OUR LADY OF SORROW 
(A collection of spiritual essays by Israel Shamir) 
Introduction 
Sit comfortably, put your glass down. Check your response: What statement would annoy you most: a. your mother is a whore, b. Christ never existed and Resurrection is a myth, c. Jews have too much power in the US.
If you consider 'C', youhave a problem. Even worse, you are a part of the problem. For a long while, it was the problem of Palestine, but since then, the Second Intifada, a confrontation of Native Palestinians with the Jewish state grew into the World War Three. Many developments in politics, art, culture, and religion – not only the war in the Holy Land and in the Middle East, but decline of Christianity, rise of the Right, advent of Globalisation are parts of the same problem.
The war in Palestine can be terminated today by granting full equality of its Jewish and non-Jewish residents. Somehow this solution is not even discussed. The author would love to make a celebratory presentation of wonderful achievements of Jews, if it would cause them to embrace their Palestinian neighbours. However, this way was tried and failed spectacularly. In the author’s eyes, the Jewish hubris is the main obstacle to the solution, and that is why the se essays are deconstructing Jewishness, trying to undermine all possible reasons for the hubris. This could be painful reading for his Jewish brothers and sisters intoxicated with success and trapped by mantra of Jewish martyrdom. But the Jewish exclusiveness has to be exorcised, in order to integrate Jews into the family of nations. 
Hubris was considered the worst of sins by the ancient Greeks, and it always lead to fateful consequences. An example of hubris is furnished by a prominent modern Jewish scholar and editor of Talmud, Rabbi Adin Steinzaltz, who described Christianity as ‘simplified Judaism, adapted to the childish minds of Gentiles’. Smugness of Jewish positive assessment of their contribution to mankind calls for a cold shower, provided by a grandson of a Rabbi, Karl Marx, who wrote: ‘Christianity is the sublime Judaist thought, while Judaism is a sordid utilitarian application of Christianity’. The author prefers the ruling of Rabbi Marx, as it offers a way to deconstruct the Jewish state and to integrate the descendents of Jews in their new homeland and elsewhere. 
It is a story of love as well. I (let’s leave this neutral ‘author’ aside) am deeply in love 
with the Holy Land, its meagre streams and olive trees, and with its people, the native and 
 	1
adoptive Palestinians. This land is still able to connect Man and Spirit by virtue of its ancient shrines and unique nature. The ongoing destruction of the Holy Land would create a point of no return for mankind and signify Man’s total enslavement by the forces of domination. By saving the Holy Land, we shall save the world. 
Israel Shamir 
Jaffa
 	2
Part One. In Palestine 
Our Lady of Sorrow 
[This was written after Israeli invasion of Bethlehem, in March 2002]. 
In the Upper church of Annunciation in Nazareth, there is a striking collection of images, the homage of artists to Mary: in a setting of blue-and- golden flowers, a dainty Virgin in a colourful kimono holds her child in ceremonial Japanese royal robes; a naïve Gothic face of Madonna, transferred from French Cluniac illuminations ; a Chinese Queen of Heaven carved of precious wood by Formosa devotees; a richly inlaid Cuban statue of Virgen del Cobre; a Polish Black Madonna; a tender face of the Byzantine Mother of God, and a modernist, steely Madonna from the United States all look from the walls of the church and unite us in one human family. There is hardly an image in the world as universal and poignant as that of the Virgin and the Child. 
Wherever you go, from Santiago de Compostella in the far west of Spain to the golden domes of Russia, from frozen Uppsala in Sweden to Hagia Sophia in Constantinople, you will find this adorable face. The best artists depicted her compassionate features, her love for her child and her sorrow. Botticelli painted her with a pomegranate and among the Kings of the East; Michelangelo and Rafael, Cimabue and Titian, van der Weyden and Fra Filippo Lippi were inspired by her image. This unique mix of a young girl and mother, of vulnerability and protection, of admiration and love, formed the spiritual and inspirational base of our civilisation. 
She appeared to a Mexican peasant, and her flower-covered image arrested the strife and united Native Americans and Spaniards in one nation. She gave her rosary to Saint Dominic and a letter to Portuguese kids in Fatima. Prophet Muhammad saved and cherished her icon found in the Mecca shrine, writes Maxim Rodinson. She appeared to a wealthy Jewish banker Alphonse Ratisbonne, and he took orders and built the convent of the Sisters of Zion in En Karim. A Palestinian Muslim in a refugee camp of Lebanon preserved the image he took from his native Galilee, tells Elias Khoury in his novel Bab Al-Shams (recently translated into Hebrew by Moshe Hakham and edited by Anton Shammas). Syrian astronauts asked for her protection in the shrine of Seidnaya before the ir flight on the Soviet space shuttle1. 
In medieval legends, the Jews were often perceived as enemies of the Virgin. The Talmud refers to her in most blasphemous and hostile way. A certain column-stump on Jerusalem’s Via Dolorosa marks the place of a legendary attack of Jews on her person, while in Antioch in 592, Jews were found despoiling her image. These are old tales. And now some new facts. This week in Bethlehem, a Jew shelled the Virgin. A Jewish soldier in the formidable tank 
 	3
Merkava-3, constructed according to US technology at US taxpayer’s expense fired a shell from a distance of fifty yards at the statue of the Madonna a-top the Holy Family church in the Nativity town. 
The Virgin lost an arm, and her pretty face was disfigured. She became one of a hundred Palestinian women shot by the Jews in the present outburst of war. This seemingly unnecessary act of vandalism could not have been an accidental shot. No terrorist hid behind her gentle figure on the pinnacle of the hospital church. At fifty yards, you make no mistake. It could have been orders; it could have been a spontaneous expression of feelings by a Jewish fanatic. Our world rewinds full speed back into the Dark Ages, and as Israel rekindled traditional Jewish hostile rejection of Christianity, it can not be excluded. 
Whatever it was meant to be, that shrapnel-shot became the most recent check of the mind-control system: will this sacrilege become widely known? And will it stir the hearts of Christendom? It remained unknown, for Christendom did not respond to the siege of the Nativity as much as Muslims did at the Jewish fundamentalists’ sacrilege at Haram a-Sharif. The doubly-negative result of the check probably confirmed the greatest hopes of its initiators. The world mass media, from New York to Moscow via Paris and London, has been secured in the grip of philosemites; not a squeak gets out unless authorised. The current Israeli invasion of Ramallah and Bethlehem was covered under the heading ‘Sharon looks for peace’. The UN resolution equalized the aggressors and their victims, sotto voce. The Western mainstream media dropped a blanket of silence on the cries from the Holy Land. Alexander Cockburn writes this week:
“It’s supposedly the third rail in jour nalism even to have a discussion of how much Jews control the media. Jude Wanniski remarked last week in his daily "Memo on the Margin" in his Web newsletter Supply Side Investor that it was certainly true to say that the Jews control discussion of Israel in the media here”2. 
 	4
Indeed, the story was reported by Reuters and this dreadful picture was taken by an AP photographer. It was available to the world media. Still, no important newspaper or magazine printed it. Instead, they published stories of Christia n anti-Semitism. 
The conscience of the West suffers a mirror vision of the Middle East. Terrorist actions have been perpetrated by Jews against Palestinians, but the very name ‘Palestinians’ came to epitomise terrorism. Palestinians are facing holocaust; Jewish soldiers are printing numbers on their foreheads and forearms, separating men from women and send ing them into concentration camps, but Jewish holocaust- memorials spread like mushrooms. Israel and the US disregard the international law, but their adversaries are branded ‘rogue nations’ 3. While Palestinian towns are invaded by Israeli tanks, the Wall Street Journal publishe s an article Israel under Siege by the illegal ‘Mayor’ of Jerusalem Ehud Olmert. Churches are shelled, Gospel books burnt, Christia ns persecuted by the Jews in Palestine, but it is Christian anti-Semitism that worries news editors and churchmen. 
The accusation of anti-Semitism became the blood libel of our days. Or was it always? In the Merchant of Venice, Shylock complained of Gentile hatred, though it is he who hated, and the others disproved of his loan-sharking practices. Instead of cutting the loan rate, he preferred to cut Antonio’s flesh, and hide behind his claims of discrimination. If Shakespeare’s Portia had our modern attitude, she would rather let Shylock have his pound of flesh than stop him and be accused of anti-Semitism. 
Probably in such a spirit, the guardians of the public conscience decided to spike or play down the sacrilege in Bethlehem. The quietude of the West sho uld frighten us well beyond the Middle Eastern context, as it possibly means our civilisation is dead.
