Google+ Followers

Monday, 31 October 2011

Anti-Semitism and its Zionist Twin




In the current climate, with the debate over Gilad Atzmon’s Wandering Who? and debates over Jewish identity, it is worth trying to get hold of a copy of the first issue of Return Magazine, first published in March 1989. It is probably the best ever collection of articles on Jewish Identity, Anti-Semitism and related issues that has ever been published and is well worth revisiting. At some time, I will try and scan all the articles but below I publish both JPGs of the article I wrote and the text underneath.

Tony Greenstein


Zionism and Anti-Semitism
Tony Greenstein
MUCH OF THE CRITICISM of Perdition has centered around the exceptional and unique nature of the Holocaust, both in terms of the sheer magnitude and the systematic and planned nature of the extermination. Therefore, the argument goes, the reaction of the Zionists, and indeed the Jewish community to the Nazis, was also exceptional and cannot be ana-lysed, still less judged, by those who didn't experience those events. What I want to show is that the Zionist response to the Nazis, the collaboration and accommodation, far from being exceptional, was part of a pattern that was no different from the traditional response of Zionism towards anti-Semitism, and that this is true both for the period before and after the Holocaust Although the Nazi era is not covered, there is no doubt that the primary goal of the Zionist movement throughout this period was the creation of a state and that everything else, including the fate of the Jews, was secondary and had to be structured around the former. Further, that this relegation of the needs of Jewry to the Jewish state is as relevant today as it was 50 years ago.

The first example of Zionism's attitude to anti-Semitism is prior to the Holocaust From 1871, with the first outbreak of pogroms in Odessa in Czarist Russia to 1914, some 150, 000 Jews took refuge in this country. It is interesting to note the reaction to this immigration, both generally and more specifically, in terms of the existing Anglo-Jewish community. From the 1890's onwards, Jewish immigration increasingly became an issue in British politics. Opposition to the Jewish refugees was spearheaded in particular by a group of Tory MPs and candidates in the East End of London. Much of what happened was to repeat itself 60 years later in respect of Black immigration into Britain. The organisation around which this opposition crystalised was the British Brothers League, a forerunner of the British Union of Fascists in the '30s, which also had its base in the East End. It was founded by one Major William Evans-Gordon, who was elected to Parliament in 1900 for the constituency of Stepney, overturning a Liberal majority. The BBL had a bourgeois leadership and a plebeian base, something which led to tension and sometimes conflict within that organisation. It should also be pointed out that at first, organised labour in Britain and the TUC was also opposed to Jewish immigration, because of the fear of unemployment, something that the BBL skilfully exploited.

William Evans-Gordon was a forerunner of Enoch Powell. He was also an ardent supporter of the embryonic Zionist movement something which can be seen from correspondence between him and the future President of the Zionist Organisation and the State of Israel, Chaim Weizmann. In his autobiography, Weizmann goes out of his way to paint an extraordinarily sympathetic portrait of this bigot:

"I think our people were rather hard on him. The Aliens Bill in England and the movement which grew around it were natural phenomenon which might have been foreseen... Sir William Evans-Gordon had no particular anti-Jewish prejudices... he was sincerely ready to encourage any settlement of Jews almost anywhere in the British Empire [!] but he failed to see why the ghettos of London or Leeds should be made into a branch of the ghettos of Warsaw and Pinsk... Sir William Evans-Gordon gave me some insight into the psychology of the settled citizen... " 1

The BBL was also supported by the Jewish Conservative MP for Limehouse, Harry Samuel (who was displaced by a Jewish Liberal in 1906) and the Liberal Jewish MP for Wolverhampton South, Henry Norman. In the vote in 1905, of the 12 Jewish MPs, 4 voted for the Aliens Bill, 4 voted against and 4 abstained. The attitude of the existing Anglo-Jewish community of some 60,000, newly emancipated by the Whigs, was to fear that the backlash against the refugees - who unlike them-selves were not anglicised, dressed differently, spoke Yiddish etc. - would spill over into hostility towards themselves. They were for the most part prosperous and newly accepted within the innermost circles of the English bourgeoisie. Why jeopardise their class position for the sake of religious brethren with whom they had so little in common? Their attitude was best summed up by the Conservative Chief Rabbi of the time (some things never change) Hermann Adler, "We [Anglo-Jewry] must frankly agree, that we do not desire to admit criminals, and that there is force in the argument against the admission of those [Jews] mentally or physically afflicted. " 2

