173891 There was no massacre in Jenin (english) sean 9:43am Fri Apr 19 '02 (Modified on 12:52pm Fri Apr 19 '02) article#173891 Even the extremely left wing Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz states that there was no massacre in Jenin. If you trust the Palestinians then you are being duped! Ha'aretz: Friday, April 19, 2002 Iyyar 7, 5762 There was no massacre in Jenin The claim that there was a "massacre" in the Jenin refugee camp has been taken up by many news media around the world, human rights groups and even among many governments. This claim, originally made during the height of the fighting in the refugee camp, reverberates with gravity, seriously damaging Israel's political campaign to justify its self defense against terror and the legitimacy of the means it is using in that campaign. In Israel, too, suspicions were raised that there was truth to the Palestinian claims. Many feared that Jenin would be added to the black list of massacres that have shocked the world. The IDF contributed to those fears when it issued a preliminary estimate of hundreds of dead in the camp (it turned out that several score were killed, with the exact number still unknown) and by blocking journalists from entering the camp to report what was happening inside. That was an invitation to another charge, also widely reported, of an alleged cover-up. In recent days, journalists - including Ha'aretz reporters - have visited the camp, gathering their own first-hand impressions and eyewitness testimony about the IDF's operations. Ha'aretz reporter Amira Hass spent several days in the camp, and her report appears in today's pages. There is evidence of intense combat, but, with appropriate caution, it can already be said what did not happen in the Jenin refugee camp. There was no massacre. No order from above was given, nor was a local initiative executed, to deliberately and systematically kill unarmed people. In Israel of 2002, there is practically no way to cover up atrocities. Testimony by commanders and fighters in Jenin, many of whom were civilians called up into reserves for the purpose of the operation, as well as testimony by those who observed the events through various means refute the claims of a massacre. The fighting was intense, as could be expected in built-up areas, and especially against the background of rapid Israeli successes in other areas, particularly the Nablus casbah. Armed Palestinians shot, blew up and mined houses and alleyways. The soldiers, who had difficulty progressing, used bulldozers and suffered heavy losses - 23 soldiers were killed. Under such circumstances, civilians were also harmed. That is a terrible, sorrowful fact, resulting from the nature of the fighting, and in some specific cases there should be an examination to determine whether everything necessary was done to prevent civilian casualties. But declaring the fighting in Jenin a "massacre" is a mistake on the part of the naive, and a slander by others. Palestinian propagandists have made perverse use of legends that, in part, were invented outside Jenin. Leading these propagandists were officials of the Palestinian Authority who issued baseless charges of "executions," fanning the flames of hatred against Israel. The readiness of international elements, including the heads of the European Union, to accept the Palestinian version without question, is testimony to their character, to Israel's fragile situation and to Ariel Sharon's negative image. add your own comments I Trust the UN (english) Richard Martin 9:54am Fri Apr 19 '02 rmartin1978@yahoo.com comment#173897 They said it was a massacre. curious (english) fact-checker 10:05am Fri Apr 19 '02 comment#173908 One of the most curious aspects of the reports coming out of Jenin is that the IDF is denying using F-16's and Apache's while the Arabs are saying that they were used in Jenin. How come there are no photographs F'16's or Apache's above or in Jenin? There are plenty of photograph's of tanks and bulldozers.... If the IDF was massacreing Jenin with f'16's, Jenin would not exist. The Arab propaganda is failing in this aspect. The Arabs say that the IDF is this incredible fighting force with the most advanced weaponry. If orders to massacre all of Jenin were put out, don't you think it would have actually happened? Either the answer is no, or the IDF is pretty pathetic at fighting 'unarmed peaceful refugee's' or the IDF equipment is nothing but toys. Trusting the UN (english) sean 10:06am Fri Apr 19 '02 comment#173909 They said it was a "massacre" even before an investigation was held...how dubious is that? You may trust the UN but Israelis don't...the UN is a bigoted body in which Israel has hardly ever been given a fair hearing. For starters the General Assembly has 120+ Islamic countries versus one Israel. Secondly all the Europeans are biased against ISrael trust the UN (english) fact-checker 10:10am Fri Apr 19 '02 comment#173913 If you trust the U.N., than you trust the WTO because they are sister organizations. The IDF started the reports (english) ed 10:13am Fri Apr 19 '02 comment#173917 Who started this "slander": "Israel: IDF 'clarify' PR statement. The IDF issued a rare 'clarification', to correct an alleged 'slip of the tongue' by the army's chief spokesman, Brigadier-General Ron Kitrey, says a Reuter's report. Kitrey had said that, 'there were apparently hundreds of people killed in the Jenin refugee camp.' The IDF immediately issued a claim that 'The Israel Defense Forces spokesman wishes to clarify that comments made regarding Jenin refer to casualties - those killed and wounded. There is no clear number of those killed.' An army spokeswoman said Kitrey had misspoken and had meant to say 'casualties' instead of 'dead'. Ha'aretz Service and Reuters http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/  pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=151544&contrassID=1   &subContrassID=5&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y trust the UN (english) "fact checker" (english) ed 10:19am Fri Apr 19 '02 comment#173918 Yes and Israel is a member of both Another Curious Development (english) F@C@ 10:31am Fri Apr 19 '02 comment#173927 Wow! This is getting bizarre! If you trust the U.N. Human Rights Commission then you are a pro-WTO, IMF, WB, GATT, Nike sweatshop, Starbuckian enviro-killing biyatch! So, no "real" anti-neo-liberal activist/sympathiser could possibly believe that mass slaughter took place in Jenin. It seems "fact checker" is not so much concerned with checking facts as he/she is with linking the Palestinians with WESTERN ECONOMIC IMPERIALISTS! Dude, you should write for the NY Times. Fascinating......really....... More pro-Israel Propaganda (english) Mike 10:31am Fri Apr 19 '02 comment#173928 You guys sound like complete morons. So the whole world hates Jews execpt the US. Bullshit the US is ran by the Jewish lobby that is the only reason why the we support Israel. Israel is nothing more than a Zionist state, which hates pretty much anyone who is not a Jew. The whole Zionist doctrine states that the gentiles are inferior to the Jews, maybe thats what breeds the hate. Just like Hitler had his version of the prefect man, so do the Zionists. And the only reason why we the public is made to support Israel is because the Jewish media is constantly bombarding us with pro-Israel propaganda, plus hardly any American knows Middle East history. Finally before you label any one an ANTI-SEMITE I hope you know that Arabs ARE Semites. Meanwhile white European Jews are NOT SEMITES. If I was to follow the culture and religion of the Native Americans it would still not make me a Native. Thanks for the laugh (english) American me 10:52am Fri Apr 19 '02 comment#173949 aawwww.. those poor Israelis.. they never get fair hearings at the U.N.......sean you are absolutely hysterical. Ridiculous UN Hypocricy (english) sean 11:06am Fri Apr 19 '02 comment#173955 Tell me, my learned anti-Jewish anti-semitic friends, why is it that there has never been a UN resolution condemning the very REAL not FICTITIOUS 'massacres' committed by Arab nations? Why has Arafat, or the Iranians, Syrians, Lebanese never been put on trial for war crimes for the deliberate use of terrorism against Israeli civilians? Better still, why haven't the Syrians ever faced as much as a negative comment in the UN for: murdering over 30,000 people in the town of Hama in 1982 murdering far more lebanese than the Phillange militia did in Shabra & Shatilla OCCUPYING their neighbouring country of Lebanon why haven't the Jordanians ever faced even the slightest criticism in the UN for killing 20,000 Palestinians in the Black september uprising of 1970? ANSWER: THE UN IS A PUPPET OF ALL OF THE ARAB AND THIRD WORLD NATIONS! If you want to talk about racism then glance at the following. “They [the Jews] try to kill the principle of religions with the same mentality that they betrayed Jesus Christ and the same way they tried to betray and kill the Prophet Mohammed.” — Syrian President Bashar Assad at May 5 welcoming ceremony for the Pope Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, May 6, 2001 “Have no mercy on the Jews, no matter where they are, in