Civilisation can’t survive if its sacral heart ceased to beat. When faith loses its relevance, civilisation dies, historian-philosopher Arnold Toynbee wrote in explanation of ancient Egypt’s collapse. There is no life without sacral, seconded the philosophy-of-religion scholar, Mircea Eliade. Whether we accept philosophy of history, or mystic reading, or pragmatic sociological studies; whether we follow Durkheim or Heidegger, the conclusion is the same: indifference to the fate of the Virgin of Bethlehem bodes ill for the Western Christian civilisation. It implies that the Europeans and Americans have lost the sacral core, and our profaned civilisation is doomed to extinction, unless we’ll turn away from the edge of the abyss.
St Barbara of Aboud 
Aboud is one of the prettiest Palestinian villages, strongly reminiscent of Tuscany. Its time- mellowed stone houses grow on the gentle hills. Vine climbs up their balconies, leafy fig trees provide shadow to its streets. The prosperity of this well-established village is seen in the spaciousness of the mansions, in the meticulously clean roads. The old men sit in a small and 
 	5
shady, walled enclosure, on the stone benches, like the aldermen of Ithaca gathered by young Telemachus. That is the biblical ‘gate of the city’, or a diwan. Kids bring them coffee and fresh fruits. Local people are not the refugees of Gaza and Deheishe; here, as in a time warp, one can see the Holy Land as it should and could be. 
Three millennia old Aboud received the faith of Christ from Christ himself, says the local tradition, and there is the church ready to prove it, one of the oldest on earth, built in the days of Constantine in the 4th century, or maybe even older, as some archaeologists say. The church is a dainty thing, carefully restored and well taken care of. The Byzantine capitals of its columns bear the image of cross and palm branches. They recently discovered a plaque in old Aramaic script immured in the southern wall of the church. 
There are other churches as well: a Catholic, a Greek Orthodox and an American-built Church of God. There is also a new mosque, as Christians and Muslims of the Holy Land live together in great harmony. On December 17th the Muslims and the Christians go together to the old Byzantine church of St Barbara, a local girl and the village patron saint. It is one of these bitter-sweet semi- ruined churches that still attract worshippers, along with St Anne of Safurie and Emmaus of Latrun, and it stands on a hill a mile away from the village. It would be called St Barbara-without-the-walls if it were in England. At the foothill, at the saint’s burial cave, the peasants lit candles and ask for her intercession. In the misty post-Vatican-II days the Catholic Church decided to exclude the Palestinian martyr St Barbara from the list of recognised saints, but she remained a favourite one for the Eastern Churches. There are beautiful new edifices of St Barbara in Florida and Washington, while her breathtaking image by Vasnetsov, a great Russian painter of fin-de-ciecle, shines at the believers in St Vladimir Cathedral in Kiev, Ukraine. A few years ago, the community of Aboud restored the shrine to some extent and renewed Sunday worship. 
On the thirty- first of May 2002 the Israeli army dynamited St Barbara, the living relic of the Christian past of the Holy Land. I do not know whether the sappers said the benediction prescribed for such occasions by the Jewish religious codex, Shulkhan Aruch: ‘Blessed you are, Our Lord, Who destroys the Assemblies of Proud’ . The destruction followed the Bethlehem siege; when for the proverbial forty days and forty nights, from the Catholic Good Friday to the Orthodox Easter Sunday, the Jews besieged the Church of Nativity. The destruction passed so quietly, attracting so little attention, that it will probably be continued.
Christianity is the traditional adversary of the Jews. “Against Christians, the Jews rage with an insatiable fury”, wit nessed Origen4 in 2nd century, and in 19th century, Freud confirmed, “Our worst enemy is the Church”, and Graetz the historian seconded: “We must beyond all work 
 	6
to shutter Christianity5”. In the election campaign of 2003, the churches starred as the
threatening symbol of hate in the Israeli TV prime time.
My friend Miriam from New York, a nice person and a friend of Palestine, learned of the 
sacrilege and wrote to me: ‘It is not only churches; they destroy everything meaningful’ . 
Well, she is right saying they destroy not only churches. In nearby Nablus, they drove a tank into the Green Mosque, the oldest extant structure built above the cave where Jacob lamented his lost son Joseph. One of the great shrines of Palestine, contemporary with St Barbara, it was a Byzantine church, and later served as a Samaritan synagogue, the centre of worship for local Israelites- not-Jews. Samaritan priests pointed it out to me. A holy place is always attended in the Holy Land, and it again was converted to a church and beautified by Queen Melisende, the pious flirt and the builder of the Holy Sepulchre. It reverted to a mosque eight hundred years ago, when the cathedrals of Chartres and Köln were erected. The mosque was celebrating its fifteen- hundredth anniversary when an Israeli tank broke its wall. Just to show their impartiality, they also bombed the St Philip Episcopal church in Nablus and put St Luke Hospital under curfew.
Miriam is right saying they destroy everything of spirit. It includes nature, as nature is the great source of inspiration. In Jerusalem there was a great spring, the biggest spring of the Highlands. It gave birth to Jerusalem, and it is the reason for the city’s existence. It has a plethora of names: Gihon, Shiloah (in the Bible), Ein Sittna Miriam, after the Virgin, Ein Silwan, after the nearby village. Many events are connected with this living spring. King David’s soldiers climbed up its shaft, Jesus healed blind men at its pool, King Hezekiah bored a half-kilometre- long tunnel to keep its waters within the walls, away from the reach of the Assyrian army. It is forever venerated, and an old mosque stands at its lower exit. Many times in the hot days of July I waded breast-deep the tunnel’s cool length, drinking its sweet water and biding time to emerge at the fig tree above broken Roman columns of the pool. 
Then, over a year ago, Ehud Olmert, self-styled ‘Mayor’ of Jerusalem, the great destroyer of Palestinian homes, seized the spring. He locked the entrance, set a Russian guard and a few soldiers, then transferred it lock, stock and barrel to settlers. The Palestinians were not allowed to approach it anymore. Nowadays, the spring is dead. Instead of pure water, the city sewage flows through its tall tunnel. It suffered the fate of many other springs of Palestine. Some have been fenced, others covered with concrete, eliminated by pumping stations or poisoned by sewage. All were killed by the Jews. 
I hear a voice. “Oh no! Say `Zionists’!” I would, but it seems unfair to the Jewish people abroad. They work so hard; they demonstrate in support of Israel everywhere from Brussels to San Francisco; they collect funds for Israeli soldiers; they sue everybody who supports Palestine; 
 	7
they keep news about blown- up Byzantine churches out of your newspapers. Don’t you think 
they deserve to be considered as full-blown partners in the Zionist enterprise? 
“They make life so miserable that the Palestinians will leave”, wrote ever -so-rational Miriam. Here I tend to disagree. Recently I saw just outside the village of Aboud two giant American-built Caterpillar bulldozers, huge, armour plated, moving fortresses. They towered above the landscape as the mechanical monsters of the Evil Empire and slowly devoured the olive trees. That is their purpose. To destroy. Not just churches, not only mosques, but everything that reminds of Spirit, from olives of anointment to springs of blessing. It is their service to the Faceless Destroyer and their curse. 
For they destroy even things they intend to save. A beautiful ancient domed shrine at the Tomb of Rachel was one of the sweetest memorials of the Holy Land. It was not exclusively Jewish, but Jews always had an access to it, together with the Palestinian women who came to ask for her intercession before childbirth. In order to make it exclusively their own, the Jews surrounded the shrine by high wall and for all reasons destroyed it. They are doomed to create a lifeless, spiritless ghetto wherever they are. 
The Belgian 19th century writer Charles de Coster6 concludes his description of horrible deeds of Phillip II who burned and tortured devout Dutch Protestants with the words: ‘He found no pleasure in torture’. That is the Jewish fate in the Holy Land: to destroy the vestiges of Spirit and to have no pleasure out of it. 
P.S. As an anticlimax, I propose to my readers that they calculate the ratio of Jewish influence in their newspaper in the following way: divide the coverage of a synagogue wall dirtied with graffiti (in square inches of print) by the coverage of the venerable Byzantine church of St Barbara destruction (in square inches of print). Just to remind you: a ratio with the denominator `zero’ equals `infinity’.
The City of the Beloved 
Their names bear a touch of medieval morality plays, but instead of Hope, Penance and Mercy, the three sisters are called Amal, Taura, Tahrir, or Hope, Revolution, and Liberation. Dressed like ordinary college girls they are - they would not stick out at Yale or Tel Aviv University. Their books and CDs are the same ones I saw this morning on my son’s shelf. But their smiles, their wonderful happy smiles and high spirits, are quite out of the ordinary, considering their circumstances. 