Which is why the Board of Deputies of British Jews at no time opposed even the far more restrictive Aliens Bill of 1904. Instead they pressed, both the Tories who introduced it and the Liberals who implemented it for a series of minor amendments. In the words of the editor of the Jewish Chronicle Leopold Greenburg, the Board "asked for the driest of dry bread, it was given the hardest of hard stone. " 3

The person who piloted the Act through Parliament was the Home Secretary Arthur James Balfour. Balfour, who had previously been Prime Minister, was to become Foreign Secretary in die Lloyd George Cabinet. It was in the latter role that he would issue what became known as the Balfour Declaration, the letter that symbolised the alliance between British imperialism and the Zionist movement. Even today, Balfour is a legend among Zionists, the headquarters of the Zionist Federation in Britain are named after him.

Balfour was extremely typical of the Tory (and Literal) anti-immigration lobby. He combined support for Zionism with anti-Semitism. If you opposed Jews coming into this country then where better to send them than a state, coupled to British colonialism, in Palestine. In 1900, the fledgling English Zionist Federation issued a circular supporting all the anti-Semitic East End Tory candidates. The candidate for Whitechapel. David Hope-Kydd, whom even a local Conservative Alderman, John Harris, refused to support in the 1906 General Election, described the Jewish immigrants as "the scum of the unhealthiest continental nations" but nonetheless "coupled his desire for an aliens' immigration bill with heart-rending support for the infant Zionist movement. 4 He lost to Stuart Samuel by only 71 votes and experienced a lower than average swing against in 1906. His use of language that the Moseleyites used about Jews in the '30s and the National Front uses today about Black people, did not disqualify him from receiving the support of the Zionists. This congruence between Zionism and anti-Semitism was to be a feature tint was to be repeated both in Britain and Europe.

Whatever happened prior to the Israeli state being founded, today the Zionists argue, it is a refuge and a guarantee of the safety of Jews worldwide. And seeking to vindicate their own movement's record and prove the futility of opposition to anti-Semitism, they assert that if only there had been an Israeli state 50 years ago, then the Holocaust would never have occurred.

This is why the experience of Jews under the Argentinian Junta (1976-83) deserves analysis. During the period of the Junta, Nazi papers such as Cabildo and Papeles circulated freely, and the theories of international Jewish conspiracies were the military's ideological stock-in-trade. Under the Junta, some 30 000 people 'disappeared', ie. were murdered. Of these, some 10% were Jewish, despite the Jewish community comprising no more than 1% of the Argentinian population. Yet there was no campaign to save Argentinian Jewry, unlike the high profile campaign over Soviet Jewry. Noone would claim that in recent years some 3 000 Soviet Jews have been tortured to death, yet a massive cold-war campaign was launched to secure the rights of Soviet Jews to emigrate (as long as their destination was Israel) whereas the plight of Argentinian Jews was left to the quiet diplomacy of Israel. The facts which have emerged are due to people like Jacob Timmerman, liberal editor of La Opinion and himself a Zionist, who attacked the Zionist communal leadership in Argentina calling them Judenrat, the quisling Nazi appointed Jewish Councils in Europe. 5 These bodies, Daia (the equivalent of the British Board of Deputies) and Amia (Ashkenazi Jewish Council in Buenos Aires) were controlled by the Israeli Labour Alignment and Mapam. They were also completely unrepresentative. In the 1987 Amia elections, only 7 000 out of an estimated 180, 000 who were eligible voted, the Labour Alignment obtaining nearly 50%. 6 In the election of delegates to the World Zionist Congress, 11 700 votes were cast, 5% of the total Argentinian Jewish community, of which 3 500 went to the Labour Alignment and 2160 to Mapam. 7

