Thursday, May 7, 2009

Terra Incognita 83 Opposition, Shaking hands, blaming the victims

Terra Incognita
Issue 83

“Written to enlighten, guaranteed to offend”

A Publication of Seth J. Frantzman
Jerusalem, Israel


April 30th, 2009

1) The Permanent Opposition: Modern society has a unique ability to create legions of people whose succor is the opposition and critiquing. This political ethos believes that purity can be found only in critique and that power ultimately corrupts. These themes have their source in the old Philosophers of Greece and the Christian hermits. But today this group of permanent opposition is not just a few people, it is entire political parties, the academy and most of the intellectual classes. Here we highlight three of them; Emma Goldman, Anna Poblovskaya and Helen Zille.

2) Did FDR or Churchill shake hands with Hitler and accept Mein Kampf ?: When Barack Obama grasped Hugo Chavez’s hand twice in as many days, once giving him a sort of ‘cool hand shake’ and the other time accepting a book, his actions flew in the face of two centuries of American ideology and foreign policy. Hugo Chavez has been exposed by the Economist and others as a thuggish power-hound. A low brow individual Chavez has insulted the U.S and former presidents as well as embraced terrorists. Yet Obama felt comfortable with him.

3) Blaming the Victims: Descendants of German Jews and their role in hatred of modern Jews and Israel: Why are German Jews and their descendants and people that call themselves “descendants of Holocaust survivors” so prominent in anti-Israel activity and in describing modern Jews as ‘nazis’? They claim to be standing up for ‘never again’ and that the Holocaust forces them to be ‘lone voices’. But they aren’t alone. There is a disproportionate involvement by the descendants of Weimer and this must have other explanations. As a proviso it should be stated, not all Holocaust survivors and their descendants hate Israel, most do not, but a great majority of the most extreme anti-Jewish and anti-Israel Jewish voices are people who claim to be related to Holocaust survivors. A massively disproportionate number of them are descendants of German-Jews who make up a tiny sliver of the Jewish people.

The Permanent Opposition
Seth J. Frantzman
April 23rd, 2009

There was always in history the person who enjoyed being outside politics so as to continually critique it. There were religious aesthetics, philosophers, poets, comics and famous soldiers who preferred the path of the ‘lone voice’ always opposed to whatever power arose in the center. But this tradition, which is particularly common in the Jewish, Greek, Roman and Western tradition, has today found a greater voice as intellectualism spreads to the masses, thus creating masses of critiquers, armies of opposition that roam the countryside, like wandering prophets of old, a terrible nuisance to society.
Consider three cases of these professional critiquers in the age of modernity; Emma Goldman, Anna Poblovskaya and Helen Zille.

Helen Zille was born in 1951 in Johannesburg. Widely perceived as Jewish she is actually technically not, her mother’s father was Jewish and her father’s mother was. She is a member of the Rondebosch United Church in Cape Town. During the 1970s she gained fame as a journalist for the Rand Daily Mail, ‘exposing’ the fact that Steve Biko, a black ANC activist had died in prison. Zille became increasingly involved in anti-government activity such as the white women’s ‘Black Sash’ movement opposing apartheid. She was also active in opposing conscription.

She became active in more mainstream politics in the late 1980s. At the time the main opposition to the ruling National Party was the Democratic Party which was founded in 1989 on the corpses of several other parties such as the Progressive Federal Party (whose leaders included Helen Suzman and Harry Schwarz. These parties received most of their electoral support from English speaking whites and Jews, people who tended to be more urban, middle-class and wealthy, those who received much from Apartheid and thus hated it the most, as is typical in modern democracies where the elites and the bourgouise oppose the existence of the system which they suckle off of. Zille became a member of the Western Cape provincial legislature for the Democratic Alliance (the reincarnation of the DP) in 1999 and subsequently an MP in 2004. Elected the mayor of Cape Town in 2006 she eclipsed the leader of the Democratic Alliance Tony Leon. In 2009 she stood as the leader of the DA against Jacob Zuma of the ANC for the presidency of South Africa.