Fifty years ago their parents were expelled from their ancestral home in the South together with 750,000 Palestinians, and the sisters were born into a family of refugees in Halil. They were born one after another, to make up for the many years of their father’s jail term. He was with them but a short while, as his heart gave up when a settler flung a gas grenade into his 
 	8
sitting room. The youngest sister, Amal, is at high school, while Tahrir is already a sophomore at university, studying architecture, the fine art of dressing thoughts in stone and building homes. Their own home, a modest, three-bedroom stone house with wide windows, set deep in the vineyards of the valley, is doomed. 
The messengers of doom stood outside staring at the ruins of the neighbouring house, at its flat roof broken at the centre, and at a grey- haired woman with bright blue eyes who was searching in the vestiges of what was her home until yesterday. 
“ Yalla, ufi kvar”, screeched a tall Jewish girl, Barbra-or-something, at the old woman. Get lost! 
An accompanying army officer was ready to oblige. He repeated the order in Arabic, and, while the woman climbed up from the crater, told Barbra-or-something about what the old woman had told him: “Her new leg”, he said. “Five thousand shekels’ worth. Over one thousand dollars, bought just a month ago. She used it for her better occasions, and yesterday, whe n we demolished her home, she had on her older limb”. 
“No, she lost her leg as a child in 1948, when the Old city of Jerusalem was shelled”, the officer answered the unheard question of a tall, imposing man in an elegant grey suit and a small, head-covering kippa. Meanwhile, two bulldozers pulled away the remainder of the old lady’s home, neatly grabbed the remains of the vineyard and crushed its purple-red leaves into the mud. 
At this time of the year, purple-red covers the hills in Halil Country. It is the land of vine, separated by Bethlehem to the north from the land of olive. It is the land of broad terraces, reddish-dry soil, abundant sheep, rare springs, strong faith, and of vine. Though a few hundred years ago the local folk gave up their Orthodox Christian religion and embraced Islam, they still press wine in the millennia-old stone wine presses. In the autumn, the women of Halil sell their heavy, yellow, sweet grapes, still covered by field dust, at Damascus Gate, wearing their long black dresses with exquisite embroidery. When my wife gave birth to our first son, I presented her with just such a black and purple-red dress sewn over many weeks in a village near Halil. 
Much as I like the vine land and the people of Halil, it is not a place one visits gladly. As in a Greek tragedy, dreadful doom befalls the city. The sea monster consumed the virgins of Jaffa in the story of Perseus, the Doom of Halil slowly eats up the city and its folk. Day after day, a house is confiscated, a shop torched, a man killed. Now, Halil is the semi-digested object fishermen used to find in the stomachs of decked sharks. It still preserves some features of the ancient, proud city of men, but it is half-eaten. If you ever visited a beautiful, terminally- ill young girl, you kno w the feeling. 
In normal times, Halil country would be much admired, for it is very much the Land of 
the Bible: its people’s life -style has not changed much. They are the same shepherds and wine-
 	9
growers, and the names of their villages are replete with memory. The great Palestinian brigand Daud, later King David, charged protection- money in Maan; the prophet Amos grew up in Tukua; Gad is buried in Halhul. Halil was called Hebron, later St Abraham, later Halil, or the Beloved, for it is a stock epithet of Abraham, the great culture hero of the Middle East. That is the original Judea of kings and prophets: Judean but (despite some similarity of sound) not Jewish, even quite unconnected to the Jews of old, who never ventured into this arid province so far south. The Jewish historian Josephus Flavius did not know of those places; the Jewish books, Talmud and Mishna, hardly mentioned Hebron and Bethlehem. The Jews called the land, ‘Idumea’, and its Judean folk, ‘Idumeans’. (In similar vein, the Jews called the lan d of Israel ‘Samaria’, and its Israelites ‘Samaritans’, as they wanted to privatise the heritage of the Bible.) The native Judeans, the people of Halil, did not care: they still worked the same fields and worshipped at the same shrines as did their ancestors, the heroes of the Bible. 
Most of all, they cherish their Ibrahimiye Mosque, commemorating the Beloved of God, Ibrahim (or Abraham), the spiritual pathfinder for mankind. This massive edifice of rusticated stones was built in the uncharted past. The Crusaders erected a beautiful basilica on the old foundations, and the benevolent rulers of Cairo and Damascus, Istanbul and Baghdad adorned its walls with Islamic verses. The Mosque of Halil exudes holiness and grace as the font of spirit that broke out in the Judean Hills. Yes, that is uniqueness of the Holy Land: while the Almighty gave oil to our neighbours, He gave the Halilis bottomless deposits of divine spirit. While oil runs out, the more spirit is given away, the more of it remains. Probably that is why the enemy made it so hard to get there. 
The Old city of Halil is a dense swarm of medieval houses around the Ibrahimiye Mosque. The closely built houses leave but few entrances into the maze. These have been blocked by iron gates and barbed wire, leaving just two openings for access. The openings are controlled by massive checkpoints. The soldiers checked our documents again, searched us and let us into the city of the Beloved-turned- into-the-worst-jail in the Gulag archipelago of Palestine. 
My Virgil in this descent to Hell was an unusual man, Jerry Levin from Alabama. An ex-CNN bureau Chief in Lebanon, he spent almost a year in Hezbollah captivity, and since then, he has lived in the Old City of Halil with a small team of Christian Peacemakers. CPT people bring food to the besieged, try to protect the city’ s folk and suffer the abuses and violence of the settlers and the military. Born a Jew, he embraced Christ and cast his lot with the downtrodden of the Earth. 
“ Do not make too much of my Lebanese prison”, he warned me with a wry smile. “Every man here can tell you of much longer and harsher jail terms”.
 	10
Children’s eyes watched us from behind iron bars. The streets were empty: for many months, the natives have not been allowed to tread the paved footpaths of their city. Eternal curfew was imposed here years ago. The shops were broken into and torched by looting settlers; the walls bear graffiti in cursive Hebrew script: ‘Kill the Goyim; it is good for the Jews’, ‘Kahane was right’, ‘Bless your soul, Dr Goldstein’. 
We knocked on the iron door of a house and heard sounds of heavy locks being removed. The door opened a crack to let us in. We climbed up the narrow staircase to the roof. The grandiose edifice of the Mosque rises high just two hundred yards away, but the inhabitants rarely venture out that far. Narrow planks connect the roofs of the city and allow the besieged Halilis to visit their neighbours. Their children, like birds, run from roof to roof on planks, or stare through bars at the street belo w. The streets were privatised by the settlers, so they can walk there in complete peace, undisturbed by Gentile presence. Regularly, the settlers break doors down and attack the citizens, throw their bedding and chairs through windows and beat them up. That is why their doors are barred by heavy wooden beams and locks. They can’t even go out and buy food: it has to be brought in by European and American volunteers. Many escape this unbearable life, leave their homes, vineyards and properties behind and go into exile. In this half-eaten city, only the strongest remain.
Once, my American friend Michael asked me whether the Palestinians are engaged in non-violent struggle. In Halil, every day, every hour, every minute of a Palestinian’s life is a non-violent struggle for existence. T’is pity it is not very successful. Apparently, the monsters need a Perseus to do the persuading. 
We walked out into the open. A settler called to us, peering into the dusk under the arches 
above the narrow lane: 
“Arabs! Scram! ” 
A soldier on the corner calmed him: “They are n’t Arabs. They are internationals ”. 
“They are even worse”, said the settler, an elderly East European Jew. And he called out 
in his heavy, accented English: “Go away! You are not wanted here ”. 
“Neither are you”, we responded, and came out to the Mosque. It was surrounded by three chains of soldiers, mainly recent imports from Ethiopia and Ukraine. We were checked once and once again, asked where from and why, walked through metal- finders and thought-controllers, soldiers’ watchful eyes upon us, full of habitual tireless hate, to the huge cenotaph of Abraham. And yet, I was swept by the aura of holiness coming out of the place, as if my spirit were uplifted on the great tsunami wave. High. Very high. I do not know whether a holy place is holy due to the holy man buried there, or, other way around, they bury holy men in holy places, but certainly it was a holy site. 
 	11
As I turned around, I saw the settlers who had privatised the spiritual spring. They wore 
white prayer shawls with black stripes on their shoulders. They saw me. 