Daia and Amia took a decision that under no circumstances would they campaign openly and publicly against what was happening. A leading article entitled 'A White Book' (a publication Daia issued to justify its role) noted that 'The Daia refers with pride to how, during a period of violence and repression in Argentina, Zionist activity continued, including Congress elections. The schools carried on normally, elections of officers took place for communal elections, Argentina was represented at international Jewish gatherings, in short they succeeded in their determination to maintain and protect "a full Jewish life. "8 It described the visit of Geoffrey Paul, editor of the Jewish Chronicle, in 1979 to Argentina and how he "was urged not to make an issue of the disappeared because of the danger of a negative impact on the wider community... while the mothers of the Jewish disappeared pleaded for publicity to bring the atrocities before the publics' attention. " Needless to say Paul heeded the call but, remarkably for the JC, the editorial asks whether, if similar circumstances were to arise in Britain, the Board of Deputies would behave in a similar way towards Jewish leftists and dissidents.

Timmerman was bitterly attacked in the United States for the position he took. Paul asks "how are we to explain the Jewish attacks on Timmerman? Some of them, undoubtedly, have been inspired from conservative circles in the Jewish community, which have been convinced... that Timmerman was in league with left-wing terrorist groups opposed to the Argentine military, and that he 'asked for what he got'. "9 It is these same conservative circles who are the first to raise the question of 'anti-Semitism' in relation to Nicaragua, the Soviet Union and Jesse Jackson.

In October 1983, as the days of the Junta were drawing to a close, a meeting organised by the Argentine Jewish Movement for Human Rights to protest anti-Semitic attacks (bombing of synagogues etc.) drew 7,000 people, however “Daia, Argentine Jewry's political representative body boycotted the event, which it said was dangerous in view of the lack of security. “ 10 Presumably the Junta had refused to give the necessary guarantees!

At the 1984 Congress celebrating the 90th anniversary of Amia "a group of women whose children disappeared during the Argentine military regime's crack down on left-wing opponents shouted 'Nazi, Nazi' at those attending the Congress... the protestors claimed that Israel, Amia and Daia had done nothing to help the 'desaparecidos. ' (disappeared ones). The guest of honour was Mr Itzhak Navon, formerly [Labour] President of Israel. The mothers attempted to prevent his entrance to the conference, as well as that of the Israeli ambassador to Argentina. "11 It is no coincidence that that brave group, the Jewish Mothers of the Disappeared, should focus on the role that Israel played, given its warm relationship to the Junta.

Israel is seen by most Jews as their insurance policy in the event of a recurrence of anti-Semitism. Not only does this belief in Israel as a refuge mean Jews are less inclined to take up the anti-Semitism of the Right, it is an insurance policy that is unlikely to deliver the goods. What Argentina demonstrates is that an anti-Semitic regime will also be authoritarian, semi-fascist and a creature of US imperialism. In short, one winch the Israeli state is only too willing to do business with, politically, militarily and economically, its own Jews notwithstanding. Indeed, in so far as even the US may keep such a regime at arms length, as was the case with Guatemala and Somoza's Nicaragua, then Israel will most likely be that regime's first port of call. Indeed we know from the Malvinas/ Falklands War that Israel was the main arms supplier to Argentina at a time when the US had turned against her.

Not only will Israel not defend Jewish leftwingers, feminists, gays and other dissidents, one can expect Zionist neo-Conservatives in the US around Commentary and Mainstream magazines to bitterly attack the victims of this regime. If they could attack Timmerman, a liberal Zionist and famous editor, there will be no difficulty in attacking Jewish Marxists. Of course there are no such inhibitions about campaigning against 'anti-Semitism' in the USSR, because the Soviet Jewry campaign is a cold-war campaign. Soviet Jewry was the rallying point for those who wished to wreck the new INF agreement in the same way as it helped destroy the SALT II agreement.

It is interesting to see what the reactions have been to Le Pen, a fascist who isn't even in government. Le Pen is the most anti-Arab and pro-Israeli of French politicians. In the JC there was printed an article, incredibly given his view of the Holocaust, entitled 'Le Pen Backs Jews'. 12 Another article 'Oui for Le Pen' describes how a former official of the Marseilles Jewish community has come out in his support. 13 It was estimated that at one stage, 20 per cent of the Jewish community in the Rhone estuary supported Le Pen. The anti-Arabism of the Front Nationale is at one with Zionist anti-Arabism.