any country. Fight them, wherever you are. Wherever you meet them, kill them. Wherever you are, kill those Jews and those Americans who are like them and those who stand by them they are all in one trench, against the Arabs and the Muslims because they established Israel here, in the beating heart of the Arab world, in Palestine.” — Dr. Ahmad Abu Halabiya, Member of the PA appointed "Fatwa Council" and former acting Rector of the Islamic University in Gaza. Palestinian Authority television, October 14, 2000 “It is not a mistake that the Koran warns us of the hatred of the Jews and put them at the top of the list of the enemies of Islam. Today the Jews recruit the world against the Muslims and use all kinds of weapons. They are plundering the dearest place to the Muslims, after Mecca and Medina and threaten the place the Muslims have faced at first when they prayed and the third holiest city after Mecca and Medina. They want to erect their temple on that place....The Muslims are ready to sacrifice their lives and blood to protect the Islamic nature of Jerusalem and El Aksa!” — Sheikh Hian Al-Adrisi, Excerpt of address in the al-Aksa mosque, September 29, 2000 “The Jews are Jews, whether Labour or Likud, the Jews are Jews. They do not have any moderates or any advocates of peace. They are all liars. They are the ones who must be butchered and killed. As Allah the Almighty said: 'Fight them'. Allah will torture them by your hands and will humiliate them and will help you to overcome them, and will relieve the minds of the believers. ... Our people must unite in one trench, and receive armaments from the Palestinian leadership to confront the Jews. ... Have no mercy on the Jews, no matter where they are, in any country. Fight them, wherever you are. Whenever you meet them, kill them. Wherever you are, kill those Jews and those Americans who are like them - and those who stand with them - they are all in one trench, against the Arabs and the Muslims - because they established Israel here, in the beating heart of the Arab world, in Palestine. They created it in order that it be the outpost of their civilisation - and the vanguard of their army, and to be the sword of the West and the Crusaders, hanging over the necks of the Muslim monotheists, the Muslims in this land. They wanted the Jews to be the spearhead for them...” — Dr Ahmad Abu-Halabia, a member of the "Fatwa Council" appointed by the Palestinian Authority and the former acting Rector of the Islamic University in Gaza, delivered in the Zayd bin Sultan Nahyan mosque in Gaza on October 13, 2000, the day after the lynching of the Israeli reservists in Ramallah, and carried live on Palestinian television “Thanks to Hitler, blessed memory, who on behalf of the Palestinians, revenged in advance, against the most vile criminals on the face of the earth. Although we do have a complaint against him for his revenge on them was not enough.” — Columnist Ahmad Ragab Al-Akhbar (Egypt), April 18, 2001 “All weapons must be aimed at the Jews, at the enemies of Allah...whom the Koran describes as monkeys and pigs, worshippers of the calf and idol worshippers. Allah shall make the Moslem rule over the Jew, we will blow them up in Hadera, we will blow them up in Tel Aviv and in Netanya in the righteousness of Allah against this rif-raff.....We will enter Jerusalem as conquerors, and Jaffa as conquereors, and Haifa as conquerors and Ashekelon as conquerors...we bless all those who educate their children to jihad and to Martyrdom, blessing be he who shot a bullet into the head of a Jew.” — Sermon broadcast on Palestinian Authority television, August 3, 2001 Time to stand up..... (english) r u human or killer?? 11:08am Fri Apr 19 '02 comment#173956 Tom Brokaw reported last night that "There are so many dead bodies, they have to be buried in mass graves.".....If mass graves does not constitute a massacre. What does? Saddam Hussein did nothing like this to the Kuwaitis yet America was bloodthirsty enough to bomb him for his "Naked Aggression". Sharon and Co. are war criminals and it's time for "THE PEOPLE" to stand up and say, We will not sit by while you commit genocide. Ah no (english) sean 11:15am Fri Apr 19 '02 comment#173964 The only reason Europe supports the Arabs is because there has been a large number of recent Islamic immigrants to Europe and because Europe is heavily dependant on Arab oil. It's not as if the Palestinians are actually the victims in all this. The Palestinians started the whole thing when they rejected Barak's generous offer of a state. The Europeans have always appeased gangsters and dictators like Arafat..after all most of them capitulated to Hitler. The Europeans seem to pride themselves on being spineless The Europeans make a virtue out of their lack of moral clarity take it from ......All Europeans spineless (english) lol 11:23am Fri Apr 19 '02 comment#173970 Sean, this is my attempt to keep you talking. I've never seen someone character assasinate hisself. I'm enjoying this immensely.......O.K. ya ready...your turn. The UN is tied to the WTO (english) fact-checker 11:27am Fri Apr 19 '02 comment#173971 This is for all you morons that think the U.N. is independent from the WTO. What is the International Trade Centre UNCTAD/WTO (ITC)? http://www.intracen.org/ The International Trade Centre UNCTAD/WTO (ITC) is the focal point in the United Nations system for technical cooperation with developing countries in trade promotion. ITC was created by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) in 1964 and since 1968 has been operated jointly by GATT (now by the World Trade Organization, or WTO) and the UN, the latter acting through the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). As an executing agency of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), ITC is directly responsible for implementing UNDP-financed projects in developing countries and economies in transition related to trade promotion. The UN HAS NO CREDIBILITY WHATSOEVER. Splitting hairs over language (english) Wallace 11:38am Fri Apr 19 '02 comment#173977 Above we have some controversy over words, specifically, the words "anti-semite" and "massacre". As mike points out, Arabs are considered semites. Appeantly the word goes back to something about the stem of Abraham, which then includes both Issac and Ishmael which then includes both the Jews and the Arabs. When someone says the word "anti-semetic", though, everyone knows they mean "anti-Jewish". Just an oddidity of the english language I suppose. So while mike may not technically be an "anti-semite", he sounds "anti-Jewish", which translates to "anti-semite" for the vast majority of the population. Correcting people everytime they use an incorrect word to label hate seems like an exhausting job, so I'll probably continue with my lazy use of "anti-semite". Which leads to another interesting word: "occupation". I use the word quite a bit. When discussing the mid-east, referring to the "occupied lands" means the territory Israel captured in the '67 war, excluding the Golan heights and the Siani. Of course, even pre-'67 Israel would be considered "occupied" for many, so again, the word falls short. I've tried "disputed" and "post-'67 lands" and even the long winded "Gaza and the West Bank", but people react best to the word "occupied", so again, popularity gives way to historical accuracy. The word of the day really is "massacre" though. I'm guessing it could mean two things in the case of Jenin. Either it involves a military battle in which a significant number of civilians were killed, or it means a battle in which civilians were directly targeted. When people declare or deny a "massacre", I have no idea which they mean. I've also used "massacre" to describe military battles. For example, "the Canadian landings at Dieppe were a massacre". If this is the bar, it looks like Jenin was no doubt a massacre. As for the first two, I'm not sure yet. Other interesting mid-east words: "moderate", "terrorism", "buffer zone", "right of return" Well that my useless thought for the day. Sean, keep going (english) lol 11:49am Fri Apr 19 '02 comment#173981 No that's not what I mean. Why attack an organization when you could be slandering entire races of humans just because of where they were born. O.K. Let's take it from " All Europeans are spineless" Ready...go sean you diabolic blindered man, tsk , tsk, t (english) piet 12:46pm Fri Apr 19 '02 comment#174041 Dutch media tidbits: Bush raising in (N)euro esteem, lowering in that of USies Baffling? I'd say! I was so flabbergasted and unbeleafy I forgot to read the (little) article 260 antisemitic 'actions' in france this month already. If I wanted to polarize, I'd reply to sean that there never were any suicide atrocities this month either. Pure pro pig ender pal. probusharonites say there were less anyway but an arab ecologist (yes the very sorta person who's existence I doubted in a recent comment, seems to teach at an israeli uni of all places) has a much more realistic take on the matter: this pruning will only encourage growth. Unity through opposition; good sparring practice; who says the jews lack the confidence of conceit. Hauptsache: die Wueste