“That is an Arab!” said one. 
“No, he is a German”.
“No, he is an Arab with an Israeli passport; that is why he looks so arrogant”, said the 
first. 
“You Arab?” asked the second. 
“Sure”, said I. 
“Ge t out of here, you vermin!” they shouted. 
Actually, the settlers do not care much for the Tomb of the Beloved. They have another grave to worship, that of the mass murderer from Brooklyn, Dr Goldstein. He achieved glory in the Purim of 1994. Purim is the only merry feast of the Jewish calendar, the anniversary of a jolly good massacre committed by their ancestors in Persia some twenty-four hundred years ago, when 75,000 men, women and children, were massacred by the avenging Jews. 
In the Purim of 1994, Dr Baruch Goldstein came into the Mosque with two machine guns and a lot of spare clips. The watchful soldiers would not let us bring in a nail- file, but they did not stop him. He entered the prayer hall, called ‘Merry Purim!’ and opened fire. He slaughtered some thirty unarmed worshippers, until the survivors succeeded in killing the rampaging beast. When they carried their wounded and dead out of the mosque, the soldiers opened fire and killed an additional twenty worshippers, calling out ‘Merry Purim!’ When the news of the massacre reached the Knesset, the Israeli Parliament, Hanan Porat, a leader of the Jewish Nationalist Religious Party, blessed the parliamentarians with “Merry Purim” . 
Dr Goldstein was buried with much respect and love; his grave became a place of mass pilgrimage for the settlers and their admirers from Israel, America and all over the world. Young, plump Jewish maidens come there, lay flowers and light candles on his tomb. Young Jewish soldiers put their American- made M-16 rifles on his tombstone and ask for the holy man’s assistance and guidance. Young couples exchange vows, old men say Kaddish for his soul. 
After the murder, there were voices in Israel calling to remove the settlers from Halil. But the Israeli government used it to punish the victims: half of the Mosque was taken over by the Jews; local worshippers were banned from venerating the Tomb of Abraham the Beloved of God; the entrances of the Old City were sealed; dozens of Palestinian homes were confiscated and erased; the main street of the city was forbidden for Palestinian traffic. There is but little difference in outcome: whether a Jew kills or is killed, the Jewish state always uses it as a pretext to steal more land and punish Palestinians. 
 	12
Still, on Fridays the settlers wo uld go to the Tomb of Abraham, whom they venerate as Christians and Muslims do, but for a different reason. While for us, Abraham is the spiritual father, a man who found the way to commune with God and showed it to mankind; they claim him for a biological ancestor and justification for the privatisation of the holy place. (Adams, the American of Mark Twain’s short story would beat them by claiming direct descent from Adam.) If they could claim George Washington was a Jew, they would surely privatise the White House. (On second thoughts, they have done that anyway.) This perverse reading sits deep in the Jewish psyche, and Natalie, a nice Israeli journalist who accompanied us, asked me: 
“Do local Arabs consider Abraham their ancestor as well?” 
“The entire wo rld considers him our spiritual ancestor”, I tried to explain to her the non-biological, spiritual and universal faith of Abraham. I reminded her that Abraham rejected his father, Muhammad rejected his tribe, and Christ rejected his brothers’ call and said that his brothers- in-spirit are more important than his brothers- in- flesh, but my words could not make a dent on the vision she was imbued with. 
On Fridays, the settlers rule supreme in the city. The army imposes especially heavy curfew and does not let a single goy out of his house to blacken the path of a Jew. The soldiers shoot at kids who dare to play outside. The city can’t breathe until the last Jew disappears into the barbed-wire fenced, for-Jews-only compound. Halil is a good place to learn of the real Jewish intentions about how the world is to be run – much better than reading their hypocritical, saccharine-sweet editorials. 
But last Friday was different. After the heavy guard accompanied the settlers into their compound and was on the way to barracks, they came under guerrilla fire. The guerrilla fighters did not want to copy the Jewish mass murderer; they let the worshippers pass in peace to their homes, and only after that did they opened fire. A Perseus dropped by to visit the monster. 
Israeli soldiers are brainwashed to believe in their racial superiority, in the superiority of their weapons, in the protection of their Supreme Commander Most High, in the natives’ meekness. They were sure the spirit of Halilis was irredeemably crushed. Arrogant and reckless, they rushed into hot pursuit. The fighters retreated into a lane between vineyards, and as the enemy soldiers entered there, they sprung their deadly trap. 
The Jihad fighters used the old ruse of weak against strong, first described by Roman historians, later made into a play, The Horatians and the Curiatians, by the great German playwright Bertolt Brecht. The two warring Roman clans of Horatians and Curiatians met on the battlefield. The weaker Horatians feigned flight, and when their heavily-armed enemies followed them and spread sparse along the route, they turned back and killed the ir pursuers, one after another. 
 	13
The result was nothing short of a miracle: three Jihad warriors with their carbines killed twelve heavily armed Jews, among them the chief tormentor of Halil, Colonel Gauleiter of the city, the Hebron Division Commander. The fighters could not escape: when they made their noble decision to attack only soldiers and let the settlers pass in peace, they sealed their own fate. Still, they proved their spirit is strong, as strong as foundations of their great shrine. 
Often one hears that the Palestinians should act in this or other way. They should not kill the enemy if the enemy takes off his military uniform and goes for a holiday. They should be choosy with their targets, as otherwise it is ‘counter-productive’. The Halil ambush proved this to be but pious nonsense. The attack on the soldiers was the fairest one ever launched against the oppressor. And yet, the US President described it ‘a heinous crime’; the UN Secretary General called it ‘a horrible, bloody deed’ and the misled Pope referred to a ‘massacre of worshippers’. Even the Israeli Chief of Staff laughed at this description and refused to call it a ‘massacre’. Our soldiers died in the battle, he said. But anyway, he ordered the demolition of homes in the ambush lane. 
Thus, it does not matter what the Palestinians do, whether they kill Israeli children or fight Israeli soldiers, or even if they are being killed by settlers, they are found guilty anyway, for they did not surrender to the Jews. Those who surrendered without fight won’t forgive them. But the Palestinians of Halil, these most abused people on earth, know the truth. And that is why broad, happy smiles stayed on the innocent faces of the three sisters, Hope, Revolution and Liberation. 
The nice Israeli journalist Natalie felt she had to balance her story to make it acceptable 
to her editors. 
“But what would you say about terrorist acts in Tel Aviv against Israeli civilians?” she demanded from the girls whose home was to be demolished. I wonder what my grandfather in the ghetto of Stanislawow would have answered to the question of a German journalist about his feelings for the German victims of Allied air raids. He would probably have answered as the Canadian Jewish columnist Mordecai Richler did: “I'm glad Dresden was bombed for no useful military purpose”7. 
We stood near the place of the ambush on the broad veranda of the three sisters. Probably our looks betrayed our feelings, for the group of settlers and their entourage turned on us. A settler, a sleek Jew, told us: 
 “You should be on our side”, he said. “You are Jews, aren’t you? It is us or them. Listen 
to the voice of your blood; support your people against their enemies”. 
“Was it necessary to demolish the houses of innocent people just because somebody shot 
at your soldiers in the vicinity?” asked Jerry. 
 	14
The imposing, tall man in the grey suit looked at us sternly. 
“How do you dare to speak of houses, when human life was extinguished here?” He was 
an American from New York, a Rabbi Wise.
“Would you demolish a house in New York if one of your people were killed next to it?” 
asked I. 
“Oh yes, we should!” said Rabbi Wise, and a carnivorous , predatory smile disclosed his feelings. He would. He would erase Harlem if a Black were to kill a Jew. For the Rabbis Wise of this world, the life and property of a goy is of no consideration, just a wasps’ nest to be removed. In Halil, or Khevron, as they call it, they enact their dreams free of limitations. 
In this city of nasty settlers and brutal soldiers, there was no man as vile as this Rabbi Wise. The settlers turned life of local people into hell, and the soldiers protected them, but they did his will, and he brought them billions of dollars taken from the Americans, and covered for them in corridors of the Congress. I felt great pity for the Americans, the industrious and generous folk, sold down the river by their politicians and turned into slaves of Mordor. 
“You are Jews, are n’t you, - insisted the sleek settler. 
“If you are, we certainly are not”, I replied. 