A dinner was held in Le Pen's honour, attended by a variety of Zionist leaders including the Director of the World Union of General Zionists and a member of the Executive of the World Zionist Organisation Executive Jacques Torczyner and Dr Israel Singer, Executive Director of the World Jewish Congress, whose feting of a French fascist didn't disqualify him from pursuing allegations unproved against Dr Kurt Waldheim. It was widely immured that the Israeli ambassador to the UN, Benjamin Netanyahu, now a Herut candidate for the Knesset, was also on the guest list. As JC columnist, Chaim Bermant noted, among these Zionists there is the belief the help of Mr Le Pen the special relationship could be restored and that an anti-Arab government in France would necessarily be good for Israel even if it were also anti-Semitic. Indeed there are not a few Israeli politicians who would regard such anti-Semitism as a bonus if only because it would mean an increased influx of Jewish immigrants... and some would like to give what they regard as an inevitable process of history a helping hand. "14

Even were we to omit entirely the era of the Holocaust and Naziism, then the relationship of Zionism to anti-Semitism would be found to be unchanged since the days of Herzl. That although anti-Semitism has been replaced as the predominant, state racism by anti-Black racism in this country (and similarly anti-Arab/Turkish in France/ Germany), where it still exists, among the regimes in America's backyard or in fascist parties in Europe, who given the right set of circumstances might gain a share of power as Le Pen was on the brink of doing, then Zionism is no more an answer today than it was 50 or 100 years ago. The only difference is that today Zionism holds state power" and its capacity for damaging the interests of Jewry is correspondingly that much greater.

1. Chaim Weizmann, Trial and Error, pp. 90-91, Schocken, 1966. 2. G Alderman, The Jewish Community in British Politics, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1983, p. 187. 3. Jewish Chronicle 24. 4. 1908, cited in Alderman p78. 4. Alderman pp68-75. 5. Prisoner Without A Name, Cell Without A Number, Weidenfield, 1980. 6. Jewish Chronicle 1. 6. 84. 7. Jewish Chronicle 30.10.87. 8. Jewish Chronicle 25. 5. 84. 9. Jewish Chronicle 31. 7. 81. 10. Jewish Chronicle 28. 10. 83. 11. Jewish Chronicle 23. 3. 84. 12. Jewish Chronicle 17. 10. 86. 13. Jewish Chronicle 11. 9. 87. 14. Jewish Chronicle 4. 9. 87. “Why some leading Jews are courting Le Pen”

25 comments:

Anonymous said...

So you are a Anti Zionist Antisemite..........

Tony Greenstein said...

The Problem with Zionists is that they are pretty thick whilst wailing loudly how oppressed they are. In fact the more they put the boot in and glory in the death of Palestinian civilians the more they are the victim of 'anti-Semitism.

No my dear thick and anonymous Zionist scumbag, it's not us but you who refer to Jews as vermin.

Hence why the Zionist movement was a movement of collaboration with the Nazis.

Anonymous said...

Conclusion : you are a Anti Zionist Antisemite, the issue that it drives you crazy, just proves it.

Tony Greenstein said...

No Mr Anon. Your stupidity doesn't drive me crazy. Rather it amuses me that you follow your predecessors in conflating opposites and basking in the warmth of your own approval.

A rather sad basket case.

ddapriori said...

One of the most galling aspects of the current Zionist canon is that the land and Jerusalem were always close to the Judwish heart in the real sense of longing to possess the land,m to live there and have Jerusalem as a capital etc. This is Zionist claptrap: If the physical land was important to "exilic" Jewry, why did so few actually relocate to the land given two full millenia to do so? The truth is that we arrive at the modern era of Zionism with very few Jews occupying the land at all and this doesn't make sense. In all that time, 2000 years, a vocal kernel of Jewish life would have formed in the land especially when we consider that many oriental administrations were not nationalist in the modern way and welcomed all sorts of people. There should have a large group of Jews in Palestine clamoring for national self-determination at the dawn of Zionism and there was not.