waechst, obwohl darin weniger waechst, spaerlicher, verhaltener, tischlein deck dich fischlein bedeck dich denn du wirst unbeschreiblich weiblich. oh by the way, bout the UN (english) piet 12:52pm Fri Apr 19 '02 comment#174047 check the link within item 173375 for a much longer list than yours seanyson sinsan and may you burn to a crisp in the sunsoon if you love the handiwork of your favorite semites man! -------------------------- 174538 You are sleeping, you do not want to believe.... (english) karl 1:50am Sun Apr 21 '02 (Modified on 5:28am Sun Apr 21 '02) article#174538 as read this, carefully, i experienced a moment of clarity. IRREFUTABLE. Santiago Alba Rico Rebelion.org April 19, 2002 MIDEAST WATCH Translated by Francisco González I deny that Turkey destroyed 3,200 villages, killed thousands of Kurds and imprisoned men and women for transcribing their names in Kurdish. I deny that the United States has caused the death--directly or indirectly--of 25 million people (Korea, Indochina, Guatemala, Chile, Argentina, Angola, Panama, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia and a long etcetera.) since the end of World War II. I deny that the Israelis demolish homes, uproot olive trees, upturn ambulances, shoot journalists, mutilate children, summarily execute members of the resistance and are attempting to exterminate four million Palestinians. I deny that the Nazis persecuted, tortured and exterminated six million Jews. Why do I say that? What I mean to say is: Why do those who deny the Holocaust fall into well-deserved disrepute, see their books prohibited and their utterances denounced, must face isolation, ostracism or even imprisonment--while those who deny or silence or justify the crimes of Turkey, the US or Israel--to mention just a few cases--find themselves promoted in their careers, rewarded with an important public position or a daily column in a big newspaper, flattered with special deluxe editions and commendatory reviews, and generally blessed, decorated and applauded? I declare that the Nazis persecuted, tortured and exterminated six million Jews. I also declare that Turkey, the US and Israel have opened three new wounds on the aching side of humanity. And I say that everyone of us should acknowledge these facts, lest our own individual penknives go delve also into those wounds. And I say that those unable or unwilling to acknowledge all these things simultaneously are not only guilty of moral corruption--they become retrospective accomplices--and worse-- to all the horrors of the Holocaust, and deserve the punishment that Nuremberg reserved for collaborators. We have condemned the wretched of the world to move within the extremely narrow confines between the following two alternatives: the temptation of hatred and the temptation of supernatural goodness. We admire the good slaves, and we even import their beliefs, along with their coffee and their cocoa, so as to spiritualize our digestions. And if we align ourselves a little further to the left we even manage to understand--though still denouncing their excesses--the anger and resentment of the bad slaves. But Palestinians are not allowed even that much. We allow Kosovars to hate their Serb oppressors. We understand the Hutu may hate the Tutsi, the Berbers may hate the Arabs, blacks may hate whites. We allow perhaps for the Timorese and the Kurds to hate their executioners. We allow, of course, for the victims of terrorism to hate ETA and bin Laden (and we allow in addition that this hatred be materialized by thermobaric bombs and missiles). Palestinians are not allowed any of this. If an Israeli soldier, castled behind his armor, puts a Palestinian teenage boy on his knees, ties his hands behind his back and breaks the bones in his arms with the butt of his gun, the hatred of this Palestinian constitutes an immensely more serious crime (anti-Semitism!) than the actions of his aggressor. What’s more, the hatred felt by the Palestinian justifies, legitimates, purifies the behavior of the soldier. If the word "Jew" means "victim," if only "Jew" means "victim", if all the Jews--Primo Levi and Sharon, Ann Frank and Rotschild--are equally victims, then "Jewish State" and "Jewish Sword" and "Jewish Executioner" all mean "victim"; and the victims of these victims are the executioners. These days, unarmed Jewish tanks confront children who have teeth; and defenseless airplanes defend themselves against mothers who hide an ache under their skirts; and completely unprotected missiles--like the David of the Bible--aim at towering giants of dignity and decency. Such stupefying disparity, such manifest inequality between a defenseless war technology and a superior dignity, a superior reason, is referred to by the most moderate newspapers--and the most daring politicians--as “combats.” Saramago’s “nonsense” The Holocaust, like the death of Christ, took place at specific time in History, but it assumes a kind of metaphysical hyper reality outside of History, always synchronic, which, like the traumatic eternity of certain neuroses, prevents one from acknowledging that events continue to happen, that we continue doing things, and that we are responsible for what we do. The original wound of the “Jewish State”, like the original trauma of the neurotic, blames the universe without interruption; and if the universe finds it at fault, then the “Jewish State” blames the universe for its own sense of guilt: one cannot charge a grief so vast with so small a crime, not without becoming guilty of an aggression that is already the virtual repetition of the brutal original scene. The fault of those who remind the neurotic that he, too, may be guilty, is called “insensitivity”. The fault of those who remind the “Jewish State” that it also can be guilty, is called “anti-Semitism”. Before the Holocaust, no affliction occurred (excluding perhaps the enslavement of the Hebrews by the Pharaoh) from which to extract any lessons. After the Holocaust, all crimes are forgivable, except any pretense to rival “Jewish” grief. The very sound of a grievous moan may be deemed “anti-Semitic.” The photograph of Mohamed Dorra embracing the dead body of his son is an instrument of the conspiracy against the “chosen people”. Shocked by the already well-known statements of Saramago, Menahem Peri said he felt outraged: "Only if we were sending today six million Arabs to the gas chambers would he have the right to make such a comparison." Do we get it? What Peri is saying is that, as long as we keep under six million, it’s okay. Under that figure, our innocence is guaranteed: we will never be Nazis, and therefore we will never be “bad,” and anyone who dares denounce our modest bloodbath--as Saramago did--falls into “moral blindness” and “anti-Semitic hatred.” Peri may rest assured: there are only four million Palestinians in Palestine. If his defenseless tanks managed to kill half of them in this campaign, they would reduce the basis for such outlandish comparisons even further. The smaller the number of Palestinians that are left, the more removed we will be from the shadow of Nazism. And when only one of them is left standing--alone and defeated on his own gigantic and exactly human pair of legs--the act of putting him on his knees, tying his hands behind his back, and breaking his arms with the butt our gun will be the proof and the cause of our incontestable goodness. The day we can no longer kill anyone, no “anti-Semite” will be able to accuse us of cruelty. Comparisons are, indeed, odious. Amos Oz, a fine writer and an apocryphal leftist, also expressed his reaction to Saramago’s “nonsense” with a typical Freudian projection: "The Israeli occupation is unfair, but comparing it with the crimes of the Nazis would be like comparing Saramago with Stalin". I remember having read the anecdote of a man who goes to church to confess his sins: "Father, I have been unfair: I slit my father’s throat, I raped my mother and I poisoned my brothers". "Why son"--said the priest with a shudder--“That’s murder!" Bombing schools and hospitals--is that "unfair"? Uprooting 120,000 olive trees, bulldozing or blowing up 3,750 residential units and expelling 40,000 people in one year--is that "unfair"? Stealing 3669 square kilometers of land--is that “unfair”? Shooting children in the head, executing unarmed men in alleyways, depriving the civilian population of water, food and electricity--is that “unfair”? Is it unfair to brand the arms of people, to lock them in detention camps, to prevent ambulances from reaching their destination, to erase the names of Palestinian villages, to blow up the Registrar’s building in Ramallah, to assault churches, to burn mosques, to urinate in the children’s rooms? Does Amos Oz think that the suicide bomber who sets off a bomb in a Tel Aviv restaurant is “unfair”? A treaty may be unfair; and there may be unfair sentences; and it will certainly be unfair that the horrors of the occupation remain unpunished. But the occupation... the occupation is not unfair: the occupation is a crime. And anyone who does not see it that way is, without a doubt, closer to Hitler and Stalin than to Saramago. The comparison that Saramago made is exact