If turnout remains as it is she will instead become the premier of the Western Cape government instead because the DA will fall far short of 50% of the vote.
Interviewed by the BBC on the eve of the elections this one time darling of the left was accused of running a ‘negative attack’. Where once the snobbish voice of Helen Zille might have been heard condemning the evils of the Afrikaner regime it was now her turn to be browbeaten by the arrogant BBC interviewer. But Zille is still the lone voice, arguing against the corruption and potential criminality of a Zuma regime. “What’s negative is Jacob Zuma, a one man constitution wrecking machine.” Suddenly Zille is a champion of law and order, complaining that the Big Man Zuma “scrapped the Scorpions, our elite crime busting unit.” How is this possible that the one time champion of the ANC and the Biko-cum-Zumas has turned into the major opposition against them. Why isn’t Zille a member of government rather than a member of the opposition? Isn’t this the government her and her white female friends in the Black Sash dreamed about when they could walk freely in the townships as heroes? Now Zille and her friends live behind barbed wire in big houses, no longer walking “among them.” The secret of the what Zille is, is part and parcel of what frustrates the West again and again. It is those whose culture is critique and not governing. When tasked with governing they are either incapable or they find a way to make themselves once again into the opposition. Thus Zille now finds herself at the head of a party whose base is mostly whites and Indians and Coloureds, people that once backed the National Party. Law and Order. That’s the new watchword of this leftist. But Zille wasn’t alone. All of her fellow-travellers followed her into opposition. Harry Scwhartz became a critic and so did Helen Suzman. Her foundation describes her stance up until her recent death thus; “Like all liberals, Helen welcomed the transition to democracy in 1994, and she readily acknowledges that in major areas things are a lot better. But she is disappointed by the continued high unemployment rate, poor delivery and widespread corruption. She has been dismayed by president Mbeki's evident lack of concern about HIV/Aids and the effect of affirmative action in driving skilled whites out of the country as well as his government's protection of Zimbabwe's dictator.” Another line in her biography on the website might explain some of the critiquing; “Another issue that has irritated her is the attempt by many in the ANC to dismiss the part played by white liberals in ending apartheid.” She just wants more attention to her and her ilk, the critiquers, the whiners, the people who received the most from apartheid, desired the liberal limelight and realized that by destroying Apartheid they might reap the benefits as its ‘lone voice’. They saw early that the world was going the other way and they thought that perhaps as a small select leftist elite they could run a country but when things turned out differently and they were obviously incapable of actually governing, they went back to the opposition.

But Zille is not alone. Consider the like of Russias most famous journalist, whose writings in English abroad have been as popular as her writings at home in her native Russian are not. Anna Politkovskaya is a martyr, supposedly. Often perceived as Russian, as Zille is Jewish, she was actually born in New York in 1958 to Ukrainians who were working as Soviet Diplomats. Her early life was thus one of upper class plush living, receiving much largesse from the USSR and attending its best institutions such as Moscow State University. She became a writer for the newspaper Izvestiya during the 1980s. In 1999 she began writing for Novaya Gazeta. Biographies of her tend to imply that she was a champion of the liberalizing of Gorbachev and opposed to the old Soviet system. Before her deaths he often accused Putin of resurrecting the Soviet system. From this we can apparently gleam that she opposed the Soviet Union. But when it fell and it had ample time to return to old Russia’s roots she didn’t appreciate that either. She sees Putin as a new Stalin rather than the new Czar, but while Russia has changed it is the Politkovskaya that has stayed the same. Rather than joining with the new regime to help build the country she became its greatest hater and accessory to terrorist mass murder.
She gained fame as a reporter and sympathizer with Chechan terrorism. She was so well liked among the terrorists that during the Moscow theatre siege she was invited by them to be their representative to the government. She brought them food and water. During the Breslan mass killing where hundreds of children were murdered by Muslim terrorists she was there again not to complain about the murder of the children but to condemn the government. She never shed a tear for the 186 Russian children murdered at the hand of terror at Breslan. Like all critiquers she was famous abroad. She spoke fluent English and published in English and was greated by applause when she went abroad, for instance to the Sydney Writers Festival. She won more than 10 awards in the West. This was a woman who had only hate and contempt for her country, a country whose people’s blood and toil she lived off of either by writing about them or growing up on the largesse provided by them. Tributes claimed that “Anna paid with her life for her courageous opposition to the ruling class.” She was a member of that ruling class. She didn’t oppose it, she opposed the lives and existence of the people, including the