Gert said...

As Evildoer (Jsf) puts it: the last one supporting Zionism is gonna have an IQ of 1. T'could be Anon, of course.

Good post Tony, very 'enjoyable'. Interesting bits of forgotten history.

Anonymous said...

@tony - then what do you refer to jews as? i'm tired of taking a bum rap & being lumped together with the zionists - the world says the jews the jews blah blah and what any of this political nonsense has to do with me & my religion being persecuted is beyond me. @ddiapori perhaps it's the fact that rome aka the christian church chased the jews all over "europe" persecuting & murdering them for their belief system & the old christ killer bullshit - these liberal oriental administrations you refer to - would you name them? zionism is the direct result of a people being persecuted for no reason whatsoever for a period of almost 2000 years. they asked for it - they got it.

Michael Ezra said...

Ah, RETURN magazine. The one banned from NUS conference for antisemitism. See, "Banned mag storm," Jewish Chronicle April 27, 1990, for more on this.

Tony Greenstein said...

Ah, a rave from the grave as it were. My old adversary, if he can be so crowned, Michael Ezra, otherwise known as Mad Mikey.

Yes, he's correct. Return was banned by NUS Conference, although most of its writers were Jewish and the articles started from a position of opposition to anti-Semitism.

Zionism has consistently sought to ban anti-Zionist publications and works and it has consistently sought to conflate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism.

That is precisely the reason that people like Gilad Atzmon can get away with their anti-Semitism. Because of the 'boy cried wolf' syndrom has immunised many people to anti-Semitism, which is of course what Zionists like Mikely wanted.

Of course the Stalinist now New Labour scum who ran NUS were all in favour of banning anything they disagreed with and Zionism, which has the same totalitarian attitude to opposition as the Nazis had, was more than happy to help them.

But I doubt if Ezra can point to a single phrase or sentence that was anti-Semitic. What it did do was point out uncomfortable truths.

Problem is that Ezra is so thick that he is unlikely to understand much of this.

However all is not lost. After having argued for years that Rudolf Kastner, the Zionist collaborator with the Nazis in Hungary was a saint, Ezra has now accepted my analysis that he was indeed a Zionist traitor who sold the lives of 1/2 million Jews for the Zionist and Jewish elite.

Tony Greenstein said...

To anonymous - do try to use a name/pseudonym it's easier to refer to. No the Jews were not persecuted for 2,000 years. It's a myth. It helps them having to understand the various forms of anti-Semitism. During much of that time Jews were the persecutor of the peasantry and much of what is called 'anti-Semitism' was the reaction to tax lenders, money lenders etc. Theology merely disguised this.

Nazi racism was different in that it was based on immutable characeritstics, i.e. race.

Tony Greenstein said...

Forgot to add that, if you search the blog, you will find that like all Zionists, Mike Ezra has also co-operated and worked with anti-Semites. In this case Gilad Atzmon! I was the common enemy!!!

Gert said...

Anon:

”i'm tired of taking a bum rap & being lumped together with the zionists - the world says the jews the jews blah blah and what any of this political nonsense has to do with me & my religion being persecuted is beyond me. “

You really don’t understand much at all, do you? If anyone is lumping the Jews together it’s Zionism and Israel, both of which permanently pretend to speak for all of Jewry/Judaism. Non-Jewish supporters of Zionism, Zionism’s useful idiots, do no better: I only have to mention ANYWHERE that not all Jews support Zionism, only to be told that those who don’t aren’t ‘real Jews’, are ‘second class Jews’, ‘self-hating Jews’ and worse beside that. Zionism has given a whole group of Gentiles license to call Jews that say ‘not in my name’ every name under the sun. Try and get your facts straight.

”zionism is the direct result of a people being persecuted for no reason whatsoever for a period of almost 2000 years. they asked for it - they got it.”