to the letter (notice that he carefully says “in spirit”) and has had the unfortunate result of calling attention to the Holocaust once again, to the detriment of the Occupation. Everything is being presented as though the kinship between Israel and Nazism must be proven first in order for us to be allowed to condemn the actions of Israel, as if, unless this affinity can be demonstrated, the Israelis could be allowed to humiliate, steal and murder without ever losing their innocence. But we will not let you maintain your innocence. You are not Nazis, that’s true: you are a bunch of vulgar, heartless butchers, slayers of old people, child killers, filthy humiliators of women, land thieves, looters of shanty homes, unprincipled bullies, moral idiots, arrogant colonizing beasts attempting to enlarge your country by belittling your (all) humanity. But we will not let you keep your innocence. You will at least lose that in your massacre of these giants: you are degrading yourselves to the exact extent of your crimes. You may win, but you will not convince us of your purity. You will keep the land and the water of your victims, but we will not forgive you. You may be invulnerable, but you will no longer give us any lessons. You will strut up and down the desert of all values, meeting no resistance, but you will be small, vulgar, worthless, like all those who build their worldly greatness on their moral impotence. Israel (let us leave the Jews alone) is no longer the name of a people; it is the name of an exterminating angel, the cipher of a crime, the temperature of an ideology. And if you don’t make haste to correct yourselves, if you don’t think it over in a hurry and change the direction of your steps, you will end up erasing the memory of the Holocaust, which memory the rest of us will have to keep alive against you. One day, when people wish to exaggerate, describe the essence of an outrage, name the most execrable behavior, or vent with an insult the pain of an injustice, they will no longer say “Nazi” but “Israeli”. And that, in effect, would not be just either. A few days ago, propped on the soapbox of his little column in a national newspaper, an ex-communist quoted Sartre in order to intimidate the “anti-Semites” that are trying to save lives in Palestine. The news I have regarding Sartre is much more recent. Sartre wrote today, just a moment ago, the following words that he published in 1961, at the height of the Algerian war: "First we must confront a surprising spectacle: the striptease of our humanism. Here it is, naked, and not at all pretty to behold; it was just a deceiving ideology, the exquisite justification for looting. Its tender turns of phrase and its preciosity justified our aggression. How pretty it is to preach non-violence!: Neither victims nor executioners! Oh come on now! If you are not victims--when the government you have elected and the army in which your younger brothers have served, have initiated a “genocide” with no trace of hesitation or remorse--then you are undoubtedly executioners. You should understand this once and for all: if violence has just started; if exploitation and oppression never existed on the face of the earth, then maybe the much-vaunted “non-violence” could put an end to the dispute. But if the entire regime, and even its ideas about non-violence, are conditioned by a thousand-year-old oppression, your passivity is useless except to alienate you on the side of the oppressors". There are victims and there are oppressors. And those who deny, those who silence, those who lie, those who make excuses, those who qualify things--from their column or from their government--have chosen the side of the oppressors. "After Auschwitz we are all Jews," Sartre wrote. But the neurotic who reminds us of this quote from his bulletproof newspaper forgets that Sartre was a sane man, a man who did not live with the original trauma but in the course of history, who knew that after Auschwitz rivers of blood have still been spilled, continue to be spilled; a man before whose eyes things continued to unfold. Which is why he also wrote, in 1961: "We are all Algerians". And in 1967: "We are all Vietnamese". And in 1975: "We are all Timorese". A sane man who today, 7 April 2002, while Sharon has closed the Palestinian camps and cities so as to be able to bomb them without being bothered by anyone: "We are all Palestinians". If Jew means victim, then the Jews of today are the Palestinians. If Jew means something else, if it means the inalienable essence and particularity of a chosen people, the specific substance of a race or a culture, then nobody can demand human beings to experience their particular pain, to condemn the ones who gassed them and become “Jews” every time it becomes necessary to combat their oppressors anew. But “Jew” means victim; it is one of the many--too many--synonyms that our shrunken bloody century has produced to refer to victims. Eichmann and Barbie were not tried for crimes against “Judaism”; they were tried for Crimes against Humanity. That is why all the victims--and only the victims--are Jews (as well as Afghans, Iraqis, Palestinians, Saharaouis, Kurds, Argentineans, Tzotziles, Mapuches, Ecuadorians...). That is why Sharon is not a Jew; there is not one single Jew in the Government of Israel, and very few among its citizens (but let me mention here the names of some brave "anti-Semite" Israeli Jews whom I respectfully salute: the pacifists of Gush Shalom, Uri Avneri, the journalist Amira Hass, the 357 refusenik reservists, Assaf Oron, the Women in Black and so many others who are victims in their own country of the marginalization and oppression of the majority). We are all Jews, and Jews are the patrimony of everyone, except for Israel and its supporters; except for the cowardly, servile European Union; except for the corrupt, dictatorial Arab regimes that wrap themselves in the Palestinian flag while repressing demonstrators in Cairo, Tunis and Amman. Not only Saramago: even Wafá Idris, a murderous suicide-bomber, has a higher moral authority to speak about the Holocaust than Amos Oz or Menahem Peri. And that’s why, while the F-16’s destroy the historic center of Nablus and the tanks prevent the wounded from being picked up, we should cry out: “Jews of the world, unite!”. Unite, Jews, against the government of Israel; unite against imperialism and global war, unite against all the assassins, the liars, the negationists, the indifferent, the opportunists, the corrupt, the exploiters--even if they are not Nazis. Refounding Israel Israelis must understand what an urgent task it is to refound or re-establish the State of Israel on completely new bases, away from the “benefits” of the Holocaust and the hysterical, mystical, expansionist nationalism of Zionism, which has built an ideological Fatherland on the manipulation of its own pain and the multiplication of that of its neighbors. From the very start, the movement created by Theodor Herzl in 1897 was governed by Reason of State and by the necessity to privilege the construction of a Jewish State above all other considerations of a political or moral nature. The Nazis alone are less entitled to play with the Jewish tragedy of the Shoah. Between August 1933 and the beginning of World War II in 1939, with the Nuremberg Laws in effect, after the Crystal Night, the Zionist National Agency maintained official economic relations with Hitler’s government, within the framework of the so called Haavara Agreement, which allowed the Zionists to attract great Jewish fortunes to Palestine, giving the German industry an escape way for its exports, which were subject to an international boycott. On 7 December 1938, Ben Gurion declines the offer made by Britain to take in a few thousand Jewish children from Austria and Germany: "If I was given the choice between saving all the Jewish children from Germany by taking them to Britain, or saving only half of them by taking them to Eretz-Israel, I would choose the latter. Because we must consider not only the life of these children, but also the history of the Jewish people". On 11 November, 1940, the Jewish refugees sheltered in the Patria, a ship at anchor in the port of Haifa, are refused permission to go ashore in Palestine, and they are offered instead the option of going to the Mauritius Islands. The Jewish National Agency puts pressure on the British government, unsuccessfully, and on the 25th of the same month an explosion kills 240 refugees and 12 policemen in an operation masterminded by Eliahu Golomb, personal friend and right arm of Ben Gurion. In 1943, while gassing goes on in Treblinka, Sobibor and Auschwitz, the American Zionist Congress decides to give priority to the creation of a Jewish State in Palestine once the war is over, over the immediate salvation of the European Jews. As late as 1944, the notorious terrorist Izhak Shamir, Prime Minister of Israel during the Madrid conference in 1991, was negotiating with the German army--which by then was facing serious problems--the delivery of some trucks for troop  transportation (or was it prisoner transportation?) on condition that they be used only on the Russian front. That is