JANUARY 2006

THE SELF-HATRED COMPRISING jewish ANTI-SEMITISM

"WHAT'S INTERESTING TO ME IS THAT IT'S NOT JUST THE OLD IDEAS THAT HAVE BECOME QUESTIONED AND EXHAUSTED, BUT THAT ANY CLAIM TO TRUTH OR OBJECTIVITY, FROM WHICHEVER QUARTER, IMMEDIATELY PROVOKES DISBELIEF." FRANCIS FUREDI

      If we are going to think about the serious implications against Freedom of Speech, of the new threat of a Thought Police, primarily inculcated in civilisation by religion, that has now been created here and there internationally, specifically for the legal representation of the Jews re anti-semitism - maybe we should think about the absence of incrimination of Israel in reference to the current rejection of international laws in Iraq and Palestine by prominent Jews, with exceptional political influence in their hands, such as Noam Chomsky and Harold Pinter -( in the latter's all too recent Nobel Prize speech). 

      The earliest history of the Jews records a series of Cain and Abel stories that cast one brother or another into the wastelands, and that brother, Cain or other, became a member, or perhaps the originator, of  Palestinian or Middle Eastern tribes of Arabs.   In modern times any Jew , whom the US Jewish organisation AIPAC or Orthodox Jews everywhere can accuse of anti-semitism, resorts to calling that Jew a  "self-hating" jews.    

 The Middle Eastern semitic Arabs and Sephardic races whose genomes are identical, and whose histories are largely the stories of tribal wars and persecutions by invaders, (invaders who used primitive tribal agression as an Achilles Heel, in order to dominate the Middle Eastern region, as they did in Ireland, and other territories) are ofcourse engaged in a Cain and Abel confrontation this long time..  We need not think that because the French, English and Americans quit the Middle East after "settling the boundaries" and, under such political definitions, used as an imperial propaganda announcements, declared  "We have settled the tribal boundaries",  that  tribal histories were defined and clarified - because nothing of the kind was effected.  We know that the Kurds were split up in their haunts between Turkey and Iraq and that the mountaneous regions of those haunts are the cap or lid of vast oilwells that  "western civilisation" covets.  We also know that the previous collapse of the Ottoman Empire was provoked by "western" nationals and led to a collapse of a Middle Eastern civilisation that had consolidated the only political calm that the Middle East had experienced in a long time. We also know that Saudi Arabia and Jordan and Iraq were ordered, by tne "Allied" consortium, to be governed by the members of one Arabic tribe that would enable the predator nations to maintain a handle of influence for the future.  

Many of the features of "western civilisation" that provoked change were the imperial needs of England to have cannon fodder for their armies. Thus they obtained the Gurkah regiments from India, and the militant Arab upperclass educated at Sandhurst etc. Although when shove came to push (Israel into Palestine,) the Jordanian royal family called the Circassians out of south Russia to police the Palestinian refugees who had fled there. We notice now that none of these Arabic rulers are asked by "democratic governments" or the U.N. to provide a civilian life for Palestinian refugees who are nearly a century after flight still, with their descendents, living in refugee camps. And also incidentally, one of the main protests against the second Gulf War was from the Anglo-Arab business community who pointed out that never in more than a half-century of favourable trading arrangements had they ever had problems of debt with the Arabs.  Business relations have evidently always been subject to  the utmost honest and  carefully financed organisation - a fundamental detail that cannot be compared with the business relations of either Israel or the diaspora Jews everywhere.......  

At the present the English, with their new Blair or, future alternative, Cameron, puppet governments, are declining into a "service" nation, their manufacturers having moved elsewhere. Recently one of their prime banks, Barclays, sees the UK Banking division taken over by  Oppenheimer controlling hands.  Cameron, the protege of Michael Howard, a Jew, has handed the ConservativeParty publicity to a Jew, Hoffman and the Conservative Party finances to another, Feldman. However we also know that the English, and evidently the protesting Anti-War crowd, will extol or politely exculpate Pinter's anti-US rant so long as he doesn't become a "self-hating Jew" and mention the Israelis as part of the blame for the Gulf War..  The Guardian today (the day after its release to the Press) extols Pinter, and Pinter has gone into hospital so that a fearful and quiet respect is bound to be maintained. 

Harold Pinter, excerpt:
When we look into a mirror we think the image that confronts us is accurate. But move a millimetre and the image changes. We are actually looking at a never-ending range of reflections. But sometimes a writer has to smash the mirror – for it is on the other side of that mirror that the truth stares at us.

His recent photo, which may occur to himself as a replica of how he looks in the mirror, has something beside accusation as intended by its publicity, if you study it carefully - there is a fear, a horror in evidence that is projected into your own mind.   To fear and to have horror of one-self brings us back to the Cain and Abel story which has always been used in Christian readings of the Old Testament .The Reverend X always said:  "My dear children,  prevent and avoid the worst evidence in this story of caprice, guilt and greed that has been registered in ancient history".

Genesis Chapter 4.
2.And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.
3.And in the process of time it came to pass that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground, an offering unto the Lord
4.And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the Lord had respect unto Abel and his offering:
5. But unto Cain, and to his offering he had not respect.And Cain was very wroth and his countenance fell.
6. And the Lord said unto Cain: Why art thou wroth and why is thy countenance fallen?
7.If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted?; and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.
8.And Cain talked with Abel his brother; and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother and slew him.
9.and the Lord said unto Cain: Where is Abel thy brother? And he said: I know not. Am I my brother's keeper?

 Addenda:In another Jewish"family" history Joseph in Egypt was incensed that Jacob dying blessed the youngest of his two sons purposely before blessing the first-born. Prior to that Jacob and Laban were another example of family emnity,a convoluted story about Laban's barren daughte Rachel being given to Jacob as wife. Eventually Jacob stole by sleight of hand the cattle of his father-in-law with a righteous pretence of the word (and the word was god....) to explain himself.

A careful reading of the verses from Genesis pauses, in verse 7,at the Lord's phrase - "And unto thee shall be his desire and thou shalt rule over him" The prophecy or the temptation?

May I suggest that -" The Prophecy or the Temptation ?".... IS THE SOURCE OF THE QUESTION."God or the Devil?"

.

I HAVE A TREE
By Justin Keating
From Forums Powered by Reason and Principle:
The Dubliner, November 2005



I have a tree in Israel, and I once had a certificate to prove it. In about 1950 a lady from a Zionist organisation planted it for my support of the Zionist Youth Movement in Ireland. But it is all so long ago that it has probably been cut down by now, and I have lost the certificate. At the time, like many young Europeans with left-wing views, as the full horrors of Nazi genocide became known, I supported the new state. But now I have totally changed my mind.

I have reached the conclusion that the Zionists have absolutely no right in what they call Israel, that they have built their state not beside but on top of the Palestinian people, and that there can be no peace as long as contemporary Israel retains its present form. I hasten to make clear that none of this gives me any pleasure, but in the great scheme of things my personal wishes do not weigh heavily in the scale pans of history. I wish I did not think what I do, I hope I am wrong. My conclusions are based on the answers to five questions.

1. Did the Jews of the Old Testament come from what is now Israel? The answer is No.

2. Are the Jews of the world today simply the descendants of the people of the Diaspora two thousand years ago? The answer is, only in part.

3. Does the right of return apply to people who occupied some land two thousand years ago for a historically brief period, to the detriment of those who have been there since? Obviously no. Imagine a world where every people claimed that right.

4. Did the Balfour Declaration give the Zionists the right to establish a state in Israel? The answer is no. At the time the British Government had no right to give.

5. Did the United Nations Resolution of November 1947 give Zionists the right to establish the present state of Israel? The answer is no, and they have continuously and relentlessly violated that resolution for more than half a century, so that any tatters that now remain are void, by their action.

I want briefly to look at each point separately. Some of what I say is taken from a book called My People by Abba Eban, who was Israeli Foreign Minister. He says the Hebrew Tribes came out of Mesopotamia. They moved from Ur in southwest Mesopotamia to Haran, in northwest Mesopotamia. It was here that Abraham was told, by the God that the Jews had invented to leave his land and kinsmen for a new country. Obedient to the divine voice, he moved into western Palestine, the land of the Canaanites. The above is loosely but accurately quoted from Eban. It follows that the Jews came from far away, that they claimed the land of Canaan because their God gave it to them, and there were Canaanites there already. Israel's Declaration of Independence in 1948 states, "The Land of Israel was the birthplace of the Jewish people." This was a self serving and untruthful Zionist myth.

My second point is that the assumption that the Jews of the world (all of whom claim the right of return) are descendants of the Diaspora takes no account of the Kingdom of the Khazars, about whom Arthur Koestler wrote a book arguing that he and other Ashkanazi Jews were their descendents. Also, it assumes that no Jewish girl ever got pregnant (over 2,000 years) by a non-Jew, and brought the child home to her parents, and it also forgets that the converted wives or husbands who were born non-Jewish can, on conversion, claim the right of return.

Point three: At the time of the Balfour Declaration, the Ottoman Empire, which was the ruling power in Palestine, was falling apart, but the British Government had no rights in the area. The Declaration was made to a private person, the head of the Rothschild family, and while Balfour was promising the Jews a nation home in Palestine, T.E. Lawrence was promising the same thing to Palestinian Arabs. In law and in equity it has no validity.

Finally, when the United Nations passed its historic resolution (with Britain abstaining) it was a plan for partition. What was new and crucial was that it recognized Jewish sovereignty. The flight of the ignorant Palestinian peasants was founded on such atrocities as the massacre at Deir Yasin where Zionist terrorists filled the well with slaughtered peasants, and went to adjoining villages saying, "Look what happened over there." In addition, there were bogus broadcasts purporting to come from Palestinian leaders, advising flight. The Jewish-Arab partnership, pleaded for so eloquently by David Ben Gurion -"based on equality and mutual assistance," to quote his words - was from the beginning a lie which Zionist fundamentalists did not believe.

Those same fundamentalists, who are in the ascendant now, can only say, "We are here because our God gave it to us." That is too weak for me I'm afraid.

All of this is a huge tragedy for ordinary Zionist people, who have been led up a blind alley by fanatics. But it is more. Jews have made an immense contribution to civilization, developing as they were between the great empires of Mesopotamia and the Nile, with both of which they had intimate contact, and by which they wanted to avoid being swallowed. They developed a religion and an ethos based on independence, liberty and democracy to which we all owe a debt. That religion is based on the twin concepts of Law and Righteousness, which inspired over the millennia extraordinary contributions to culture and morality. All admirable.

In Israel/Palestine, where are they now? Zionists have betrayed all of this, and that is a tragedy not just for Jews, but for all of us.



IRISH ZIONIST SLUR BLASTED BY ISRAEL


IRELAND sparked a diplomatic outcry last night by refusing to back Jewish rights to a homeland. An aide to Irish Prime Minister Bertie Ahern told the Jewish Telegraph that Zionism was a religious issue and refused to take a position on "an Old Testament mandate". The Israeli government hit back, comparing the Republic to the hardline Iranian regime. "I am very sorry that Ireland takes this position because in doing that they support [Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad," blasted a senior aide to premier Ariel Sharon.

Last month Ahmadinejad told a "World without Zionism" conference that Israel should be "wiped off the map". We are lifting the lid on these explosive comments after Mr Ahern refused to go on the record to denounce claims by former Irish minister Justin Keating that Jews have mounted a "self-serving and untruthful Zionist myth" to lay claim to Israel.

John Kennedy, a foreign policy adviser to Mr Ahern, said the Republic would recognise Israel only in its modern form and would not comment on any historical claims on the land. Mr Kennedy said: "Support for Israel isn't premised on Zionism. Our support for Israel is that its effect in being. Zionism may be what brought it to be there, but Zionism is essentially a religious issue - a faith issue. I don't think you're going to get the Taoiseach to take a position on that." He added: "Zionism is not part of relevant official policy here. Even within Judaism you get a division on Zionism. "Some people support it and some people have a profoundly held theological basis to reject it. It's a theological issue, we're not going into that."

