My experiments in confusion – Part-1: How many Jews does it take to confuse me?

My experiments in confusion – Part-1: How many Jews does it take to confuse me? Response to 'How many Rabbis does it take to create a Racist State?'

Zahir Ebrahim | Project Humanbeingsfirst.org

December 10, 2010

My Confusion Series: Part-1 , Part-2 , Part-2-Balfour , Part-3 , Part-4 , Part-5 , Part-6 , Part-7

My Confusion Series (MIRROR): Part-1 , Part-2 , Part-2-Balfour , Part-3 , Part-4 , Part-5 , Part-6 , Part-7




The answer: Only one. Let me explain:

'In this particular case, it took 50 of them…' -- How many Rabbis does it take to create a Racist State?

'JERUSALEM (AFP) -- Fifty Israeli rabbis have signed an open letter warning Jews not to rent or sell property to non-Jews, saying those who do should be "ostracized," a copy of the letter showed on Tuesday.' -- December 07, 2010 'Don't rent to non-Jews,' Israeli rabbis warn

'Keep in mind that it is the Israeli himself that is the foreigner…. a fact that is way too often overlooked.' -- How many Rabbis does it take to create a Racist State?

But not according to the article by Ari Bussel, 'Israelis, Haters of Israel', appearing on December 9, 2010 at the Zionists' Canada Free Press:

'The Muslims have successfully engaged in deceiving the Western World. Deceit is permitted by their religion, even encouraged if it helps them attain their goals (of spreading Islam and reaching global dominance). It seems there was no one who excelled in it better, in recent history, than Arafat himself. He created the notion of a “Palestinian People,” of some “Nationhood” and craving for Jerusalem as its “eternal capital.” In short, he stole the Jewish-Zionist two thousand year history and rewrote it into his own narrative.

So successful was Arafat, that hardly even three decades later, the world itself stands saluting the idea of a Palestinian Statehood (in the boundaries of what was once known as Israel), with a Right of Return of millions of Palestinians that were kept in refugee camps throughout the Arab world, and with Jerusalem as their eternal capital.'

So, it appears that we have Jews piously arguing among themselves who “is the foreigner” and who has more “successfully engaged in deceiving the Western World”.

Just as the Jews have argued pretty much about everything else under the sun from time immemorial.

Today, it spans the gamut from the invention of the Jewish peoples to the invention of the Palestinian peoples, from the King's Torah showing in how many ways the holy Jews can kill the unholy goy with Rabbinical blessings along with the holy Rabbis' latest Fatwa quoted above, to how many ways to settle the land of Canaan, which, as Shimon Perez put it on the occasion of the 60th Birthday bash when welcoming George W. Bush to Tel Aviv's Ben Gurion Airport: “Welcome to the new Israel: Three thousand years old, and going on sixty”, while they all continue to live on occupied lands granted by imperial fiat.

Imperial fiat? Yes. Both, through one of empire's own instrument of the UN to legally sanction the theft of Palestine, ahem, the 1948 birth of the Jewish State after gratuitously Declaring the bold intention to birth-pang that fact into existence several years prior in 1917, and subsequently, through empire's active and tacit support for de-facto colonization since 1967 by sewing incremental fait accompli, i.e., sowing hard realities on the ground which are then argued as “impractical” to reverse.

So, even when I understand imperial fiat as it is pathetically public knowledge, whose claims can I believe? The guy who claims Jewish people are invented, or the guy who claims Palestinian peoples are invented? The guy who claims “Israeli himself that is the foreigner”, or the guy who claims the Palestinians “stole the Jewish-Zionist two thousand year history and rewrote it into his own narrative”?

What confusion!

Okay, some might say, I can try to think for myself.

But when I try to do that, I run into conundrums and observe rather bizarre and funny things.

For example, the funny thing that I observe in this instance, is that when the Jews argue so energetically either side of dissent or consent, they also continue to live on the lands of the Palestinian peoples.

They continue to pay their taxes and spend their earnings into the Palestinian people's oppressors' economy.

And they continue to lend full legitimacy to the oppressors of the Palestinian peoples by being part of the very system of oppression, from economic to academic to military, by their very act of being there and spending their intellectual and physical earnings into that oppressive system, by their very act of carrying the oppressor state's identification papers, passport and travel documents, and by their very act of accepting the Jewish state's racial hospitality on the mere basis of their presumed Jewish bloodline, and most important of all, by their coming to live there eagerly when they were not themselves born there whereas those not of the right bloodline who were in fact born there are not permitted to live nor visit there!