Zionism. In the late seventies and early eighties, the Israeli government was training the death squads in Bolivia and Guatemala (250,000 dead) in clandestine operations whose mediator was... Klaus Barbie, a conspicuous Nazi who was later tried and sentenced in Lyon for crimes against Humanity. And the tale goes on, against all the illusions created by neurosis. Only two months ago, on 25 January 2002, Amir Oren, the military commentator for Ha'eretz (an Israeli newspaper) wrote: "In order to adequately prepare us for the next stage, one of the commanding officers of the Israeli army in the (occupied) territories, recently said that it is justifiable, even vital, to extract lessons from every possible source. If the mission involves the occupation of a densely populated territory, or the Kasbah in Nablus, and the commanding officer’s goal is to try and accomplish its mission without casualties on either side, then he will need to analyze and assimilate the lessons of previous battles, and this includes--no matter how horrible it may sound--the lesson of how the German army operated in the Warsaw ghetto." Two months later, in Ramallah, Jenin, Tulkarem, Nablus, we can measure the full extent of the benefit that the Israeli army was able to derive from this lesson. Comparisons are odious when it is Saramago who makes them and they involve denouncing a crime, but when it comes to planning the crime, then they are "justifiable and even vital". Keeping our silence We cannot keep silent if we wish to preserve our sanity at the very least. Just before I finish, let me quote Sartre again, one of the sanest and most intelligent men, one of the true great figures in a century of acquiescing dwarfs and rhetorical fluffs. This is how he addressed the French while the Algerians were getting ready to bury one million dead victims of--as some say about Israel--the only democracy in Northern Africa: "It is not good, my countrymen and women, you who are aware of all the crimes committed in our name, it is really not good that you are not telling a word about this to anyone, not even to your own souls, out of fear that you may have to pass judgement on yourselves. In the beginning you did not know--I want to believe that you didn’t. Then you hesitated; and now you know, but you remain silent. Eight years of silence are degrading. But it was all in vain: right now, the blinding sun of torture is at the high noon position, flooding the entire country with its light, and there is no laughter that sounds good under that light, no face that can put on enough makeup to hide its anger or its fright, no act that fails to betray our repugnance and our complicity. It suffices nowadays for two Frenchmen to run into each other, and a corpse gets right between them. France used to be the name of a country. We should be careful lest it becomes, in 1961, the name of a neurosis". Where he says "eight years" lets substitute "thirty-five"; where he says France, let’s write Israel or--it doesn’t matter--the world. Israel could manage to become a country, but it prefers to be a neurosis; the world could manage to become a planet ("an infinite unity of reciprocities", says Sartre) but it prefers to be a psicopathy. Will we heal? Humanity, like psychoanalysts, must deal with--must continue to deal with--the Holocaust. But history, Law, people... they must deal with the pain of everyday, they must seek accountability for each new atrocity, must try to prevent the future bloodbaths. They must occupy themselves with the Occupation. It does not matter if the Israelis aren’t Nazis: they are the murderers; and it does not matter if the Palestinians aren’t Jews: they are the victims. Neurosis does not distinguish past from present, reality from fiction, war from peace, the guilty from the innocent. Healing means drawing those lines, reestablishing borders, establishing rules. Without that minimum of sanity, it will not be worth it for the world to continue after the next war. >>>>Think about it. add your own comments =============  what is with you peepull doesnt allow doing (english) piet 2:59am Sun Apr 21 '02 comment#174544 a regular homo maroccan columnist in holland gives an honest account of his discouragement over last week's 20 thousand heads strong propalestina protest. He 'fears for his country' (instead of actively emulating the succesfull neighbourhood father project rite here in A'dam and participating. He only watched part of it cause it was in his way and cites a huge maroccan who found it to cold to participate. Conclusion he projects desillusion with his own apathy on the country. This last weekend some jewfella is allowed to preach doom and gloom complete with giant mushroomcloudcartoon speculating (placing bets?) on telaviv as possible 'locale' rather than fess up about his stubborn refusal to radically rethink stuff. Arabs seem no better judging from the cyberistan.org/islamic site where you will look in vain for any beleaf in my sense of the word; no mention of greenery at all in fact. =========== Santiago! (english) Harq al-Ada 5:28am Sun Apr 21 '02 comment#174562 Santigo: as a fellow human being---I SALUTE YOU! ---------------------- kun je num zien? Ik zit hier op zolder van het niew sociologisch aangekleed stukje oeroude A'damieterse infrastructuur (mischien zijn deze donkerbruine balken wel gewoon euro eiken; allerlei rare hoeken om je kop tegen te stoten; men heeft wel rekening gehouden met mijn tips aangaande belichting; dit buishuis is vlak bij de nieuwmarkt mocht je ooit in de buurt zijn. -- trilingual piet presents: http://members.tripod.com/poetpiet http://members.lycos.nl/vadercats http://members.lycos.nl/vadercats/Deutsch.htm it will, untill further notice, require some diy to get any of the internal links there to work _ Your favorite stores, helpful shopping tools and great gift ideas. Experience the convenience of buying online with Shop@Netscape! http://shopnow.netscape.com/ Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Mail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com/ Ik stond/lag in dubio over het bijwonen van de demo; las mijn 'animal dreams' van Barbara Kingsolver (hoofdthema: ergens thuis zijn, arizona dit geval, een drama tot de groots mogelijke (pueblo) diepte uitgepluisd en vakkundig gepresenteerd) maar besloot toch om half zeven - zeven uur dat plein op te zoeken; ja het barstte inderdaad van de vlaggetjes; en terwijl ik rond liep om een gelaatstudie te maken kwam ik langs het klim iglootje wat af en toe door een fotograaf bestegen werd ook door mij; mijn tas is redelijk groot en trok natuurlijk de aandacht van de veiligheidsdienstdoenders (opvallend jonge mannen), ik wilde hime mijn tas wel geven maar niet van mijn 'perch' komen tot ik daar zelf zin in had. Toen ik 3 kwart rond gegeest danst was zag ik een dun rijtje mensen op een grote betonklos achter het podium en schaarde me bij hun om verder te zien hoe die A'damse Joden en sympathisanten er dan wel uit mogen zien. Mijn aandacht werd echter getrokken door de woorden van de spreker die m e eigenlijk allang aan het ergeren was door terrorisme niet expliciet maar per implicatie als de oorzaak van een soort tweede wereldoorlog voortzetting (en/of andersom) af te keuren. Ikzelf beschouw het geneesmiddel veel erger dan de ziekte maar dat schijnt wel in de geaccepteerde trend van de eeuw(en) te liggen. Voor zover Palestijnse vrijheidsstrijd terrorisme is roept het een nauwkeurig afgepaste hoeveelheid, wat ik noem, tegenterrorisme op ja, een dagblad rept vandaag zelfs van 36 israeli tegen 360 Palestijnen (over jenin), dus het precies op koers volharden in een al langer gangbare offer verhouding, die ondanks het veeeeeel hoger geboortecijfer voor palestijnen toch uiteindelijk, dankzij de even duistere recruiteringpraktijken van zionisten als de zelfmoordmissie beloningen dat zijn (waarom blijft Solzhenytsin's boek ((over joden)) van afgelopen zomer onvertaald??), op een langzame uitroeiing van die oerbewoners zal neerkomen. Terug naar mijn verslagje: Ik hoor de goeie man (?) dus de implicatie hierboven beschreven maken en omdat hij nogal langzaam sprak, werd ik verlijd om een een tussenvoegvulsel in de bijna recht naar me gerichte oortjes te planten: ." en dus mogen we blind zijn voor wat er nu gebeurt .. " Ik had nog wel iets toe kunnen voegen in de trant van " .. en er kracht uit putten om nu precies hetzelfde te doen" maar omdat het mijn beurt eigenlijk niet was en ik weet dat een goed verstaander maar een half woord nodig heeft liet ik het ermaar bij. Dat kan van de bewaking niet gezegd worden. Deze jonge(mossad)mensen dirigeerden mij naar de politie en ineens was het een geflits en gefilm van jewelste zodat ik het voorstel van de heer Wilde om rustig te praten met beide handen aangreep en in het Pbusje stapte; na een paar flinke slokken en de belofte om verder niet meer mijn stem te verheffen mocht ik weer naar buiten en vervolgde mijn ronde. Tweede ronde: Een hoopje kartonnen dozen brachten me op een idee en ik ging zitten om een spanflap te maken, aangezien ik http://www.netureikarta.org (jews united against zionism) in een adem met htt://www.gush-shalom.org had horen noemen dacht ik deze plek wel toe te mogen