The queen of critique is no doubt Emma Goldman. She was born in Kovno in 1869 in Lithuania, then under the Russian empire. She arrived in the U.S in 1885 where the nation granted her freedom. She used the freedom to become an anarchist and she plotted to murder an American industrialist named Henry Clay Frick. Being cowardly her friend attempted the assassination and was imprisoned for it. If this traitorous deed was not enough, coming to a country as a refugee and plotting to murder its prominent citizens who had built the economy that attracted her family in the first place, there were more to come. In 1901 after listening to a hate speech by Goldman, Leon Czolgosz attempted to murder President Mckinley. She used the free speech laws of the nation to found Mother Earth an anarchist newspaper dedicated to destroying the country from which she received so much. A deep hater of America her newspaper carried a cover in 1912 entitled ‘Patriotism in action’ with an American jamming a flag down the throat of a man who apparently represents the world. During World War I she published material opposing conscription and was subsequently arrested for her anti-government activity. In 1919, under the Anarchist Exclusion Act, perhaps the most intelligent law ever passed by the U.S government, Goldman was finally deported, a foreigner who had been allowed into the country and hated it and attempted to destroy it from the moment she arrived, she was sent back to Russia, now the USSR, from whence she came.

In the USSR, a type of government she had wanted to create in America, she found that free speech, which she had thrived on to spread hate, was called a “bourgeois superstition.” Goldman travelled around the country and although receiving largesse she came to hate the Soviet system. She left to Latvia and then to Germany. But she hated both countries and she then moved to London in 1924. This hater who had encouraged murder lived a posh life. In Canada she enjoyed herself and was once agan allowed into the U.S in 1934 to lecture on drama. The New York Times, New Yorker and other newspapers praised her autobiography. She relaxed at Nice and Saint Tropez. In 1936 she journeyed in Spain to encourage the murder of Spaniards by the Anarchists of Barcelona. In 1939 she found herself in England and, on the eve of the outbreak of the Second World War, she described England as “more fascist than the fascists.” She supported Nazism: “"[M]uch as I loathe Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin and Franco.. I would not support a war against them and for the democracies which, in the last analysis, are only Fascist in disguise." She died in 1940 and was buried in Canada. She is today described as an “icon of freedom” just as all of the professional critiquers believe themselves. But how many died because of the poison pen of Goldman and the freedom granted her in the democracies which she hated so much?

Zille, Goldman and Politkovskaya represent the height of the problem with modernity, freedom, critique and the cult of opposition. We live in a world where to be in ‘opposition’ is seen as naturally positive and free. One academic said that “The State without Social Sciences is ruthless, social sciences without the state are useless.” This parasitic relationship which this sociologist revealed is entirely correct. They view the state as naturally evil and that Social Sciences, which is to say critique, correct that ruthlessness, but only because it exists in opposition to the state, living off state subsidy. Meanwhile, of course, the critique cannot exist by itself in a vacume, it needs something to critique. Thus when critique wins, such as removing the USSR or Apartheid, it naturally must go back into opposition. This is why Emma Goldman, wherever she went came to hate it and always marvelled at some other system, only to travel there and oppose it. The Goldmans and Zilles play at politics but they can never be in power. They de-stablize the political system because the system requires a real opposition, not a fake one that when it finally acheives its goals turns on itself and runs back to the opposition, unable to govern and fearing the responsibilities inherent in having power. The pre-state ‘zionist’ leaders Judah Magnes and Martin Buber did the same thing in Israel, hating the responsibility of government they came to hate Zionism and Magnes left the country so as not to have any responsibility.