I felt it was impossible to remain a Jew in Halil. Indeed, the Jews who feel that demonstrating against their government’s policies is not enough, are now doing the unthi nkable with greater ease. Thus, Neta Golan, the wonderful Israeli girl who stayed with besieged Palestinian villagers in Kufr Harith, chose the faith of Mercy. In the most unexpected way, the vicious Zionist [anti-]Christian cultists’ dream of the Jews coming to Christ on the ruins of Palestine may yet come true, as ever more Jews who face real, victorious Judaism in the inferno of Hebron turn away in disgust. The cultists were right but for the wrong reason: the gathering of Jews in the Holy Land will bring the good people to light, as they will see this total darkness undisguised and reject it. 
That is why the Intifada is so important: it could be the beginning of universal worldwide Intifada. It should not stop at the borders of the Holy Land. I know this thought is foreign to Palestinians. They fight for their villages and towns, for their equality and freedom to live and worship at their shrines. For them, if the settlers were to lose their privilege, the problem will be over. But for Rabbi Wise and his ilk, their slavery and possession of Palestine is the necessary worldly proof of their achievement, and they won’t let it off lightly. It all comes back to the morality play: Hope of Halil is but a sister of Liberation of Discourse and of the World Intifada. 
 	15
The Maid and the Ogre
A dreadful monster assaults the city, kills its brave defenders, and advances to devour the citizens. At the last moment, a young maiden demurely walks forward to meet the monster. Her very sight, the sight of feminine innocence, vulnerability, spirituality, certainty of the right cause, stops the ogre in its tracks. The beast suffers her to tie her belt to his mighty neck and walks away, tamed. It is the story of St Genevieve and of other beautiful and virtuous saints; a part and parcel of human heritage, and the subject of many gorgeous tapestries and paintings.
Courageous and noble maidens are still with us. They stopped the US Army trains with soldiers during Vietnam War, and they stopped Russian tanks in Prague 1968 and in Moscow 1991. Drivers of French, Russian, American and German tanks and trains knew: even a monster stops when a girl placidly places herself on his way. It is a biological law that we all are subject to. 
Rachel Corrie was murdered by a monster from another tale. This young American girl, an ISM activist, tried to stop with her fragile body a Zionist bulldozer from ruining Palestinian homes. She could not imagine that the driver will look at her and calmly ride his ten-ton steel machine over her body, and back. Nothing in her life prepared her to the encounter with a monster born and bred in the Zionist labs, a monster that is totally alien and hostile to humans. She wrote o her parents: no amount of reading,‘ attendance at conferences, documentary viewing and word of mouth could have prepared me for the reality of the situation here. You just can't imagine it unless you see it, tank-shell holes in the walls of their homes and the towers of an occupying army surveying the [Palestinian children] constantly from the near horizons’.  
Though she saw dead bodies of Palestinian children with their heads split by the Jewish sharp-shooters, she still had some illusions of ‘the difficulties the Israeli Army would face if they shot an unarmed US citizen’. She was mistaken. Her country’s President is about to send the US Army to destroy Iraq and turn the killers of Rachel into the undisputed supreme power of the Middle East. If Bush would be guided by America’s interests, he would demand extradition of Rachel’s killer. But the driver is not exclusion. The people behind the bullet -proof windshields of Caterpillars are the final product of Zionism. At the beginning of Zionist movement, its eugenic task was expressed in a poem: 
‘Mi dam umi eza Nakim lanu geza’ – ‘out of blood and sweat we shall breed a new 
victorious and cruel race’, sang the Zionists. With murder of Rachel Corrie the experiment came 
 	16
to its fruition. The ‘cruel race’ is not a dream anymore, it is a new geopolitical reality. A few 
months ago, a Jewish bulldozer driver shared with the world his experiences8 of razing Jenin:
"I had no mercy for anybody. I would erase anyone with the D-9, and I have demolished plenty. I wanted to destroy everything. I begged the officers, over the radio, to let me knock it all down; from top to bottom. To level everything. When I was told to bring down a house, I took the opportunity to bring down some more houses. For three days, I just destroyed and destroyed. The whole area. I wanted to get to the other houses. To get as many as possible. I didn't see, with my own eyes, people dying under the blade of the D-9. But if there were any, I wouldn't care at all. If you knocked down a house, you buried 40 or 50 people. If I am sorry for anything, it is for not tearing the whole camp down. I had lots of satisfaction in Jenin, lots of satisfaction. No one expressed any reservations against doing it. Who would dare speak? If anyone would as much as open his mouth, I would have buried him under the D-9”.
Rachel’s dreadful death should open America’s eyes to the real danger to the world that grew in the Middle East. Her killers possess nuclear weapons, not only bulldozers. If Bush is so keen on a Middle East intervention and on removal of WMD, his troops could land here, on the shores of ar-Rafah, where is a real threat to the world’s peace, and forcibly remove all the weapons of mass destruction. 
The Wall
We watched Pink Floyd’s The Wall in a small, bare and shabby cinema called Semadar, The Vine Blossom in the quaint German Colony of Jerusalem. Emptied of ethnic Germans by the Jews in 1948, it still preserves its old stone houses roofed with red tiles, gables with immured plaques quoting Psalms inscribed in Gothic script, ivy creeping up its  masonry and the mysterious Templars’ Cemetery beyond heavy gate.
Semadar, named after an expression in the Song of the Songs, was a favourite talkies’ spot in our Paradise Lost, nostalgia-bewitched pre-war Palestine, when it was frequented by British officers, and the young cosmopolitan gang of the Holy City’s best and brightest: Armenians, Greeks, Jews, Germans and native Palestinians. Many marriages crossing borders, religious affiliations and political passions were formed in its romantic small yard: a Sephardi Rabbi’s daughter found herself a Scots flier, and a scion of noble Muslim Arab family met a perky Left- Zionist girl. Semadar has not changed; it survived our Fall, the Partition, to become a fixture of Amos Oz Jerusalem-based novels like fossil ice survives global warming. 
Semadar remained a decent if rundown place for family outing in 1980s, the blessed days 
before video, TV and computers took over our free time, and we often went with the kids to the 
 	17
movies. However, the Wall was a flop. In the middle of the film, there is a horrifying shot of a 
mouth gaping to devour you, the spectator. 
This scary boneless but teeth- filled mouth covered the whole screen towering above our heads. It was too much for our seve n-year old son, and he rushed out with a piercing yell. But outside, the foyer was plastered by posters with the same gaping mouth! It took a few hours to calm him down, and this symbol of the Wall, the dreadful devouring mouth, remained buried deep in my memory.
It returned with a vengeance like a released spring today, when I ran into the Wall after a beautiful walk. For many hours we had driven and walked the soft Biblical hills of the Highlands, waded high green grass, picked purple lupines, crossed a brook still full of water, and of friendly full- faced and fully-dressed girls and boys who splashed each other and us with youthful abandon, and passed by their parents in the nearby village of Anata who were preparing a picnic repast and called their cordial salaams. We greeted a monk going down from his cliff hermitage of St Chariton and received his blessing; chased away a flock of four or five shy gazelles with white-spotted crupper; lit a candle at a Byzantine image of the Madonna in Taybeh village church, where according to carefully preserved local lore Christ spent his last days before the Passion. We drunk their famous Taybeh draft beer in the Stones, an airy two-tiered café in urbane Ramallah, with a tweed-clad professor of philosophy from Bir Zeit university, a wryly-smiling architect, a lapsed Jew from England with an uncanny resemblance to the younger Noam Chomsky, and a ravishing dark beauty of a French-speaking Palestinian girl brought up in Tunisian exile and schooled in Paris. 
As we drew towards the Shepherds’ Fields, we run into the Wall. It cut into the tender Bethlehem countryside like a colossal devouring maw, and nature disappeared, marshmallow-like. Dozens of Caterpillars were tearing at the hills, uprooting fig trees and vines, crushing rocks for some monstrous Margarita. They demolished old peasant houses and medieval towers, and denuded the slopes walked by the Virgin. The Wall was built like a wide four-lane highway, flanked by 20- feet- high double steel mesh fences, topped with high tension wire, interspaced with cameras, sharpshooters’ positions and a few gates. It was the most formidable prison camp perimeter fencing I have ever seen, and it skirted the village houses tightly, like a tipsy tango dancer holds his partner. 
The peasants looked through the mesh on their olive trees, still there, still in full modest bloom, but already separated, removed, unavailable. The peasants were locked in, as secure as in any jail, beyond this Wall. Their fields, their pastures, their springs of water were locked out. A gate was guarded by an Israeli soldier; it connected them to their livelihood, to their land, to their freedom – to be opened or closed by army decision. Always looking for a profitable angle, the 
 	18
army instituted a two-dollar fee per person per time for opening the gate. If these Palestinians 
wish to dally with their olive trees, let them pay for the pleasure. 