He claimed that Ireland has not been "well served" by Zionism because the migration to Israel in the 1950s and 60s had left behind a "non-viable community". In our series of conversations Mr Kennedy also maintained: "People who say that they have an Old Testament mandate to be there in their historic homeland, we haven't addressed that issue. "I haven't seen anyone here taking a policy position on that. Our recognition of Israel and our exchange of ambassadors is all in the modern age, it's in an age where we simply recognise Israel as effect in being, a state of the modern world, one of the community of nations." Mr Kennedy, a civil servant who looks after non-EU foreign policy for the Taoiseach, reiterated their stance: "You can take a view on the State of Israel, quite independently of Zionism."

The two countries only established full diplomatic relations in 1975, but the Israeli government says the Irish position, exposed by the Jewish Telegraph, is unacceptable, because it denies the legitimacy of Zionism. "It is not enough," blasted Raanan Gissin, an aide to Mr Sharon. "There is a culture of hatred that says the Jews have no right to live here as an entity. We are here as our birthright not as a conqueror." Mossad head Meir Dagan, who was listening to our interview, pointed out: "We were here 1,600 years before the Arabs." Mr Gissin added: "If you don't support Zionism ipso facto you are actually saying, in the logical progression, we don't support the right of the Jewish people to have a state of their own, in their own ancestral homeland. "There's no Zionism if Jews have a state in Alaska or Uganda."

As comments by the Iranian president caused growing international interest this week, Mr Gissin further equated them with the Irish position we have uncovered. He stormed: "Ahmadinejad is trying to erase Israel off the map by not recognising that Jews have a birthright. Mr Gissin added: "We are having to teach the same lessons to Ahmadinejad and Ireland. "It is not a religious issue and you cannot erase history. The moment you equate Zionism with Judaism you deny any aspect of national sovereignty for the Jewish people.

"That is the problem with the Arabs, they recognise the entity of Israel, but don't recognise the fact that they have an inherent right to a homeland." "Zionism is the national liberation movement of the Jewish people. We are an ancestral tribe who have walked the face of the earth for 4,000 years. We have proof of our existence."

The Jewish Telegraph has spent a fortnight trying to obtain comments from Mr Ahern following a series of outrages in against Israel in Ireland this year. In June the Jewish Telegraph witnessed punters targeting Israeli football fans with "Sieg heil" and "Death to Israel" taunts before a World Cup qualifier in Dublin. And veteran politician Justin Keating wrote in last month's Dubliner magazine: "The Zionists have no right in what they call Israel."

As we went to press last night, words attributed to the Taoiseach were finally issued, which failed to address the Zionist issue. "Ireland has excellent relations with Israel, at all levels," the Taoiseach maintained. "We are actively committed to supporting the Roadmap for a lasting and peaceful settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict."

Scientists have announced that the skin-whitening mutation occurred by chance

Scientists have announced that the skin-whitening mutation occurred by chance in a single individual after the first human exodus from Africa, when all people were brown-skinned. That person's offspring apparently thrived as humans moved northward into what is now Europe, helping to give rise to the lightest of the world's races.

Leaders of the study, at Penn State University, USA, warned against interpreting the finding as a discovery of "the race gene." Race is a vaguely defined biological, social and political concept, they noted, and skin color is only part of what race is -- and is not.

In fact, several scientists said, the new work shows just how small a biological difference is reflected by skin color. The newly found mutation involves a change of just one letter of DNA code out of the 3.1 billion letters in the human genome -- the complete instructions for making a human being.

AN AMBIGUOUS CLICHÉ IS A COMMENT?
"It's a major finding in a very sensitive area," said Stephen Oppenheimer, an expert in anthropological genetics at Oxford University, who was not involved in the work. "Almost all the differences used to differentiate populations from around the world really are skin deep."