Did FDR or Churchill shake hands with Hitler and accept Mein Kampf?
Seth J. Frantzman
April 19th, 2009

Fresh from bowing to the Saudi King, calling America arrogant and blaming the U.S for gun violence in Mexico, Barack Obama shook hands, not once but twice, with Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. He also accepted an anti-American book as a gift from the Venezuelan soon-to-be dictator for life. Obama’s irresponsible behavior is in direct contrast to the tradition of American presidents and administrations that have supported democracy in the world and abjured dictatorships.

According to Martin Frost, a former Texas democratic Congressman, “it is in our [America’s] interest to try to have good relations with countries in our hemisphere.” From his perspective, and apparently Obama’s the objective of meeting with Chavez and easing restrictions on Cuba is to “try and open up Cuba.” It is all about having good relations and playing well with others because we “ought to be trying to make friends.” This is in line with the logic that believes in “talking” to Iran because it’s “just talking” and there can be no harm done in that.

The problem with this ideology is that it has much in common with the ideology that Ian Kershaw, biographer of Hitler, revealed in his Making Friends with Hitler: Lord Londonderry and the roots of appeasement (Allen Lane, 2007). Londonderry was a cousin of Winston Churchill, an English aristocrat and was Britain’s Secretary of State for Air during the crucial years 1931-1935 when Nazism was on the march and an aerial deterrent was in great need. Unfortunately Londonderry was also a Nazi sympathizer who believed that nothing could be lost in talking to Hitler and his lieutenants like Ribbentrop and Goring. In the name of dialogue Londonderry never stopped talking and shaking hands and accepting gifts from the Nazi leadership until war broke out in 1939. In the name of not being labeled a “war monger” he became one of the worst of the appeasers.

The U.S and its citizens have long played a role in supporting the independence and democratic institutions of new nations. From being the first country to recognize Mexico’s independence in 1836 to Abraham Lincoln’s recognition of Haiti in 1862, recognition of Israel in 1948 and support for the creation of East Timor and Kosovo the U.S has worked to create new democracies and support the fight against totalitarianism. American policy has not always been without contradictions in this realm, such as befriending Ferdinand Marcos or the Shah of Iran, but in both cases the U.S worked to bring about democratic reform, succeeding in the Philippines and failing in Iran. But it has never been American policy to accept or support dictatorships and it has always been U.S policy to prevent the slide towards tyranny.

The hand shaking with Chavez and the jovial banter is even more misplaced considering the things Chavez has said and done. He has not only courted Mahmud Ahmadinjed and uttered anti-Semitic statements but he has also embarked on a virtual how-to guide in demolishing what was once a flourishing Latin American democracy. On February 15th a referendum allowed him to abolish term limits. Manuel Rosales, mayor of the second largest city and an opposition leader is in hiding. General Raul Baduel, another opposition figure, has been arrested. Antonio Ledezma, mayor of Caracas has been prevented from entering his office because of his critical statements and his job has been made redundant by federally imposed controls. Free speech no longer exists as the press has been muzzled and non-government television stations, such as RCTV, have been forced off the air. Chavez has already been in power ten years, one sixth of the time of his friend Field Castro. He has verbally abused other Latin leaders, from Vicente Fox of Mexico to Columbia’s Alvaro Uribe, both friends of the U.S. He described George Bush as the devil and a donkey and expelled the U.S ambassador. He has become a friend of Libya’s Col. Moammar Qaddafi, Belorussian tyrant Alexander Lukashenko Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe.

The coddling of Chavez by Obama is a terrible message to struggling democracies all over the world. It is a betrayal of those in Latin America and the world who have long sought America’s help in defending democracy. Now it appears America is only interested in friendship and dialogue with the likes of China, Russia, Iran, Cuba and Venezuela. FDR, who never stooped to shake hands with Hitler or accept a copy of Mein Kampf would be ashamed to see the state that America’s support for democracy is in.