In some places the Wall was huge concrete construction, stealing away the landscape, the view, locking the villagers in an extended prison court. But the mesh wall was even worse by affording a tantalising sight of the land they once called theirs. The Wall runs for hundreds and hundreds of miles, surrounding villages, separating them from their land, and devouring the beautiful nature of Palestine.
This Wall was not a new invention. I have seen it before. Not far from the sacred Mount Carmel there was an Armenian village. It was settled by Armenian refugees fleeing the Kurds’ fury in 1915. The always hospitable Palestinians helped them build their houses and leased them the land, for these Armenians were peasants from the shores of the Lake Van. In 1948 their village became part of the Jewish state. The Jews did not kill them, did not expel them, they just surrounded the village with a Wall, and strangulated it. The living village lost its lands and was turned into a prison with one always guarded – by the Jewish army – gate. The Armenians lasted ten years. In 1950s the last Armenian sold his house for a song to the Jews and fled.
The Wall had a precursor: the system of ‘for-Jews-only’ highways. While even Haifa or Afula has no bypass road, every Arab village has a bypass: a broad highway encircling and limiting its development. Hundreds of Palestinian houses were demolished, thousands of acres devastated while building the bypass grid by recipe borrowed from the Hitchhiker’s Guide to Galaxy. It was done for no visible reason, as tiny Jewish settlements did not need this multi-billion investment for ‘security purpose’. Moreover, new ly-built roads were usually blocked by the army. Now, with the Wall rising higher and higher, the bypass network begins to make sense: it was Stage One of devastation and imprisonment. 
The Wall will leave the olive groves in the hands of settlers, wrote ever-so-rational Uri Avneri. But the settlers do not need olives and do not intend to till the land. They prefer to torch the trees. The settlers are not the cause, but a rationalisation of the cause: desire to depopulate Palestine and kill its nature. 
Could it be different? The presently implemented programme of victorious Zionism was portrayed in a 1930s essay, The Iron Wall by Vladimir Zhabotinsky. But the roots are deeper, for the Wall is the utmost manifestation of the Jewish spirit and it fits the Jewish state. There are dozens of words for ‘wall’ in Jewish tongues, probably as many as Eskimo have for ‘snow’. Jews’ sacred symbol is the Wailing Wall; their favourite street is Wall Street. The Egyptians, Babylonians, Christians and Muslims build vertical yramids, towers, cathedrals to connectp Heaven and Earth; but the self-deifying Jews need no Heaven or Earth, and the first thing they build – from London to Minnesota - is eruv, a symbolic Wall to separate them from non-Jews. 
 	19
The only extant inscription from the Jewish Temple (destroyed forty years after Christ was tried in its Walls) is not the Decalogue, or Ten Commandments, or moral teachings, but a piece of a Wall with warning: “Goy, if you cross this Wall, you will have to blame yourself for your painful death”. 
The most important part of Jewish teaching is the maxim, ‘build a Wall around the Torah’. It enhances every prohibition of the Law by a dozen of additional prohibitions. A Jew is forbidden to gather fruits on Sabbath, but ‘the Wall’ forbids also climbing a tree, lest one be tempted to gather its fruits. Well, what about fruitless birch or fir? It is banned for the same reason: this Saturday you will climb a birch, next Sabbath you will climb an apple tree, and in a month’s time, you will pick an apple and commit a real transgression. 
Sharon’s Wall is a Wall around the Torah, for if you let a goy wander freely he will sooner or later be able to kill a Jew. Sharon’s Wall is a Temple Wall, for a goy who crosses it will have to blame himself for the bullet of a sharpshooter. Sharon’s Wall is a Wailing Wall for Palestinians, and it is the Wall Street for the Jewish building contractors. The commanding voice is that of Jacob, but the hands are the hands of Esau: the Wall is built by the sweat of impoverished Palestinian workers, guarded by Russians, paid for by Americans to jail their brothers. 
The contractors are into a Bonanza, a remake of their previous endeavour, the fifty- feet-high Bar Lev Wall, constructed on the shores of Suez Canal in 1970s and demolished by the Soviet- made water cannons of the Egyptian Third Army of Marshal Sadat on October 6, 1973. The only part of the Wall that survived the 1973 war was the villas of the contractors.
This Wall is the real Roadmap of the Zionists, for when the Wall is completed, Palestine will be ruined and its happy dwellers turned into refugees. But the fate of Jews will not be enviable, either, for the Wall is everywhere. Every shop, every restaurant, every pub in once jolly Tel Aviv has its living Wall: a Russian or Ukrainian boy imported to guard it. For four dollar per hour they stop the bombers with their bodies and are buried beyond the cemetery Wall. We, Israelis, are frisked ten times a day, as we go to the shop, the office, to work or to have fun. There is no building you can enter without a search. Thus the Holy Land has become a high security prison for all its dwellers, Jews and non-Jews alike. 
It could be predicted. The Jews weren’t locked by evil strangers within the ghetto walls, wrote Vladimir Zhabotinsky, they chose it as foreigners in China chose to live in their separate settlements. Fifty years later, Israel Shahak made another valid observation: the walls of ghetto were breached from outside, by the state, while the Jews weren’t keen to leave. The visible walls were breached, but the inner walls remained. The Jewish state is enactment of the paranoid 
 	20
Jewish fear and loathing of stranger, while the Cabal policies of Pentagon are another
manifestation of the same fear and loathing on global scale. 
Not only individuals, whole societies and cultures can be insane. This important discovery was made by an American social scientist Ruth Benedict, a close and admired friend of Margaret Mead and Franz Boas. Her Patterns of Culture (1934) remains one of the most widely read books in the social sciences ever written. In this work, Ruth Benedict described different Native American cultures and characterized the Pueblo Indians as "placid and harmonious". She wrote of “the self-aggrandizing, megalomaniac character of the Kwakiutl”, and proved that the Dobu Islanders were “paranoiac and mean spirited”. 
This last definition fits the Jews as culture to a boot. What was this Cabal- instigated obsessive search for WMD in Iraq if not a fit of paranoia, fear of a cheated goy with an axe? The State of Israel, the country of perennial body search, is the ultimate of paranoid societies, according to Ruth Benedict. The US is succumbing to the same disease under her present ruling clique of Leo Strauss’ followers: it builds walls and disarms far away lands, as well as their own citizens, for the Jewish paranoia is extremely contagious.
It is useless to fight the Wall, as it was useless to fight the illegal settlements, as long you ignore the cause. ‘The Wall is in the heart’, ubeliba homa, sung the Jews as they conquered Jerusalem in 1967. The Wall is at the heart of the problem, and this is the Jewish state in Palestine. Young and not-so-young peace activists at the hilltops along the Wall still wave the slogan “Two States” at the bulldozers, though the bulldozers implement the dream of Two States, my nightmare: a Jewish state and a chain of reservations for the Goyim, the “Palestinian State”. Whoever says, ‘an Independent Palestinian State aside the Jewish state’, turns a bl ind eye to the Wall. The Wall is an operation of separating the Siamese twins, and only the strongest one will survive it. Discussions of the Wall run into sand in Israel: vast majority of Israelis, from Labour to Likud, support it, while ‘peace- loving’ Is raelis are the strongest supporters of the Devouring Maw. 
The Wall mocks the innocent souls inflamed by the Roadmap, another doomed plan to separate the Twins. Sharon is not worried for it provides enough delays to complete the Wall, it puts the onus of peacekeeping on the Palestinian side, it gives him full freedom of action in exchange for some empty promises. 
The peace activists hope to alter the course of the Wall a bit here and there. But it won’t help, for the Wall will always separate people and their land. Wherever you put it, it will separate the refugees in Deheishe refugee camp from their houses ten miles away in Deir a-Sheik. It will separate the Christians of Taybeh from the Holy Sepulchre and the Muslims of 
 	21
Yassouf from al-Aqsa. It will separate the Jews from the holy sites. It will separate the Highlands 
peasants from their working places in Tel Aviv and Haifa. 
Sharon’s Wall, this unmitigated disaster, provides a rare opportunity to observe the true 
nature of the Jewish State, and to call for its dismantling. Not the Wall, silly! The Jewish State. 
The Road Map of Marquis de Sade or Speaking Dirty for Palestine 
 (a talk given in Paris on 18 June 2003) 
The Road Map is not a compromise between Palestinians and Jews, but between Jews and Jews, none of whom lives in the Middle East, namely, between Jewish liberals of New York and Jewish neo-cons of Washington. Both groups are devoted to preservation and prosperity of the Jewish State, but they disagree on strategy: while neo-cons such as Perle would exterminate and evaporate its enemies a la Joshua bin Nun, Tom Friedman and other liberals think the goyim could be safely jailed in security of Gaza strip guarded by NATO soldiers. Now, these two groups reached a compromise for following reasons. The active stage of the American conquest of Iraq is over, but the US army bleeds in Iraq and Afghanistan. Before replacing American soldiers in the conquered lands by French, Indian and other conscripts, in order to free them for the next stage, the assault on Iran, it needs to show the world that the war was not just an ugly imperial enterprise done in the interests of the Zionists. Whence the Road Map was ushered in. 
The two Jewish schools of the US are wonderful in providing drama. Though the real difference between the twain is tiny, they obscure it by boisterous philippics. Like seasoned  shopkeeper bemoans ill luck that forces him to part with a treasured item at a rock-bottom price, and encourages an innocent buyer to enter the deal, the hard-core Zionists bewailed ‘the Auschwitz borders’ of the Road Map. Some friends of Palestine, mainly the believers in two-states’ solution saw the distrait Jews and took the bait. They hastily concluded that the Road Map is good and fair for Palestinians.
‘The Zionists are hysterically frightened of this unflinching Texan cowboy’, - wrote Jack Graham, the lawyer, ‘He will show us the independence of the American mindset! Peace is nigh!’ Always ready to jump the gun, Ali Abunimah proclaimed (in a piece called Who's afraid of the Road Map?9) “Israel's supporters are in full panic by even the appearance of minimal fairness and reciprocity contained in the plan’. 
Alas, nobody was afraid of the Road Map. Abunimah et al repeated the error of the youthful bride of prince de Bauffremont, a notorious sodomite in a delightful if risqué story by Marquis de Sade. The Prince was to be married to the chaste and innocent girl, whose mother was well aware of her future son- in-law preferences. 
 	22
- My daughter, she said, reject the first proposit ion of your husband. Tell him firmly, any other way but that one! (Ma fille, méfiez-vous des premières propositions que vous fera votre mari, et dites- lui fermement : Non, monsieur, ce n'est point par là qu'une honnête femme se prend, partout ailleurs autant qu'il vous plaira, mais pour là, non certainement...) 
However, the Prince has decided to kick the anal habit and to approach his young bride in the conventional fashion. He was quite astonished and pleasantly so, when the lady rejected his initial advance and steered him towards the valleys he preferred anyway, tells us the Marquis in the story aptly entitled L'ÉPOUX COMPLAISANT . 
Probably the President Bush was equally surprised by the unexpected support of the Road Map coming from supporters of Palestinian cause. They were supposed to reject it out of hand for it was indeed the plan fit for Marquis de Sade. Like the young bride, they were conditioned to approve whatever is disproved by the unwelcome partner, and thus fell into the trap. The two-staters among them are so hell-bent for action like public school boys on their first cross-Channel trip, that they are ripe for any trap. 
Indeed, the Road Map would be awful if it ever worked, and the conditions imposed by Sharon’s government made it pathetic. It was aptly described and justly condemned by our colleagues Jeff Blankfort10, Ran HaCohen11 and Kathleen Christison in Counterpunch, by Edward Said, Uri Avnery and Jennifer Loewenstein and others. The 14 conditions of Israeli government nixed whatever positive element the Road Map may contain. At best, the process would produce a few fenced reservations for natives called ‘Palestinian State’. 
Does this mean that we, the advocates of humanity, should fight the Road Map, as some friends suggest? Well, like Don Quixote, we could of course charge forth and fight windmills. But another risqué joke tells of a man in an advanced stage of venereal disease whose physician informs him that his member has  to be cut off. In panic and despair, he rushes from one specialist to the next, until the most eminent of them all reassures him that no surgery is needed: his diseased member has already fallen off. 
In other words, there is no reason to fight this fictitious peace plan, for it will naturally disappear the way of Jaring, Zinni, Saudi and other Plans all by itself. Sharon’s missile attacks on defenceless Gaza, the farcical ‘dismantling’ of settlements before the final decision to beef them up prove that Israeli leaders had no slightest intention to honour even its modest framework. Ahmed Bouzid, this fine analyst of Philadelphia, correctly sums it up: ‘Anyone who has followed this conflict and has a minimum sense of history can only view the latest declarations from the Israeli government as nothing more than a stalling tactic.12’  
Indeed, why should Zionists accept the plan, or any peace plan? They are ‘King-of-the-
Mountain’ ; the only other regional power of importance, Iraq, was reduced by brave Jessica 
 	23
Lynch and her fellows- in-arms; while Teheran waits for its turn. It is rumoured that General Garner gave up his position in Baghdad for he was promised the vice-regency of France when it will be taken over. President Bush again looks a willing plaything responding to Zionist remote control. 
There is no slightest chance for any solution in Palestine, but the solution of equality, of unified citizenship and full integration of all dwellers of Palestine. The two-states’ supporters fool nobody but themselves. To make matters worse, there is no chance for this solution until some degree of equality will come into the American discourse. Why, indeed, the media discusses this non-existent Road Map? It is further evidence of the malady called the misbalance of discourse. The recent acts of terror in Gaza and Jerusalem served a reminder to doubters. While death of innocent civilians in Gaza was hardly mentioned in what American papers had described as ‘violence’, it was stressed next day when ‘violence’ visited West Jerusalem. This anomaly joined other numerous anomalies, from unbelievably high 80 per cent of all American foreign aid going to Israel, to the disproportionate space media devotes to Jewish issues from the holocaust to Cabala. Altogether it amounts to a unique phenomenon. 
We grieve over the Palestinian tragedy, but we should also regret the American tragedy, for these sturdy people, once renowned for their free speech and rugged ind ividualism, would probably lose out to geese in a contest for independent thinking. Just recently the Americans were extremely angry at President Clinton. It was not because he had an extramarital affair, the Americans said, but for lying. We can forgive everything but a lie. Not only the newspapers attacked him for his rather innocent lie, but the Congress tried to impeach him for this reason. 
Twenty years ago, President Nixon was practically skinned and lynched for the same offence: he lied, called the media, he lied, repeated the Americans, and he had to resign. But now, President Bush lied – and his lie was not a small and sordid thing, but the huge lie of Iraqi WMD. Well, who cares, says nonchalant Wolfowitz, and Tom Friedman repeats, yes, who gives a damn indeed, is not “the real story we should be concerned with. 13” Amen, said the Americans, we’ve already forgotten he ever mentioned WMD. It appears the American Jews decide not only who is an antisemite (one who calls for equality of a Jew and non-Jew) but who is a liar, too. 
I do not fret over American moral principles, but their total unquestioning submission to manipulation, their readiness to sincerely repeat whatever they are told, amounts to demonic possession. Like in Haitian lore, they were turned into a Zombie by a sinister Warlock, the Masters of Discourse. Our few wonderful friends in the US look more and more like Soviet dissidents of old, with one major difference. The dissidents had full support of the West, while the American dissidents of the present day stand alone. 
 	24
Now, we all tend to play the game, and even Cassandra found it difficult to grieve the introduction of the wooden horse into the walls of Troy when everybody else rejoiced at the Danaian splendid gift. But in America, conformism exceeds all bounds of reason. What is worse, this imbalance does not want to stay overseas but it is spilling over into Europe. The American totalitarian media lords are buying into European communications. The billionaire Haim Saban, an Israeli- American Jew, is buying KirchMedia, Germany's largest TV broadcaster. He is also the largest single contributor to the US political parties, and a great supporter of Israel – to such an extent that University of California denied him security clearance14. One can imagine what sort of programs his TV will broadcast. This attempt to hijack the mindset of Europe should be checked, and the spoiled goods of America – from genetically engineered meat to soap operas to ‘news’ – stopped from entering Europe. 
France is the key bulwark of the dam that stems the American tide. If President Jacques Chirac had not stuck to his principled position, Germany’s Erhard Schroeder and Russia’s Vladimir Putin would not dared raise objections to the American attack on defenceless Iraq. You may be proud of your leaders, and give them your support. France needs unity, and no issue unites opponents of the Empire like the issue of Palestine. Let it be the bond of unity between native and adoptive French people. 