moeden geschikte texten te bevatten. Daar ben ik weer 3/4 mee rond geraakt maar de betonklos op mocht ik niet meer van de jonge zionistjes. Hierover mijn beklag doend bij de politie, die op hun beurt bezwaar maakten over mijn veiligheid verzorgende zionisten karakterizering als zijnde 'eng', trachtte ik mijn stelling danwel persoonlijke neiging te illustreren met het feit dat internationale voor vreedzaamheid pleitende stootkussens van vlak bij kogels toegediend kregen door bewapende varianten. Afijn , ik kreeg de gelegenheid vlakbij het busje een paaltje te beklimmen zodat ik niet geheel zo recht voor het publiek meer raakte maar toch mijn flapje in de lucht mocht steken. Het bleek beduidend minder fotogeniek geacht te worden door de pers dan wat eerder op een aanstaande arrestatie leek. Het enig ander kritisch geluid (tijdens mijn maar kort bezoek) was een al even korte zin of zinsnede, hij kwam in het Arabisch van een veilige afstand tijdens de minuut stilte voor de terreur slachtoffers (die helaas niet volgens het gangbare leven en doodbedisselkoers systeem door een 10 minutenlange stilte voor de Pal. slachtoffers gevolgd werd, hadden ze vorige week zelf maar moeten doen zal de redenering wel zijn). Voorzichtige conclusie: voor een volk wat de hele wereld rond heeft mogen leven en beleven is het resultaat (op zijn op het onwaarachtige af allerzachts uitgedrukt: nederzettingen bouwen, Palestijnse dorpen en landerijen platwalsen) van zulk leergeld vooralsnog uiterst karig. En dat terwijl er nog zoveel licht verplichtend goed groen te maken (begroenen) valt voor en door de fellere volkeren. Ps: via onderstaande link kan men richting 40Mb engelse texten (door veel verschillende mensen) en vooralsnog slecht door diy link sleutelarij verder de Hollandstalige 'scythe' op (verwijder tripod of vervang tripodnet met lycos) aangezien ik het prive bezit van generieke fabrieks/massa produkten verwerp ((van krant tot auto) en mijn toegangsmogelijkheden momenteel beperkt zijn (ik heb geen geduld en/of ben te verwend) voor isdn zoals bijvoorbeeld op zich goedkope buurwerkplaats toegangen aan op zich goeie snelle machines gekoppeld staat)) zal dat voorlopig nog niet veranderen. Ik hou me aanbevolen. http://nuance.dhs.org/lbo-talk/0204/2192.html RE: Russian anti-Semitism From: ChrisD(RJ) (chrisd@russiajournal.com < TITLE="mailto:chrisd@russiajournal.com Date: Sat Apr 20 2002 - 07:17:33 EDT Next message: ChrisD(RJ): "Vladimir Lenin convicted of fraud" <2193.html> Previous message: ChrisD(RJ): "RE: Russian anti-Semitism" <2191.html> Maybe in reply to: Charles Brown: "Russian anti-Semitism" <2167.html> Solzhenistsyn recently wrote a book about this subject. Chris Doss The Russia Journal ------------------ National Review Sept 17, 2001 Solzhenitsyn, Still: The writer and his latest challenge.(Two Hundred Years Together)(Review) Author/s: Jay Nordlinger Because Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn is one of the great men of the 20th century, it is possible to overlook how prolific and varied he has been as a writer. In his 82 years, he has produced historical novels, "regular" novels, novellas, short stories, "two-part stories," poems, prose poems, plays, autobiographical memoirs, literary memoirs, political essays, philosophical essays, speeches, and that unique, world-shattering book called The Gulag Archipelago, which the author described as "an experiment in literary investigation." And now he has produced a history: Two Hundred Years Together, a chronicle of "Russian-Jewish interrelations" from 1795 to 1995. The first volume of this work has just appeared in Russia; more will come out in a matter of months. Thus does Solzhenitsyn continue to work, comfort, and incite. It was in 1990, when he was still in his Vermont exile, that Solzhenitsyn completed The Red Wheel, his weighty cycle of novels on the Russian Revolution. While preparing these books, he found that he bumped up repeatedly against "the Jewish question," the role of Jews in Russian history and in what might be called the Russian mind. Yet he did not want to explore this question in The Red Wheel, because it is an incendiary one, and because he did not wish to give the cycle the wrong "accent" or "slant." If he had gone deeply into the Jewish question, this may well have engulfed the entire work, causing people to see or argue over nothing else. But he knew the importance of the question, and was reluctant to leave it unaddressed. So he devoted much of the time between 1990 and 2001-essentially the years of his seventies-to Two Hundred Years, to this business of the Russians and the Jews. Which has puzzled more than a few people. Why, they ask, would Solzhenitsyn dabble in this, allotting precious time-twilight time-to this subject, of all the subjects under the sun? David Remnick, in a recent piece in The New Yorker, expressed his own puzzlement, saying that "there are books in Solzhenitsyn's uvre that are arguably dull or minor but never tangential." The new history, he wrote, "seems anomalous, not at all essential." Many others wish that Solzhenitsyn had never gone near this book for other reasons, which we will take up shortly. But we should at least consider that Solzhenitsyn himself is the best judge of how he ought to spend his time, of what his service should be, of what is important in his writing about Russia, and for Russia, and what is not. Puzzled-even annoyed-as some people may be, the mere fact that Solzhenitsyn thinks this work important should be enough to arrest us and make us think a little along with him. The author has made abundantly clear that he did not wish to write this book-far from it. As he says in his Introduction, "I never lost hope that there would come before me a writer who might illumine for us all [the Russian-Jewish question], generously and equitably. . . . I would be glad not to test my strength in such a thorny thicket . . . For many years, I postponed this work and would even now be pleased to avert the burden of writing it. But my years are nearing their end, and I feel I must take up this task." But why? Does "the Jewish question" in Russia burn across the landscape, requiring a quenching? Again, Solzhenitsyn speaks well for himself: "What leads me through this narrative . . . is a quest for points of common understanding, and for paths into the future, cleansed from the acrimony of the past. . . . Alas, mutual grievances have accumulated in both peoples' memories, but if we repress the past, how can we heal them? Until the collective psyche of a people finds its clear outlet in the written word, it can rumble indistinctly or, worse, menacingly." These words were translated by Solzhenitsyn's son Stephan, who lives in Boston. (The book is not yet available in English; Stephan has translated key parts of it.) Another son, Ignat, lives in Philadelphia, and a third, Yermolai, is in Moscow. The sons, along with their mother, Natalia, have participated heavily in the making of the book, helping Solzhenitsyn with such chores as typing (he writes by hand), research, quote-checking, footnoting, and indexing. Rarely has a man been so lucky in his family as Solzhenitsyn has. All are touchingly devoted to him, committed to his work, understanding of his purposes, willing to make sacrifices. It was perhaps the circumstances of exile, and of Solzhenitsyn's unique position in the world, that forged such bonds. The family, like the author, would have preferred that this project not go forward, with all its sundry headaches, and perils-but each one accepted the need for it. Elaborating on his father's words, Ignat says that the new history is meant to "bring us back to the past, make us care about it, and own up to it." National Review, he points out-particularly senior editor David Pryce-Jones-is always calling for an honest accounting of the past, if only for the sake of the present and future (in fact, only for that). This, says Ignat, is part of what Two Hundred Years should do. Ideally, it will occasion a kind of "collective repentance," or at least reflection. The Solzhenitsyn view goes essentially as follows: For ages, Russian nationalists have blamed Jews for all sorts of woes, chiefly the 75 years of Communist rule; others, meanwhile, have ignorantly or maliciously damned the (pre-Bolshevik) Russian state, the Russian people, and "Russianness" itself. Solzhenitsyn attempts to be an arbiter (and it is this very "evenhandedness" that will bother many critics). The new book is meant to be largely devoid of art or argument, presenting this history in a dispassionate, factual, even dry way. In a recent interview with Moscow News, Solzhenitsyn said, "I could not have written this book had I not absorbed myself in both sides." Much has been made, over the years, of Solzhenitsyn's sense of "destiny," his "prophetic" mission to bring people, particularly Russians, to the truth, about any number of things. Ignat Solzhenitsyn, for one, believes that this portrait is overblown. His father, he says, is hardly the megalomaniac of myth, but a humble man, although with an acute sense of responsibility to others. We have seen that Solzhenitsyn says he was loath to write the Russian-Jewish book, hoping