And I find Palestinian peoples eagerly appreciating the support of these pious Jews in trying to liberate the Palestinians so very much!

I don't know about you, but I find that kinda bizarrely funny, at least in a Kafkaesque sort of way.

Here are two examples which illustrate this Kafkaesque humor more concretely than just the general empirical observations above which refer to no one in particular.

This first one is an example drawn from the late prof. Baruch Kimmerling, long time hero of many pious 'Left' Jews who glibly criticize their adopted homeland, the side which forcibly occupied Canaan most recently of course, from my essay: 'The endless trail of red herrings'. This essay was written when prof. Kimmerling was alive, and a draft was emailed to him for his comments which he replied with stony silence.

--- begin excerpt from 'The endless trail of red herrings'

Uri Avnery's confessional "I am an Israeli patriot," explains this enigma in as much clarity as the following gem from Baruch Kimmerling, another Israeli Patriot who calls Israel his land when he wasn't born there, and identifies himself in the oxymoronic category of "Jew, atheist, and Zionist" where the latter two may be consistent, but how does that pertain to being a Jew?

As a Jew, an atheist and a Zionist, I have two memorial days in my country, Israel. One for the Holocaust and one for soldiers who fell in wars. I also have one day of celebration, the anniversary of the day Israel declared its statehood. [...] Independence Day is a holiday for me, but also an opportunity for intense self-introspection. A person needs a state and land, and this is my land, my homeland, despite the fact that I was not born here. I am proud of the unprecedented accomplishments of this country, and feel personally responsible for its failures, foolishness, injustice, evil, and its oppression of its citizens and residents (Jewish, Arab, and others) as well as of those who are defined and defined themselves as her enemies. I know that my holiday, a day of joy and pride for me, is a day of mourning and tragedy for some of Israel's citizens and, more so, for members of the Palestinian people everywhere. I know that as long as we, all Jews everywhere, do not acknowledge this, we will not be able to live here in safety, every man and woman under their vine and under their fig tree. Happy holidays, Israel.” (My Holiday, Their Tragedy, 2002.)

Disingenuous self interest once again? Neither calling unequivocally for abolishing the apartheid state (as far as I am aware, and if they have already done so elsewhere, I eat crow with pleasure). And neither extending to the displaced Palestinians the privileges they apportion for themselves in Israel – making it their home when not being born there (although Uri Avnery may well have been I don't know, I have never met him) when they don't accord it to those who indeed were and were kicked out by the very founding of the state which Kimmerling is so proudly calling his independence day. He does indeed magnanimously calls for Jews acknowledging the suffering of the Palestinians so that he can live in peace in Israel, but not for remedying the injustice in the only just and moral way – but then, being an atheist, whence the source of morality? God is dead, Nietzsche is alive, and so are his mantle-bearing ubermensch! Witness it in his own essay the vacuous words without the concomitant unequivocal call to abolish apartheid and make it one homeland for those forcibly displaced by his independence day:

"The transformation of the Holocaust into a solely Jewish tragedy, as opposed to a universal event, only weakens its significance and its legitimacy, tarnishing us and the memory of the victims. Likewise, its unnecessary overuse by Jews in Israel and the rest of the world, particularly political bodies, has made the Holocaust banal. Above all, a provocative and dangerous approach has bought a place in our hearts: that Jews, as the victims of the Holocaust, are permitted to treat goyim however they want. Forceful and condescending, "anti-gentile-ism" is identical to criminal anti-Semitism. ... What can I do? A person is closer to his own friends, tribe, and people. Along with that, however, I cannot forget or refrain from mourning the victims of this bloody conflict and feel deep empathy with those who have suffered and still suffer as a result of the fatal encounter between Jews and Arabs in this land. I hope that the day will come when we will commemorate together and mourn together, Jews and Arabs alike, for all of the victims of the conflict. Only then will we be able to live together in this place in safety. ... I know that as long as we, all Jews everywhere, do not acknowledge this, we will not be able to live here in safety, every man and woman under their vine and under their fig tree." (My Holiday, Their Tragedy, 2002.)

I am sorry that I am less than impressed, despite the self-flagellation. "What can I do?" Kimmerling asks? Here are three immediate things a conscionable Israeli can do if he is a Moral-Activist (see example here): 1) Start a campaign to demand genuine justice – not mere words of contrition – by requiring the apartheid nature of the state and the "Berlin Wall" to be simultaneously demolished. 2) Stop paying taxes that contributes to the maintenance of the apartheid state. 3) As a conscionable person, leave Israel until such time that others who have more right to be there, on account of having being born there, and were forcibly evicted, are also allowed to return! To me, it appears that without any of the concomitant actions for Moral-Activism, the only reason Kimmerling calls for the recognition of the plight of the Palestinians is so that he and Zionist Jews like him can live in peace.