Blaming the Victims: Descendants of German Jews and their role in hatred of modern Jews and Israel
April 22, 2009
Seth J. Frantzman

One of the most disturbing trends that appeared in full force this Holocaust memorial day is the twisting of the traditional view of Jews as victims so that Jews are actually accused of crimes in the present because of their having been victims. As participants from all over the world took place in the annual March of the Living and as Alan Dershowitz was carted away by police in Geneva for wanting to protest Ahmadinjed’s appearance at the Durban II conference on racism, people discussed the importance and role of the Holocaust in everyday life today.

One of the most interesting pieces of research to come out on this subject is research about the connection between the Holocaust and radical left-wing peace movements. Dr. Tova Benski, chair of the Behavioral Sciences Department at the College of Management in Rishon Lezion, has shown that around 80 percent of the female members of peace organizations, such as Women in Black, are middle-aged Ashkenazi women…second-generation Holocaust survivors.” What is interesting is what motivates these women. They declared in the research that it was important to them “not to be like the Germans.” They claim the Holocaust was a main “legitimizing factor for the establishment of the state [of Israel] ”
But then these women make a radical claim. They assert that Jews ‘unify the enemy’, turning all of the world into an ‘other’ that is seen as always suppressing Jews. Jews claim to be the “eternal victim…we have always been the victims; we continue to be the victims." Benski, who sympathizes with these activist women, notes that “rather than subscribe to a unified idea of the historical 'enemy,' these women are putting a specific, particular face on the Palestinians… rather than adopt the usual idea of perpetual Jewish victimhood, these women are saying, 'We don't want to be the oppressors. We don't want to do to anyone what was done to us.” These daughters of Holocaust survivors actually step over the line and claim that modern day Israel is akin to the Nazis and that they are the lone voices opposing this new Nazism and protecting the new Jews, the Palestinians.
Why did the Holocaust get twisted around like this? Why did the actual victims of the Holocaust, the Jews, get turned into something negative and pernicious for being victims. If a person is raped and she becomes wary of walking alone at night do we claim she is “unifying the enemy” and making all men her enemy simply because she was an actual victim and now fears repetition of what happened to her?

Consider Merav Michaeli’s ‘From Kasztner to Shalit’ which also claims that the idea of Jews as victims is unacceptable. She claims that in Israel “only death is really sacred. Holocaust Remembrance Day is a good example of how in Israel the dead become heroes who get commemorated.” Michaeli castigates that state for calling on people not to forget and for spending money on memorials; “after all, our leaders are interested in perpetuity, and death is eternal…the State of Israel accepts only the new Jew, the belligerent Israeli.” Once again Jews are insulted for being victims and there is an insinuation that the victims are used or manipulated by modern day Jews who are only “belligerent.”

Consider the account of Bernice Eisenstein, author of ‘I was the Child of Holocaust Survivors’, who describes the Holocaust as “a drug” and that she “dealt in the pain of the Holocaust…my parents were in Auschwitz, can you compete with that?” There is a subtle perversion to all of these observations, from Benski to Michaeli and Eisenstein. The tragedy of it all is the way the Holocaust is twisted around so that discussion of Jewish victims is negative, it is a ‘drug’, or that discussion of memorializing them is negative because it is somehow fake and that any vow that it will ‘never happen again’ represents a ‘billigerent’ attitude that is almost racist against the world because it ‘unify’s the enemy.’