that someone else-such as someone younger and less precariously situated-would step up to the job. No less is true, according to Ignat, of The Gulag Archipelago and The Red Wheel. Solzhenitsyn, this artist, a man who has burned for literature ever since he was a child, would have preferred to be left with his stories and poems and so on. But he has always accepted the writer's duty to serve as a "second government," a duty especially important when the first government is a brutal and dishonest one. Solzhenitsyn has been left with political and historical work, his son insists, "by default." Everyone-family, admirers, detractors-agrees on one point: A book treating "the Jewish question" was the last thing Solzhenitsyn needed. The author has been dogged for many years by charges of anti-Semitism, charges that have nibbled at his reputation, that have planted doubt even in those who, on the whole, revere the man. How did these charges come about? As Solzhenitsyn's books were published, certain critics thought they discerned in some of them one type of anti-Semitism or another. Most of the accusations, and doubts, are absurd. For example, it was said that the novel Cancer Ward (1968) had in it no Jewish doctors, and how could that be? Was Solzhenitsyn denying the Jewish role in Russian medicine? Had he concocted a little doctors plot of his own? The book, of course, includes a Jewish doctor, a prominent character named Lev Leonidovich, no less. The novel, like others by Solzhenitsyn, is based on the author's own experiences, and he has always told it "straight," say his defenders, even in his fiction. Solzhenitsyn has been attacked both for identifying his characters as Jewish and for not doing so. David Remnick, in his New Yorker piece, wrote truthfully and piquantly when he said, "In the seventies, some third-rate critics seemed to encounter [Solzhenitsyn's] books with an accountant's pencil, tallying up 'positive' and 'negative' portraits of Jews . . ." He then said, "Solzhenitsyn, in fact, is not anti-Semitic; his books are not anti- Semitic, and he is not, in his personal relations, anti-Jewish . . ." (which is certainly incontestable). And yet, Solzhenitsyn has left a few openings for suspicion. His depiction of the historical Parvus, in the book Lenin in Zurich, recalls a hoary anti-Jewish stereotype: the "innate" drive for money. While this may have been true of Parvus as an individual, it gave many readers pangs. So did the writer's handling of the terrorist Bogrov, assassin of the prime minister, Stolypin, in August 1914. Not everyone who has muttered about Solzhenitsyn has been a leftist out to tarnish the world's indispensable anti-Communist. One of the most remarkable and searching essays ever written about Solzhenitsyn was by Norman Podhoretz, "The Terrible Question of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn" (Commentary, February 1985). William F. Rickenbacker, a late senior editor of National Review, wrote that this essay was simply "one of the finest things I've ever seen." The piece is not primarily about the Jewish issue, but it does touch on it, as when Podhoretz says, "I can well imagine that in his heart [Solzhenitsyn] holds it against the Jews that so many of the old Bolsheviks, the makers of the Revolution that brought the curse of Communism to Russia, were of Jewish origin . . ." Yet Podhoretz is ultimately a defender of Solzhenitsyn, on this question as on others. He has long stressed the fact that Solzhenitsyn is a powerful supporter of Israel, and that, in our times, anti-Semitism has characteristically found expression in hostility to the Jewish state. Indeed, Solzhenitsyn admires Israel not only "politically," but morally, holding it out as an example of the ability of human beings to resist evil. There have been times-in the recent Moscow News interview, for instance-when Solzhenitsyn has sounded positively philo-Semitic. And it is true that, back in Soviet days, the authorities tried to discredit him by putting out the word that he was, in fact, a secret Jew: real name, "Solzhenitser." In addition, his middle name, or patronymic, Isayevich, looks to some people Jewish, though it is not. It is, of course, a measure of just what anti-Semitism is, or was, in Russia that a government desperate to defame its strongest opponent would call him a Jew. Many in the West, conditioned to hearing that Solzhenitsyn is a "Slavophile," a "right-wing nationalist," a "theocrat," and so on, would be surprised to learn that he has vicious enemies on the right in Russia, who regard him as a tool of Western, or CIA, or Jewish interests. On this nettlesome question of Solzhenitsyn and the Jews, I myself cannot improve on something my colleague Pryce-Jones says: "Look, just read The Gulag Archipelago. In it we find a moral sense that is too strong to be adjustable on the Jewish question." Solzhenitsyn's apprehension of the dignity of man is not divisible. We should remember, too, that Solzhenitsyn has never cared what his critics had to say about him. This is one of the qualities that make him a peculiar writer, and person. For many years, he did not read a single word that his critics wrote. As Ignat Solzhenitsyn puts it, he could have written The Red Wheel or kept up with his critics, but not both. One time, however, in 1983, he did sit down to his critics, reading their complaints and broadsides in one fell swoop. He then answered them in a biting essay published in a Paris-based Russian- language journal. He has done nothing like it since. Similarly, Solzhenitsyn has always disdained public relations. To the occasional exasperation of his admirers, he has never lifted a finger to make himself popular, never "minded" his language, never held the hands, so to speak, of those who misunderstood him. He never tried to win anyone over, except through the force of his work, and perhaps not even in that. He would rebuff leading journalists in the West because he found their questions immature. After all that he had seen, suffered, and sacrificed, he did not feel the need to justify himself. While he is largely immune to personal criticism, he is very-extremely- sensitive to criticism of Russia and the Russians, meaning, to criticism that he regards as unfounded. In fact, it may be said that he takes such criticism personally. People will no doubt see in his new history a defensiveness about Russia and some of the historic accusations made against it. Because he is eager to clear his country and compatriots of what he considers slander against them-even as he holds them to account, in his usual unsparing way, for what he judges their wrongs-he will provide fodder for those prepared to believe that there is something ugly or resentful about him. Some of the book, from what I have been able to review, will ring disconsonantly in the Western, certainly in the American, ear. Solzhenitsyn, who has often been called an "ancient man"-and in a complimentary way-does not conform to modern sensitivities. But the honesty and honor of his effort should be undeniable. Two Hundred Years has been fairly well received in Russia, prompting symposiums, numerous reviews, letters to the editor, and the like. Many have thanked the author for daring to tackle this theme, and for providing the basis for a reasoned public discussion. An editor at Izvestia may have been typical when he wrote, before reading the book, "I would have preferred that Solzhenitsyn had not undertaken this." Afterward, however, with some relief and gratitude, he pronounced the work "extremely important for the healing and normalization of Russian social thought." Podhoretz, in his 1985 essay, said the following about The Gulag Archipelago and The Oak and the Calf (Solzhenitsyn's literary memoirs): "[The writer] is returning [to the Russian people] their stolen or 'amputated' national memory, reopening the forcibly blocked channels of communication between the generations, between the past and the present . . ." This serves beautifully as a description of what Solzhenitsyn believes himself doing in his latest, "thorny" (as he says) endeavor. Few appreciative people would dispute that the author has earned the right to any book he deems vital. Malcolm Muggeridge declared him to be "the noblest human being alive." I myself can only offer the conclusion that at the core of Solzhenitsyn's life's work is love. He is sometimes portrayed as a crabbed and angry hermit-and righteous anger he surely has-but his many writings over the decades have plainly been motivated by love: by love of mankind and a determination to lift it up. It is hard to do better than that. ---------- --- COPYRIGHT 2001 National Review, Inc. in association with The Gale Group and LookSmart. COPYRIGHT 2001 Gale Group --- CB: Sure seems too bad to be true. I know conspiracy theory is a no-no, but is there any evidence for Yeltsin having some kind of "Manchurean ( Langley) Candidate " dimension ? - ------------------------------ Nah, Chaz, it was Gorby! Michael Pugliese ...They were mentors of the last Soviet revisionist leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, who has candidly admitted: "My ambition was to liquidate communism, the