, the American Educational Trust, publisher of Washington Report on Middle East Affairs(a great magazine) has a large selection of books available. Write for their free catalog to AET, PO Box 53062, Washington, DC 20009. | | | | dangerousdna | | Posted: Sun Jan 05, 2003 8:45 pm Post subject: CONCLUSION I |
| http://www.cactus48.com/conclusionI.html
CONCLUSION I
For Jewish Readers
As we have seen, the root cause of the Palestine-Israel conflict is clear. During the 1948 war, 750,000 Palestinians fled in terror or were actively expelled from their ancestral homeland and turned into refugees. The state of Israel then refused to allow them to return and either destroyed their villages entirely or expropriated their land, orchards, houses, businesses and personal possessions for the use of the Jewish population. This was the birth of the state of Israel.
We know it is hard to accept emotionally, but in this case the Jewish
people are in the wrong.We took most of Palestine by force from the Arabs and blamed the victims for resisting their dispossession. If you run into someone's car, for whatever reason, simple justice demands that you repair it. Our moral obligation to the Palestinian people is no less clear. It is time for all Jewish people of good conscience to make whatever amends are possible to the Palestinians in order to live up to the best part of the Jewish tradition - its ethical and moral basis.
Any criticism of Israel is traditionally seen by American Jews as harmful
to the Jewish people, even if the criticism is true. But "my people, right or wrong, my people" is no different than "my country, right or wrong, my country". Once we start down the slippery slope where the ends justify the means we have left behind any claim to morality. Along with millions of other American Jews unaffiliated with the major U.S. Jewish organizations, we are outraged at the Israeli government's ongoing oppression of the Palestinians and feel that it has been the ruination of the high moral standing of the Jewish people.
The Israeli government could solve the Palestine/Israel crisis tomorrow.
It actually would be in the best interests of its citizens to do so because random acts of terrorism against Israelis would cease if Palestinian demands for a viable, independent state were accepted and compensation for Arab losses made.
Here in America, we Jews are thoroughly assimilated into the
mainstream of society and hold positions of power and influence in every field of endeavor. We do not need to be in a defensive mood anymore. We can afford to change out attitude from "is it good the the Jews?" to "Is it good?" At the very least, American Jews need to categorically state that we cannot condone Israel's illegal occupation of Palestinian land, and the intentional murder and crippling of Palestinian protestors armed only with rocks, as documented in reports by the UN Security Council, the UN Human Rights Commission, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Israeli groups like B'Tselem, etc.
According to a survey commissioned by the five largest American
Jewish organizations, but suppressed by them afterwards, 20% of American Jews support Palestinian demands and 35% say that Jerusalem should be shared. This, in the face of a near-total blackout of the Palestinian position in our press, is very impressive. Join this growing segment of American Jews by contacting Not In My Name, at www.nimn.org, a group that is spearheading a coalition of Jewish groups to protest the Israeli occupation.
Israel's long-term interests can best be served by supporting Israeli
peace groups, like Gush Shalom (www.gush.shalom.org), not the Israeli government and its brutal repression, which just leads to endless violence. Israeli peace groups rightfully criticize their government and we should too, since they claim to act in our name. American groups like the Jewish Peace Lobby, Jewish Voice For Peace and the Middle East Children's Alliance also deserve your support. Don't compromise yout ethics in blind support of bad politics--work for a just soultion instead.
Please write for more free copies of this booklet to the address on the
back page and ask your Jewish friends to consider the information presented here. For everyone's sake. Peace.
Important Note: at the end of the next section,
ConclusionII, there is a list of Jewish organizations in America and Israel, and links to their websites, which are informative and interesting. We encourage to explore them with an open mind. | | | | dangerousdna | | Posted: Sun Jan 05, 2003 8:56 pm Post subject: CONCLUSION II |
| http://www.cactus48.com/conclusionII.html
CONCLUSION II
We hope that this look at the historical record concerning the root cause of the Middle East conflict will give second thoughts to all who have previously supported Israel's actions.
The persecution of the Jews for centuries in Europe was the worst of
many stains on the European record, and the Zionists' desire for a place of sanctuary is certainly understandable. Like all other colonial enterprises, however, Zionism was based on the total disregard of the rights of indigenous inhabitants. As such, it is morally indefensible. And, as previously stated, all subsequent crimes - and there have been many on both sides - inevitably follow from this original injustice to the Palestinians.
Given the damage that has been done to the Palestinian people,
Israel's obligation is to make whatever amends possible. Among these should be assisting the creation of a sovereign Palestinian state in the entire West Bank and Gaza with its capital in East Jerusalem. Israel should not object to this state and, in addition, should help with its foundation via generous reparations. Besides being the right thing to do, this would stop the sporadic acts of violence against Israel, as the Palestinians' legitimate desire for their own state would be realized. Moreover, all laws that discriminate against non-Jews living in Israel should be repealed.
Given the history outlined in this paper, we conclude that the
Palestinians have gotten "the short end of the stick" and that justice demands that wrongs should be righted. Full and complete justice would entail allowing any Palestinian to return to Israel if they wished but, practically speaking, we understand that this is a recipe for even more bloodshed. Therefore, recognizing that reality, we join Gush Shalom and other Israeli peace groups in calling for a negotiated, modified right of return with the bulk of Palestinian refugees being settled in a Palestinian state, financed by generous reparations from both Israel and the international community.
As U.S. citizens, we have a special obligation to see that justice is done
in this matter. U.S. financial aid to Israel has been, and continues to be, enormous; and our diplomatic support is the crucial factor allowing Israel's continued occupation of Arab territories. We strongly recommend that you contact your elected representatives in Washington and urge them to insist that, as a preconditon of continued support, Israel must abide by the consensus of world opinion and withdraw to its 1967 borders, as demanded in numerous UN votes.
American Jews in particular have a special responsibility to
acknowledge the Palestinian point of view in order to help move the debate forward. As Chomsky writes in his Peace in the Middle East?, "In the American Jewish community, there is little willingness to face the fact that the Palestinian Arabs have suffered a monstrous historical injustice, whatever one may think of the competing claims. Until this is recognized, discussion of the Middle East crisis cannot even begin."
In the long run, only by admitting their culpability and making amends
can Israelis live with their neighbors in peace. Only then can the centuries-old Jewish tradition of being a people of high moral character be restored. And only in this way can real security, peace and justice come to this ancient land.
Thank you for taking the time to read
"The Origin of the Palestine-Israel Conflict"
Jews for Justice in The Middle East
P.O. Box 14561
Berkeley CA 94712 | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