Writing on April 23rd Larry Derner noted that “the trauma to the Jews during the Holocaust has, over the years, been twisted into the aggression of the Jews in today's Israel… Jewish victimhood has not been redemptive; that instead, it's fueled Israel's victimization of Palestinians” But Sephardim, Mizrahim, Ethiopians and most of Russian Jewry, who together form the majority of Israel’s population, didn't have this "trauma". Their narrative of being Holocaust survivors. Furthermore its twisted to turn Holocaust survivors into people who are thus aggressors simply because of the Holocaust.
The truth is that the wealthy leftist Ashkenazi Holocaust survivors seek to colonize the Jewish people with their trauma. They want to turn the Jewish people into the ‘new Nazis’ so that they, the children of Holocaust survivors can do what their relatives didn’t do, ‘stand up to Nazis’. Now they can be the heroes of the Warsaw Ghetto, except in this case they are standing up to their own people. The reason they hate their own people goes back to their yearning to live in the Weimer Republic from whence many of their German-Jewish relatives fled or lived. The Weimer republic for these people is the greatest thing that ever existed. A republic of permissiveness and anything goes, a socialist extremist republic where prostitutes offered ‘mother-daughter sex’ on the street. This was the temple of these people, most of whome were assimilated Jews like Karl Marx who hated Judaism and hated their fellow Jews. Such was their hate of the Jews then that when Ostjuden began immigrating to Germany they refused to even see this ‘dirt’ as Jewish. The same is replicated today in the hatred of religious Jews by the secular leftist Ashkenazi elite in Israel which refers to them as ‘bloodsuckers’ and ‘nazis’ on a daily basis at the university.

These leftist descandants of Holocaust survivors claim that the living Holocaust survivors didn’t get enough support from the government but it is they who are obsessed with comparing everything to the Holocaust. They claim Israel manipulates the Holocaust to its own ends but it is they who manipulate the Holocaust to their ends. And it is eminently clear the degree to which they do this. From Norman Finkelstein to Amira Hass and Avraham Burg, all those who hate Israel and accuse it of Nazism, all claim to be children of Holocaust survivors and all of them see a new Holocaust in Israel. All of the hate Israel and seek its destruction. All of them accuse Israel of ‘using’ the Holocaust. Consider how Michael Neumann, editor of the radical anti-semitic website Counterpunch and author of The Case Against Israel describes himself. “Born 1946, the son of German Jewish refugees.” German and Jewish. Those are the twin keys in discerning who these people are. From Baruch Kimmerling to all the heads of Peace Now, HaMoked and Yesh Gvul the economic and historical details are the same: Wealthy, Leftist, Ashkenazi, German-Jewish. The German-Jews and their Holocaust survivor children and grand-children have set about destroying the Jewish people and Israel in order to take revenge for the Holocaust, for the destruction for their Weimer Republic and the fact that Israel’s early leaders didn’t allow for them to create a republic of self-hate, akin to Weimer, in Israel. They tried. Judah Magnes, head of the Hebrew University, tried to stem Jewish immigration so he and his could be a permanent minority in Israel. Leo Baeck, head of the German Jewish community during the Holocaust, collaborated with the Nazis at Thereisenstadt, hiding information about the Holocaust from fellow Jews.

Today Leo Baeck and Judah Magnes are hallowed names on the left and among intellectuals. There is no doubt of the link between German Jewry, its descendants and the hatred of Israel. Amos Elon is but one example. The author of Pity of It All has even moved back to Europe, to live in the Diaspora because he hates Israel. All of the leftist anti-Israel professors at Israeli universities are Ashkenazi, such as Neve Gordon or Ilan Pappe, the majority of them are also German-Jews such as Moshe Zimmerman, who compared Israeli to Nazis, to Moshe Zuckermann, a scholar of German at Tel Aviv University and Tanya Reinhardt author of books on the ‘conflict’ and a disciple of the late Dr. Kimmerling. German-Jews, all. We will never know why exactly they hate the Jewish people. But it is apparent they want to colonize the Jewish people. They want all Jews to be Holocaust survivors. Then they want to claim that the Holocaust forces the Jews to become the ‘new nazis’ because Jews are ‘trapped in a cycle’ and only these few lone voices will stand against the “Jew-Nazi” people. In order to defeat this heresy Jews must free themselves from the dominance of the German-Jewish leftist Ashkenazi elite. Only by embracing the true history of the Jews, outside of Germany, can Jews be free of this albatross.