dictatorship over all the people . . . I knew that I could only do this if I was the leading functionary."3 3. Mikhail Gorbachev: In interview with Turkish radio; quoted in North Star Compass, organ of the Organising Committee for Friendship and Solidarity with Soviet People. Reproduced in Lalkar, March/April, 2000; p.19. -------------- Duh. Gorby is a democratic socialist (he currently heads the astoundingly inconsequential Social Democratic Party of Russia). He was all for (slowly) liquidating Communism. He was emphatically against liquidating the Soviet Union. BTW, in the off chance that anybody out there in cyberspace can read Russian, Gorby's home page is www.gorby.ru. Chris Doss The Russia Journal CB: Sure seems too bad to be true. I know conspiracy theory is a no-no, but is there any evidence for Yeltsin having some kind of "Manchurean ( Langley) Candidate " dimension ? - ------------------------------ Nah, Chaz, it was Gorby! Michael Pugliese ...They were mentors of the last Soviet revisionist leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, who has candidly admitted: "My ambition was to liquidate communism, the dictatorship over all the people . . . I knew that I could only do this if I was the leading functionary."3 3. Mikhail Gorbachev: In interview with Turkish radio; quoted in North Star Compass, organ of the Organising Committee for Friendship and Solidarity with Soviet People. Reproduced in Lalkar, March/April, 2000; p.19. -------------- Duh. Gorby is a democratic socialist (he currently heads the astoundingly inconsequential Social Democratic Party of Russia). He was all for (slowly) liquidating Communism. He was emphatically against liquidating the Soviet Union. BTW, in the off chance that anybody out there in cyberspace can read Russian, Gorby's home page is www.gorby.ru. Chris Doss The Russia Journal Gar wrote: >Solzhenistsyn recently wrote a book about this subject. Chsis quoted in full a defense by the National Review for Sept. 17 2001. The interesting thing about this review is that it had almost nothing about the book ((Two Hundred Years Together). Almost the whole article was devoted to defending Solzhenitsyn against charges of anti-semitism based on his work and behavior prior to this book. This makes me wonder if the book itself is indefensible... ---------------- I haven't read the book, and probably never will, but I do know Sol. preserves the distinction between the "Russians" and "Jews" and points out that ordinary Russians have suffered just as much historically as Russian Jews (he may have a point there, what with most Russians up until the mid 1800s having basically been slaves). Sol. is not known in Russia as an anti-Semite. He's known as a lot of other things -- hack, pompous ass, traitor, society's conscience, back-to-tsarism lunatic, irrelevant anachronism, depending on the person -- but not as an anti-Semite. This puts me in mind of one of those anecdotes I'm fond of recounting: I was, um, imbibing with a friend of mine, a Russian artist in his early 40s, when we began talking about Sol. He said, "I remember back in the 70s Solzhenitsyn could do no wrong. But then I read an American magazine that had somehow been smuggled into the country, and Solzhenitsyn was basically arguing for a nuclear first strike against the Soviet Union. And I thought to myself, 'Alexander Isayevich is whoring himself to the Americans. I can understand that, he's a father and he wants money for his children. But you know what? I'm a father too. So my children should die so his can have piano lessons. Fuck you, Solzhenitsyn." Chris Doss The Russia Journal BTW, despite all the build-up, there hasn't been any violence yet, to my knowledge. Of course, what they are worried about in Moscow is the big Spartak soccer match today (the violence at the Tsaratyno market last year took place after a soccer match). Also BTW, Putin called for greater vigilance against racially motivated violence in his State of the Nation speech on Thursday. ----------- Chris Doss The Russia Journal ------------------ Russian: Prevent Racist Violence April 20, 2002 By ANGELA CHARLTON MOSCOW (AP) - While police fanned out across Russian cities Saturday to prevent racist violence on Hitler's birthday, the nation's top prosecutor admitted that authorities haven't done enough to stem ethnic attacks and punish the perpetrators. An Afghan interpreter was brutally slain by extremist youths last week, Russian skinheads recently announced a ``war on foreigners,'' and several embassies in Moscow - including that of the United States - have received threats of violence. The heightened activity by the country's small ultranationalist minority has prompted accusations of police indifference by liberal lawmakers and Russian media. Prosecutor General Vladimir Ustinov, answering questions from readers of the daily newspaper Izvestia, conceded that not enough is being done to prevent racially motivated attacks. ``The police ... are clearly not doing their job properly,'' he said, in comments published in Saturday's edition. ``And the prosecutor general's office is not overseeing this question carefully enough.'' He insisted that cases of racist violence are routinely investigated, but added: ``It's another matter how thoroughly they are being investigated, how quickly measures are taken, how objectively the sentences are handed down.'' Amid mounting fears that extremists would commemorate Hitler's birthday by attacking minorities, the Interior Ministry boosted police patrols around the country starting Friday. No violence was reported Saturday - the 113th anniversary of Hitler's birth - but Izvestia reported that 15 people were injured in a fight provoked by skinheads before a soccer match Friday in the city of Tula south of Moscow. Across the Russian capital Saturday, teams of police stood guard at embassies, soccer stadiums and outdoor markets where dark-skinned people from ex-Soviet republics in Central Asia and the Caucasus Mountains often work as vendors. But as they kept an eye out for extremists, the police continued their regular practice of stopping people who look foreign to check for their registration documents. Such document checks have prompted criticism by ethnic minorities, who say they are often harassed by police while lighter-skinned people - including skinheads - are ignored. Russian President Vladimir Putin spoke out forcefully against racially motivated crime in his state of the nation address on Thursday. ------------- BTW, there was supposed to be a huge explosion of ethnic violence in Moscow this weekend on the anniversary of Hitler's birthday, but nothing has happened. I never thought I would say this, but the Moscow cops have done a good job. They closed down several markets -- which is where ethnic minorities are concentrated -- and the streets with crawling with very heavily armed police. Chris Doss The Russia Journal ------------- is yesterday's news. Chris Doss The Russia Journal ---------------------------- Moscow markets closed, stadium ringed by police amid fears of ethnic violence MOSCOW (AP) - Outdoor markets and kiosks across Russia's capital run by ethnic minorities were closed and thousands of police ringed a Moscow soccer stadium Sunday to thwart possible racially motivated violence. Police nationwide have been on alert all weekend amid fears of skinhead attacks around Hitler's birthday Saturday, and amid heightened activity by Russia's small ultranationalist minority. The police alert was to last through Monday. An Afghan interpreter was beaten to death by skinheads last week, and several embassies in Moscow - including that of the United States - have received threats of violence recently. The U.N. refugee agency has reported increased numbers of racist attacks in Russia in recent months, and appealed for police action. No neo-Nazi violence was reported Saturday or by Sunday evening, though three attackers beat a British diplomat on Moscow's central Arbat street overnight. Police said it was unclear whether David Arkley, a third secretary at the British Embassy, was targeted because he was a foreigner. The British Embassy, which was not among those to receive threats, would not comment on the attack. Several outdoor produce and consumer goods markets and kiosks in Moscow that normally do brisk business on weekends were closed Sunday. Dark-skinned people from ex-Soviet republics in the Caucasus Mountains region and Central Asia often work as vendors or managers at the capital's markets, and a year ago Sunday skinheads caused heavy damage by rampaging through one of them. About 3,500 police surrounded the Luzhniki stadium on Sunday evening to brace for violence connected to a Premier League soccer match between Moscow's Spartak and CSKA. Soccer hooliganism in Russia often translates into racist violence. CSKA won 3-0 and the match appeared to end peacefully. Also Sunday, Russian officials opened an international media conference by urging journalists to help fight terrorism by helping to turn people against extremism and violence. Russian President Vladimir Putin spoke out forcefully against racially-motivated crime in his state of the nation address on Thursday. -----