--- end excerpt from 'The endless trail of red herrings'

The second example is drawn from the recent new hero of many Palestinians, prof. Shlomo Sand, from my essay 'Palestine: The Struggle Forward'.

--- begin excerpt from 'Palestine: The Struggle Forward'

Recognizing such convolutions for what they are, is such a crucial and contemporary matter that it requires further elaboration. Professor Sholmo Sand is the new rage in the Palestinian town. Who hasn't heard of him or his book: The Invention of the Jewish People. He is a new hero among the Palestinians – well, among some at least, and like Professor Noam Chomsky before him, some excitedly carry him upon their head and shoulders just like they carry Professor Norm Finkelstein and many others. In fact, anyone from among the Jews who will sympathize with them becomes a new showcase for the Palestinians. Anna Baltzer is only the most recent example of that. Her leading performance with Dr. Mustafa Barghouti on American television left much to be desired. It is deconstructed here. [18] The indiscriminate attachment to Jewish sympathizers of Palestinian plight and permitting them to become the leading spokespersons for the Palestinians has been great for ensuring that the Palestinian narrative before the Western public is also controlled by the Jews – even though they be most earnest in their show of sympathy. The “soft Zionists” on the “left” have largely set the boundaries, or the book-ends, for the discourse on resolving Israel-Palestine in the West. Only a colonized mind accepts the victimizers to be their liberators. This is also a rather murky area and it is not easy to always know where to draw the line. Or whether there should even be a line in an honest common struggle when one sees enormously courageous Jews of conscience laying down their own precious lives on a matter of principle, like those in the ISM bearing witness to crimes against humanity and being shot dead by the Israelis. But let's just stay with the imposing Jewish academic in this article.

Look what Professor Shlomo Sand says in the following interview – and incidentally, after reading this interview, I lost all interest in reading his book which doesn't contain anything new for me anyway beyond what was revealed in The Thirteenth Tribe: Khazar Jews – The revelation of another Jewish hoax, By Arthur Koestler, 1976. It can be read here. [19]

Shlomo Sand's statements in Ha'aretz, 21/03/2008, Shattering a 'national mythology' By Ofri Ilani, can be read here. [20]

Begin Excerpt

My initial intention was to take certain kinds of modern historiographic materials and examine how they invented the 'figment' of the Jewish people. But when I began to confront the historiographic sources, I suddenly found contradictions. And then that urged me on: I started to work, without knowing where I would end up. I took primary sources and I tried to examine authors' references in the ancient period – what they wrote about conversion.”

The supreme paradigm of exile was needed in order to construct a long-range memory in which an imagined and exiled nation-race was posited as the direct continuation of 'the people of the Bible' that preceded it,”

I started looking in research studies about the exile from the land – a constitutive event in Jewish history, almost like the Holocaust. But to my astonishment I discovered that it has no literature. The reason is that no one exiled the people of the country. The Romans did not exile peoples and they could not have done so even if they had wanted to. They did not have trains and trucks to deport entire populations. That kind of logistics did not exist until the 20th century. From this, in effect, the whole book was born: in the realization that Judaic society was not dispersed and was not exiled.”

[Interviewer]: If the people was not exiled, are you saying that in fact the real descendants of the inhabitants of the Kingdom of Judah are the Palestinians?

No population remains pure over a period of thousands of years. But the chances that the Palestinians are descendants of the ancient Judaic people are much greater than the chances that you or I are its descendents. The first Zionists, up until the Arab Revolt [1936-9], knew that there had been no exiling, and that the Palestinians were descended from the inhabitants of the land. They knew that farmers don't leave until they are expelled. Even Yitzhak Ben-Zvi, the second president of the State of Israel, wrote in 1929 that, 'the vast majority of the peasant farmers do not have their origins in the Arab conquerors, but rather, before then, in the Jewish farmers who were numerous and a majority in the building of the land.'”

[Interviewer] Why do you think the idea of the Khazar origins is so threatening?

It is clear that the fear is of an undermining of the historic right to the land. The revelation that the Jews are not from Judea would ostensibly knock the legitimacy for our being here out from under us. Since the beginning of the period of decolonization, settlers have no longer been able to say simply: 'We came, we won and now we are here' the way the Americans, the whites in South Africa and the Australians said. There is a very deep fear that doubt will be cast on our right to exist.”