When people read the Derfners and Eisensteins and the massively prolific intellectual descendants of Holocaust survivors and German Jewry they must remind themselves that this is not their narrative. This narrative of suffering Holocaust survivors who become Nazis is a myth. The Sabras of Israel of 1948 were all either born in Israel and were from Eastern Europe. Many of the right wing members of Begin’s fighting organization were from religious families or Sephardi background. Ariel Sharon was born in Israel. They all were. The German-Jews never contributed to the war effort of 1948 or of 1967. Any claims that Dayan and Allon and the generals of 1967 styled themselves “Prussians” is incorrect. They imagined themselves as Prussian Generals, but they were not. The German-Jews, arriving in Israel and finding no place for themselves and living in cities and becoming wealthy and an elite decided that they could place their mantle of suffering onto Israel and then transform it into a new Germany and then castigate it as a ‘nazi’ state. We must not submit to the German heresy. We must fight it with every ounce of our blood. We are not holocaust survivors forced to commit the crimes of the Holocaust. We are simply burdened by the existence of German-Jewry’s trauma and self hate about itself and its vanished civilization of the Weimer Republic. The next time someone tells you that “as a Holocaust survivor I know that the Jewish people use the Holocaust to become eternal victims and suppress the Palestinians” it would be best to say “but I’m not a Holocaust survivor and neither are the majority of those serving in the IDF. This trauma you speak of forcing me to harm Palestinians, I don’t have this trauma. So now find a new explanation.”

The German-Jews are the only people in the world that could suffer a Holocaust and then blame their own people for the Holocaust by turning them into people who play victim, pretending that all of their people suffered the Holocaust just to bash them for being victims destined to victimize. We will not be colonized by German-Jewry. The Larry Derfners live in their own Ashkenazi world where everyone is a leftist survivor and they all have this narrative of traum and suffering. But they live in a bubble.

Derfner says “the trauma to the Jews during the Holocaust has, over the years, been twisted into the aggression of the Jews in today's Israel.” But it is just the trauma of the Derfners and Finkelsteins and Zimmermans and Reinhardts and Hasses. It is not the trauma of the Feredos and Barzanis and Valeros. Why can’t the Jewish people be free of the intellectual slavery of the German-Jews? Why can’t we fight a war of anti-colonialism against this heresy to throw it off. German-Jews are self-hating and have psychological problems that they have had since the 1920s when their republic began to vanish, but the Jews in all their diversity deserve better than to be saddled with German-Jewish psychological problems, a sort of Freudian German-Jewish complex of self hate and imagininations that they are the lone voices and the new Nazis at the same time. German-Jews need Nazis, they need to be the single voice fighting it, and they want it all to exist among Jews so that Judaism can be destroyed at their hands because they resent that most Jews survived while their civilization did not. But we cannot allow the Ethiopians and Sephardim to be sacrificed on the pyre of German Jewish intellectualism. We must save them. We must save Ashkenazim from the poison of “I am a Holocaust survivor, I have a unique voice to critique Israel which is starting to resemble Nazi Germany.” I am not a Holocaust survivor. No one in my family has a connection to the Holocaust. I don’t have this ridiculous ‘trauma’ of becoming a Nazi because I was a victim. Why must the Jews be punished for the Holocaust? Let the German Jews have their intellectual illness, but save us from it.

Why are the victims being blamed? Why is the Holocaust twisted around so that it alone ‘legitimizes’ the creation of Israel, as if the Haganah and Jewish Agency and JNF and Balfour declaration and Herzl all came after 1939 and not before? There is a very real importance in discussing the over-use of the Holocaust as pulp fiction in numerous new movies such as the Reader. There is a very real importance in discussing the way in which the Holocaust or accusations of “nazi” are unacceptable. But people shouldn’t lose sight of reality. The victims were victims. Jews didn’t ask to have this done to them and they don’t manipulate the history of the Holocaust in order to be ‘eternal victims’.

No comments: