A letter to one-state e-group 

By Israel Shamir 

Totalitarianism is the greatest danger of our society. It is a new sort
of totalitarianism, quite different from the one mankind tried but it is
probably even more virulent sort. It imposes one powerful social group -
namely, jews - above criticism, and turns the rest into Children of
Lesser God. This is the main reason of sorrow in Palestine and of much
of it elsewhere. 

You have made a step in this direction, when you decided to censor
('moderate') posts of my friend Paul Eisen and in the same time to
continue discussing his important work The Jewish Power (see on my site
www.israelshamir.net ). This is a major breach - not only of precious
freedom of speech, - but of elementary ethics. You may not discuss a
text while shutting the author's mouth. You took away from Paul Eisen
the most natural right to defend his views. 

In the same time, you allowed Ms Maccoby (inter alia) to attack his
article and to attack Christian people of Europe. Her jewish apologetics
are so primitive that they would be discarded even in an Israeli high
school. She writes: 

"Paul Eisen entirely fails to mention that Jews were forbidden in
mediaeval Christian Europe to own or work on the land ., but were forced
to become money-lenders." 

I would cry in anguish for bitter fate of a Rothschild whom the cruel
Christians forced to become a banker when all he wanted was to pick
cotton. But then a heretic thought came to my mind: much water flew down
the Thames since this prohibition was lifted, but the jews did not flock
to create a jewish yeomanry. True, many jews own land, especially in
Palestine, but the work is done by Gentile hands, Palestinian or, since
recently, Thais. Tsar Nicolas I of Russia tried his damnedest to settle
jews on land, but miserably failed, as Solzhenitsyn describes in his 200
Years Together. Jews did not and do not want to till the land; and to
best of my knowledge Ms Maccoby and other members of the group are not
an exclusion to the rule. 

Outlandish claim of Ms Maccoby is a blood libel against people of Europe
who accepted jews and gave them a unique privilege to practice their
xenophobic faith. This privilege is so great that even today in the
Jewish state it is considered a sign of extreme benevolence. Indeed, my
Russian Orthodox friends are often being told that for non-jews there is
no place in Israel. Israeli ministers express this opinion quite
frequently. 

In Europe every religious heresy was punished by death - but the Jewish
faith was permitted. 

Ms Maccoby does not understand or intentionally mis-presents reality of
medieval Europe. The continent had a caste system with some limited
mobility. The nobles had some title to the land and had to fight for
their sovereign in return. 

Peasants tilled the soil and had to provide for their noble masters.
Jews did not want to serve in the army and did not want to till the
land; the only thing they wanted to do with the land was to treat it as
real estate. The state rightly forbade them to do so, for the land is
not a real estate but means of life. The jews (now you probably
understand why I use low case, as 'jews' were a social strata, much like
'nobles' and 'peasants') were moneymen of Europe. If they did not want
to act as moneymen they could become nobles; and such cases were
described by Abram Leon and many Spanish and Polish historians. They
could become peasants, as they did in Sicily. They could not become
'noble jews' or 'noble peasants' when the caste system did not allow for
it. In other words, jews were extremely well treated in the Christian
Europe - and in Muslim Levant; better than coreligionists of the rulers.
It does not fit into the narrative of eternal Jewish (capital case for
its religious meaning) suffering - but not much does. 

Paul Eisen noted that Chmielnicki, the leader of a Ukrainian popular
uprising, offered poor jews to join the uprising against their
exploitative co-religionists, but the jews declined. 

This relevant observation caused Ms Maccoby to make this acerbic remark:

"Paul seems to castigate the poor Jews who, when given the wonderful
opportunity to massacre their fellow-Jews, refused - however rich and
exploitative these fellow-Jews were, isn't their refusal
understandable?" 

Isn't it a typical fascist nationalist view (and I use this term just
for definition purposes without any value judgement): poor and rich
(however rich and exploitative, in her words) of one nation are
'fellows' and brothers? This is so different from the concept of class
struggle promoted by the jewish revolutionaries of 1918-1921 in the
bloodbaths of Russia, Bavaria and Hungary. Poor Russians, Germans and
Hungarians did not understand what Ms Maccoby understands and preaches,
namely, that their own rich folk were their brothers and fellows, while
the jewish revolutionaries were not. Those who did understand were
branded 'fascists', racists, Nazis, 'black hundreds' and were shot by Ms
Maccoby's uncles. 