End Excerpt

If Professor Sand himself argues that there is no such thing as a Jewish people, and the Arab Palestinians are the original inhabitants of Palestine, then on what basis does he say the following:

Begin Excerpt

[Interviewer] Is there no justification for this fear?

No. I don't think that the historical myth of the exile and the wanderings is the source of the legitimization for me being here, and therefore I don't mind believing that I am Khazar in my origins. I am not afraid of the undermining of our existence, because I think that the character of the State of Israel undermines it in a much more serious way. What would constitute the basis for our existence here is not mythological historical right, but rather would be for us to start to establish an open society here of all Israeli citizens.” (emphasis added)

End Excerpt

It is common among this breed of scholarly Zionists – which is perhaps why they also remain light-years ahead of the Palestinians – to argue among themselves not just whether Palestinians are a people (as both Moshe Katsav, Israel's former President, and Raphael Eitan, former Chief of Staff of the IDF, have variously pondered; it can be read here [21]), but also whether even Jews are a people. It's even reported in the New York Times: Scholars Debate Roots of Yiddish, Migration of Jews, October 29, 1996, which can be read here. [22]

There is nothing new Professor Shlomo Sand has to offer Palestinians in the Zionist's endless cycle of their own myth-constructions and their own myth-destruction, except a new twisted justification for the invaders to continue to occupy Palestine, despite himself arguing that he does not have any roots there! But wait, he is not packing up to leave as a matter of conscience, as a matter of principle, after learning all that truth about the myths he had been fed. Now, it is the new mantra of “establish an open society here of all Israeli citizens.”!

It's akin to a robber comes into my house, takes over on the pretext of an asinine justification that god gave this land to his ancestors and I am the illegal occupant of his house; me and my children spend all our lives trying to show that world that the robber is not only criminal taking over my house but also an expert liar; then, a few years later, the robbers' children and grandchildren create a different drama, some showcasing books variously showing a) that there is no god and “in the age of atheism, the Jewish people can no longer base its existence on God but only on itself alone, on its labor, on its land, and on its state”, and b) that even there is no Jewish people; but the current crop of legatees still want to stay in my house which he illegally occupied to start with?

Is that absurd? But not in Alice in Wonderland.

--- end excerpt from 'Palestine: The Struggle Forward'

I find these specific cases and those like them both perplexing and funny when I begin to think for myself. I don't rightly know what to make of it.

Perhaps it is easiest to forget such paradoxes, chalk them up to life's minor inconsistencies, and just move on?

It's evidently too costly to think anyway. It can cause one to lose valued friends and allies, comfort zones and treadmills, heroes and hero-worship.

But I would like to ask Jews who evidently think for themselves, what should I make of such funny conundrums? What do you make of them?

And since many respectable Palestinian thinkers demonstrate such sympathy and solidarity with Jewish dissent emanating from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, perhaps I can ask them too what do they do with such paradoxes. Do they simply ignore them?

Or do they take the easy way out like me and seriously consider stopping the onerous burden of thinking for themselves? The Jews most eloquently think for both sides of the divide anyway, thus certainly sparing the Palestinians any trouble.

I am most confused!

How many Jews does it take to confuse me?

Certainly not 50 pious Rabbis hell bent on exercising their chosen people's imperatives.

That categorical imperative I can quite understand.

It draws upon the ancient custom known as 'might is right'.

All rational and independent thought, all moral sense, all commonsense, must ultimately bow before that categorical imperative by definition.

No, it takes only one moral Jew to confuse me.

One single Jew who lives in Israel, is not born there, and proclaims Palestinian rights!

I would, I believe, be considerably less confused if all the pious Jews not born in Palestine but still living there – just because they are Jews and were given priority to immigrate there on that basis alone over those Palestinians who were born there, whose parents and grandparents were born there and forcibly evicted under state sponsored terrorism, and prevented from returning to their own ancestral continuously inhabited place of birth by the same state sponsored terrorism – were to first vacate their own personal occupation of another's home and rightfully return back to where they came from, BEFORE they started clamoring for Palestinian rights. It might be less confusing, and also more convincing, to those who dare to think independently.

I hope I may be forgiven this transgression of independent thought – it is surely a minefield and has confused the hell out of me – and I do believe the Rabbis have also forbidden the goy from thinking independently from the Jews precisely for that reason. We tend to get confused easily when we think on our own.

Isn't there also a clause in the King's Torah that any goy found thinking independently from the Jews should be immediately killed as he or she represents a potential threat to the very existence of the Jewish State? I do in fact recall statements from the King's Torah reproduced in several articles by other Jews including Gilad Atzmon's, that any goy who poses any threat to the legitimacy of the Jewish State, or to the Jews, can legally be killed by the Jews, preemptively.

Desire for such preemption, the killing of the goy in cold blood, in self-defense of course, was precisely expressed by Lawrence Kulak, writing for ’5 Towns Jewish Times’ 5tjt.com, 11/12/2008 (cached here):

'“Muslims believe in the literal interpretation of the Biblical doctrine of an eye for an eye, and they do not have respect for anything perceived as a lesser standard of justice. They killed our innocents, and unless we kill theirs, they will go on killing ours. The Torah, however, preaches a doctrine which, if implemented by the West, could finally put an end to all Islamic terror: If somebody is coming to kill you, rise up and kill him first.”'

Such humble attempt at independent thinking as demonstrated here, surely poses a threat to the very existence of the Jewish state – for what if hundreds of thousands of Jews of the 4.5 million living on usurped lands, choosing not to be damn hypocrites anymore, suddenly left the Jewish state and renounced their ill-gotten citizenship of the racist oppressive state?

What if that number swelled to a million? Two million? They all, or most of them anyway, retain their original nationalities and passports, and there is no practical difficulties for them returning back once they recognize the very immorality of their being there due to their race alone when those who were born there cannot return!

Lighting such a fire in the mind of moral Jewish men and moral Jewish women of Israel, their Metanoia, surely qualifies as a dire threat to the very existence of the pariah Jewish State?

And thus easily become their target of assassination – who can hide from the almighty Mossad hitman anywhere in the world if Victor Ostrovsky is to be believed?

Could such precariousness of independent thought possibly be the reason why Palestinians often like the Jews to think for them and thus never encounter such funny absurdities in all their struggles from the safety of their forced Diaspora?

Is this also why courageous Palestinian leaders on ground zero who shy not from taking a bullet to their brains from the Israeli soldier who may or may not fire at them for their physical defiance, somehow prefer to not be assassinated for sure by Mossad for demonstrating their intellectual defiance?

For, these brave Palestinians evidently prefer to be accompanied by a beautiful Jewish voice, and principally permit her to plead for the Palestinians, as this chap, Dr. Mustafa Barghouti, did on prime time television. As I said, I get easily confused when trying to think for myself. From coast to coast, and continent to continent, excited Palestinians and their Jewish supporters cheered that finally the Palestinians' plight was heard on mainstream American television from a most beautiful and most eloquent American Jew who had suddenly woken up to the grotesque reality in the Holy lands and therefore had no reason to be biased. In fact, the narrative of the Jewish voice was almost mirrored by the Palestinian leader as well, sharing all the same axioms with precision. I must evidently be a very lonely fool to have tried this experiment of actually thinking for myself, because I came away rather confused by all this amidst the roaring applause of the supporters. That episode is narrated at length in 'Rescuing a Failed Struggle From Its Narratives'.

I could go on and on about my strange experiments with independent thinking. But I'll just end now. I will sheepishly admit though that I certainly used to enjoy life much better when I permitted others to think for me. My confusions then were much less about absurdities and almost entirely about whom to believe. It didn't matter if they were Jews, or Muslims, Christians, or atheists. Even a monkey was fine provided it came wearing a robe with 'expert' tattooed upon its forehead. I only had to choose from among the many competing experts, often going with the ones who represented my a priori world views the best. I never needed to forge my own thoughts independently.

Now, even a single moral Jew can send me off into deep convulsions of Kafkaesque proportions, as does most every other expert I encounter. Perhaps I am going about this free-thinking business all wrong? Perhaps there is some happy halfway compromise to fully independent thinking which will also help me gain friends and influence people?

So, thanks in advance for any enlightenment, and corrections to my method.



- ### -





Source URL: http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2010/12/how-many-jews-does-it-take-to-confuse.html

Source Mirror: http://bloghumanbeingsfirst.wordpress.com/2010/12/10/how-many-jews-does-it-take-to-confuse-me-response-to-how-many-rabbis-does-it-take-to-create-a-racist-state-by-zahir-ebrahim/

Source PDF: http://humanbeingsfirst.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/my-experiments-in-confusion-part-1-how-many-jews-does-it-take-to-confuse-me.pdf



My experiments in confusion – Part-1: How many Jews does it take to confuse me? Response to 'How many Rabbis does it take to create a Racist State?' By Zahir Ebrahim


The Plebeian antidote to Hectoring Hegemons

Home is Humanbeingsfirst.org

INDEX here.

Okay to copy, print, or post this document; verbatim reproduction only.
Comment
here. Full Copyright Notice
here.