Baloney. Prior to the Holocaust the overwhelming majority of Jews were not in favour of a Jewish state. The Holocaust was the game changer a few elitist Jews used to make a final push for their colonial enterprise (they haven't stopped abusing it since either). To do so they got into bed with rather a lot of antisemitic pond life. As demonstrated on this here blog time and time again.

And yes, get a google handle, otherwise we can’t distinguish one ‘guest’ from the next…

Anonymous said...

"Jews were not persecuted for 2,000 years. It's a myth."

Anonymous this is Anti Jewish Retoric, used by the biggest antisemites ever.
And used today by Atzmon.
Meaning, the Jews are to be blamed for the fact the Hitler killed them.

Greenstein the antijew.

Tony Greenstein said...

Let me clarify for the benefit of anonymous. Jews weren't persecuted continuously for a period of 2,000 years. Clearly during that time there were occasions when they were persecuted, often very savagely such as under the Inquisition. At other times they were persecutors of others.

Jews weren't the innocent victims all of the time and non-Jews weren't the guilty party all of the time. What is so difficult in that. One of my heroes, Abram Leon, leader of the Fourth International in Belgium, who died in Auschwitz having been tortured by the Gestapo, wrote the classic book - the Jewish Question: A Marxist Interpretation.

Here's what he said about Zionism's attitude to anti-Semitism:

'Zionism transposes modern anti-Semitism to all of history; it saves itself the trouble of studying the various forms of anti-Semitism and their evolution.' p.247.

The myth of an eternal anti-Semitism is the mirror image of the eternal Jew, the title of the infamous Nazi film.

It's a pity instead of screaming anon that you don't sit down and think for once. I deleted your previous post because you were being abusive and I will do so again. if you want to argue your corner fine, but you will have to eliminate those ants in your pants first!

Gert said...

Dumbo Anon:

I think you'll find that if you ask him nicely Tony means that Jewish history is rather a chequered affair, with indeed periods of persecution and periods in which 'the Jews' (pointless generalising, considering how diverse in many ways a group it is) did quite well. In that sense '2000 years of persecution' is indeed a myth.

You're basically an imbecile.

Anonymous said...

Your Quote:
"Jews were not persecuted for 2,000 years. It's a myth."
"During much of that time Jews were the persecutor of the peasantry"

Is spread all over the net.
Welcome to the world fo AntiJews

You are in the list Greenstein the Antijew .........

Tony Greenstein said...

Our anonymous Zionist is both dumb and illiterate.

Any attempt to examine the myths of Zionism result in one being an anti-Jew. Strange. What would have been made of the Golden Period of Jewry in Moorish Spain (Abba Eban's phrase not mine!).

Truly Zionists today can only flourish on a diet of mindless slogans and carefully distilled propaganda. No doubt Abram Leon was also an 'anti-Jew'.

And what is an 'anti-Jew'? Well the equivalent of the 'anti-Christ' so beloved of the Fundamentalist Christians who want the Jews to return to Israel so that they can burn to death as part of the Rapture. Yes I guess in that sense I am indeed the 'anti-Jew'!!

Anonymous said...

mmmmm I see that tonyle' joined the group now.
How is it to be an ANTIJEW ?
So at the end you made it clear, you are an anti Zionist and an antiJew.
You invented the formula
AntiZionist = AntiJew

Anonymous said...

Ttony Greenstein in order to defend your ignorant views, get some knowledge first, before you swing into your illusions.
"Golden Period of Jewry in Moorish Spain" indicate the "cultural situation" of the internal Spanish Jews and not the conditions they lived in.

The Jews were treated as "Dhimmit".....
I bet a "humanist"??? like you, would promote this kind of treatment.

Indeed, although Moses ben-Maimon, called Maimonides or Rambam a preeminent medieval Jewish philosopher is frequently referred to as a paragon of Jewish achievement facilitated by the enlightened rule of Andalusia, his own words debunk this utopian view of the Islamic treatment of Jews:
“..the Arabs have persecuted us severely, and passed baneful and discriminatory legislation against us…Never did a nation molest, degrade, debase, and hate us as much as they..”

What a golden period......
fits your antijewish views.

Tony Greenstein said...

My first name has one 't' in it.

Maimonedes was also what today would be called a racist or chauvinist.

I see. The Golden Period referred to the cultural situation of the Jews in Spain, not their living conditions! Has this thick Zio ever thought that the 2 are linked? That the degradation of Polish Jewry in the ghetto reflected their economic conditions? Likewise Spanish Jewry.

But this stupid and thick Zionist, addicted to his notions of 'dhimmi' which existed in theory more than practice, is so blind that he cannot allow the actualite of the position of Spanish Jewry to intrude on his racist beliefs about Muslims.

Well lets take the Jewish Virtual Library's Virtual Jewish History Tour of Spain. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/vjw/spain1.html

'The conditions in Spain improved so much under Muslim rule that Jews from all across Europe came to live in Spain during this Jewish renaissance. There they flourished in business and in the fields of astronomy, philosophy, math, science, medicine, and religious study. The same period also witnessed a resurgence of Hebrew poetry and literature from a traditional and liturgical language to a living language able to be used to describe everyday life. Among the early Hebraists of the time were Yehudah HaLevi who became known as one of the first great Hebrew poets, and Menahem ben Saruq who compiled the first ever Hebrew dictionary.

The intellectual achievements of the Sephardim (Spanish Jews) enriched the lives of non-Jews as well. In addition to contributions of original work, the Sephardim translated Greek and Arabic texts, which proved instrumental in bringing the fields of science and philosophy, much of the basis of Renaissance learning, to the rest of Europe.'

There is no one so stupid or thick as a Zionist sticking to his script. It's no wonder that anonymous doesn't want his name revealed.

But yes Maimonedes was an anti-Moslem racist, indeed a racist. He wrote a bout those who could achieve true worship of god and those who can't:

'Some of the Turks [i.e. the Mongol race] and the nomads in the North, and the Blacks and the momads in the South and those who resemble them in our climates. And their nature is like the nature of mute animals and according to my opinion they are not on the level of human beings and their level among existing things is below that of a man and above that of a monkey, because they have the image and the resemblance of a man moe than a monkey does.'

Israel Shahak, Jewish History, Jewish Religion, p.25

And for all his writings on the persecution of Muslims (& he could have been referring to the Almohads from whom he was escaping) the fact is that he sought refuge in first Morocco and then Egypt becoming physician to Saladdin and another Egyptian Vizier.

Sorry what was your point Zio thicko?

Tony Greenstein said...

And as for Atzmon's little quip, I don't accept the zionist formula that being anti-zionist = anti-Jew. Unlike you I accept no zionist formula nor do I grant them post-humous wisdom. Therein lies your problem.

Gert said...

Tony, I’m not sure why we’re bothering with this numpty:

"Jews were not persecuted for 2,000 years. It's a myth."

"During much of that time Jews were the persecutor of the peasantry"

Is spread all over the net.
(my emph.)

Oh no, son, you can’t have it both ways: it is indeed the myth of unmitigated anti-Jewish persecution during x,000s of years that is the false orthodoxy of our times. Largely due also to Zionism and its reductionism and revisionism of (in this case) Jewish history, so typical of a Blut und Boden nationalism.

Anonymous said...

Gert

You are a Joke
For all of you (you mention we....)
Take off 200 years, well no 228 years were Jews were not persecuted And create a holiday' the 228 years in the 2000 years were jews were not persecuted a victory to the antijews.

"I’m not sure why we’re bothering with this numpty:"

You should, as it shows your antijewish views.

You are all sick

Tony Greenstein said...

Maybe our overheated Anon might tell us the significance of 228 years or even of the year 1783?

In any case a snapshot in time doesn't prove that there was a continuum. A bit of a difficult one that for thick Zios, I'll admit

Instead of wetting himself, anon might calm down and explain why Jews were always persecuted, without any let up. Where is the evidence? Were they not invited into Poland by Casimir the Great after being expelled from France and Western Europe? All except this fool knows that at that time the situation of Jews in Poland was relatively good, certainly compared to the indigenous serfs and peasants.

Gert said...

Personally I think that Anon knows about as much about Jewish history, the history of Palestine and Israel or the Palestinians as those 20 something bimbos at Faux News.