The remark of Ms Maccoby speaks volumes for us helping to understand
futility of separating (self-identified) jews into 'left' and 'right'. G
K Chesterton wrote in 1920s on extremely friendly personal relations
between jewish millionaires and jewish labour organisers. Now we see it
in the US, where 'exit [jewish] Neo-Conservatives, enter [jewish]
Neo-Liberals', in apt expression of Mark Green and Wendy Campbell, but
the bottom line remains the same one. In this very group, left-wing jews
have no problem to forward slander produced by extreme right ADL and its
satellites. Moreover, left-jewish Searchlight is a subsidiary of
right-jewish ADL. True Left is non-jewish left. It may contain people of
jewish origin and background, but not those who identify themselves with
'the Jews'. But we shall discuss it elsewhere. 

Ms Tilley also attacked the text of Eisen. She wrote: 

'Taking on the challenge that it is wrong to falsely conflate "the
Jews," Eisen observes that Jews themselves tend to see "the Jews" as a
unit and that therefore it is not wrong to address directly the question
of "the Jews." Yet in his own discussion, "Jews" becomes a unit which
acts. 

"Jews have told the world" and "we have treated Jews", etc. As a result,
as his argument proceeds, he increasingly uses "the Jews" to convey a
monolithic singular mode of thought which becomes fused in a rigid way
with Israel's state-Zionism. Hence opposing Israel means opposing
"Jews." This is precisely the kind of conflation that translates into
anti-Jewish racism.' 

Opposing Israel indeed means opposing the Jews (capital letter like in a
name of a state). You can find a few jews totally on our side, but they
hardly consider themselves 'Jews'; you will find more of those who would
play along and agree with you for a fair price of limiting your
criticism until it will become toothless; but yes, opposing Israel means
exactly that, whether you like it or not. If 'opposing the Jews' means
for Ms Tilley 'anti-Jewish racism', then probably opposing the US means
'anti-American racism' and opposing, say, Iran means 'anti-Iranian
racism', for there is no reason to think that the Jews are less coherent
group that the Americans or the Iranians. Until this pro-Palestinian
movement will learn to oppose the Jews fearlessly, it has no chance to
succeed. 

Ms Tilley continues: 

"By the end of the article, he has therefore worked around to the idea
that "Jews" in Israel, linked to "Jews" outside Israel, have insatiable
ambitions for power. "Who's next?" he finishes. All his earlier
arguments are swamped by this culmination, which is identical to logics
promoted by the Nazi and neo-Nazi movement and Protocols of the Elders
of Zion. 

Instead of dropping into hysterical fit, Ms Tilley could read what
jewish writers think, 'who is next?' Dershowitz thinks it has to be
Iran. Perle thinks it has to be Saudi Arabia. But extremely popular
jewish American writer Irwin N. Graulich, whose most recent article has
been posted on over 100 websites worldwide, as well as in numerous
publications, writes in his "Let Israel Do Iran"
(http://michnews.com/artman/publish/article_4191.s html): "we should do
Iran, and afterwards - France". Somehow Graulich and his numerous
readers are not worried by proximity to the Protocols. 

And finally, Aref Nammari the moderator of the new MODSS, writes: 

Dear Paul, 

I am very sorry to have to do this. As a moderator of the list I am
going to remove your post from the archives until we discuss it. Our
position as far religious and ethnic intolerance are very clear and your
post in my view crosses the boundaries. 

War is an extreme form of intolerance, and we are in the midst of it.
You have your choice to be intolerant to the Jews or to the Arabs,
Iranians, French, eventually Russians, Chinese and ordinary Americans.
If we are intolerant to the Jews, jews are liable to lose their
privileged position in the society; but if their intolerance will
prevail, Arabs and Iranians will die. Aref, in this unequal situation
you have made your choice. 

Probably you know the Arab fable of trees that were afraid of the axe.
The sheik comforted them saying: as long as one of you would not help
the axe (by providing its handle) it will be harmless. By stopping Paul
from carrying on the necessary critique you provide the axe with the
handle. 

I call you to stop censorship, to allow Paul to defend himself freely,
or alternatively to change the name of your group into Jews Above
Criticism dot com. 

Israel Shamir 

Jaffa