France is the shining star in the constellation of Europe. Let this wonderful country of small winding roads, vineyards and farms, great cathedrals and parish churches, but also of modern industry and communications, of friendly and thoughtful people, be its guiding star as well. France is important to Eastern Europe, for the EU membership should bring its people respite from their present pro-American and pro-Zionist Soros-trained leadership. France is important for Russia, its traditional ally, so the Russians would shake off the vestiges of the CIA-installed Yeltsin’s regime.  
France is important for the Middle East, but she is even more important to the US. This country can’t stand up alone against the Empire, nor should we push for confrontation. Let France set an example for the good Americans to emulate, like it did in the early days of the Republic. The more privileged Americans realise this. In a small Champenois village I ran across a frequent visitor, a Mr Cohen of the New York Times. Weekdays he stays in Manhattan, eats freedom fries with gefilte fish, and calls to punish treacherous France, but on weekends he flies here to enjoy a taste of true civilisation. At heart, he knows: the American Empire under its Texan executives and Jewish media barons is an extremely uncomfortable affair even for its adepts; almost as uncomfortable as the Middle Eastern Jewish state.
For after all, in civilised France Marquis de Sade was sent to a psychiatric asylum, and 
was not asked to draw up Road Maps.
 	25
Part Two. Christ and Jews 
Apocalypse Now 
On the green lawns of Hyde Park an old tramp walks about and carries a scruffy cardboard poster, ‘The End is Nigh’. He has been doing it for years, if he is still the same tramp I spotted some thirty years ago. But a broken clock will sooner or later show the right time. Could it be that this ominous moment has arrived?
The magic pentagram has been broken and Tower of Babel had collapsed on 9/11. Jews lord over the Holy land. The dollar is high, but the creativity of Christendom has reached its nadir; its shops are full but its churches are empty; there are many dealers, wheelers and brokers but few artists, poets, saints. Floods and draughts, summer snows and winter heat, poisoned rivers and dried-up lakes remind us that our Mother Earth is very, very ill. The Apocalypse is now, many people have felt vividly in last years. 
Justin Raimondo wrote of a piece in the Weekly World News, (“that ludicrously lu rid tabloid no one will admit to reading on the supermarket check-out line”), and its oddly prescient story: "Face of Satan Photographed over US Capitol!" There was even a picture that oozed sheer malevolence: a thin, mocking face that peered out of a black swirling cloud, manic eyes ablaze and the mouth twisted in satanic sneer. The WW News quotes "one unidentified veteran CIA operative" as saying: 
The image is a portrait of terror unlike anything we've ever seen in this country. Is it something supernatural? Is it some kind of life form? Is it - and hell yes, I'll ask the question- is it Satan himself?15
This feeling, once the sole preserve of highly imaginative and sensitive persons, or of devoted readers of the WW News, now splashes across the social checkerboard. In Moscow and New York, Jerusalem and Baghdad, Paris and Berlin, secular and practical people greet each other with the question, ‘Is it the end of the world?’ 
‘Yes, it is’, replied to this question the important American philosopher, Immanuel Wallerstein, but added a careful caveat in the title of his aptly named book, The End of the World as We Know It 16. He came to the conclusion that a very long period of human history has now reached an unpredictable end. The world as we, or our parents and grandparents, know it is indeed about to end. 
Wallerstein thinks ‘the world as we know it’ came into being some 500 years ago in Western Europe and reached its crescendo in the United States of America. It is characterised by a specific aberration of human development, called ‘capitalism’ or ‘market’. Wallerstein bravely refused to accept the axiom of ‘unavoidable progress’, and stated, it wasn’t a necessary process, 
 	26
but an accidental negative development, an Aberration. Almost all societies contained some elements of capitalism and market economy, but they were marginal. A healthy society knew how to limit it. Whenever the capitalist elements tried to move from their fringe to the centre, whenever they were successful, they were taken care of by expropriation or riots. Wallerstein compares this mechanism with body’s immunity system. Rise of capitalism in Europe was a freak event, a sudden collapse of the immune system of the European social structures. The virus broke out and Europe moved to its great political and military successes. 
In order to understand the nature of the Western success, let us consider a besieged city. While the hungry and weak citizens feel their common destiny, they find support in their brotherhood. But when the idea of individualism, of ‘every man for himself’ makes inroads, some men make a great discovery: it is possible to satisfy hunger if one reverts to cannibalism. If the society is strong, they will be eliminated. But if the feeling of brotherhood and common destiny fails, the annibals will take overc the city. Their behaviour will be considered a successful strategy. It will be emulated, as people usually emulate a recognised success. 
Thus, in the community of nations, non-Western nations are force- fed with the idea of individua lism and are called to emulate the Western success. After certain limit, this tendency is exceedingly destructive. It ruins nature and society, and now it brought us to the brink of the abyss. Probably we would have arrived there long ago, under the Iron Heel of the oligarchy, as Jack London wrote in 1910, but the Russian Revolution of 1917 shook the world and offered an alternative, writes Wallerstein. 
People of Western Europe and North America had the opportunity to form their welfare society in which the middle class was prominent and workers rather content, and the Third World got a respite from punitive actions and colonial conquests. Before 1917, England did not hesitate to shell the Japanese city of Shimonoseki as a revenge for the assassination of a British diplomat. Before 1917, social differences in European society were as big as those in the modern Third World. After the collapse of the socialist system in 1991, this great respite of history is over. We are back at 1914, according to Wallerstein. 
Does it mean that the elites defeated in 1917 succeeded to regain their lost positions? Well, no. The old elites are gone, and a new social and spiritual force came into being. In an essay of mine 17, I called it ‘the Mammonites’ (the worshippers of Mammon) , or Neo-Jews, as this multi- ethnic group emulates some traditional Jewish trends. The Mammonites fought against the old elite across the checkerboard of the entire world, occasionally forging alliances with the Left. They used the Russian Revolution in order to exterminate and exile the traditional Russian elite. In England and Scandinavia, the old elite lost its power with the advent of social democracy. Germany and Italy had their elite destroyed in the WWII. While the old elite were at 
 	27
the helm, the Mammonites promoted a pro-equality agenda of transfer of power and resources 
from the old elite to ordinary people. 
That was a time of great hope. The great force of Mammonite wealth and networking assisted the forces of equality, and not too many people gave a thought to what are the objectives of their powerful allies. As long as the bankers, lawyers and media-owners supported the humanist agenda, humanists ignored their deeper thoughts. It was an error, as meanwhile they took hold of the Discourse and became its Masters. 
In order to understand this concept, consider an early movie by Woody Allen, What’s Up, Tiger Lily? The American director took a Japanese -movie, cut it a bit and put a new, completely different sound track. The result was a new movie with a new explanation of events. Like the movie, our world can be interpreted in many ways. Try to watch a good film, say, L'Année dernière à Marienbad , without sound or in a language you do not know, and the ambiguities will multiply. Our world is more complicated than the movie of Alain Resnais, and only Discourse helps us to make sense of the plethora of events. In the free discourse differing opinions about the contents of the ‘film’ are expressed, and a ‘viewer’ tends to accept a middle ground position. In the directed discourse, the Masters prepare their narrative, and exclude uncomfortable opinions. The ‘viewer’ is manoeuvred into a ‘middle ground within the offered Discourse’, where the Masters want him to be. 
For instance, Henry Kissinger at the helm of the US foreign policy devastated Cambodia. The small South East Asian country received bigger payload of American bombs and mines than Germany in WWII. Survivors of the atrocity run to the safety of the American-occupied capital city, swelling its population to unsustainable numbers. Then the guerrillas of Pol Pot succeeded to defeat the US troops and regained control over ruins of Cambodia. They took the only possible course and sent people back to their destroyed villages turned by Americans into minefields. The Masters of Discourse told their gruesome story omitting Kissinger’s carpet bombing while emphasising the casualties of the forced return to normalcy. Now, we know of killing fields of Cambodia and do not think of American bombs, we ‘know’ of ‘Commu nist cruelty’ and forget about the Mammonite atrocity. Creation of the united machine of the Discourse was made possible by Masters’ control over media and universities, by excluding common people from the discourse. 
After the failure of the revolution of 1968, the Mammonites obtained their goals and integrated with the remainder of the old elite. They scraped the talk of equality and civil rights; and adopted a new agenda, the enslavement of man. (In a similar way, the bourgeoisie had utilised the power and anger of the low classes during the French revolution of 1789. The 
 	28
workers and peasants removed the old aristocratic elite, and then the new bourgeois elite gave 
them the push and took power by using the military genius of Napoleon.)
After 1968, relentless History began its new turn. The Mammonites do not need democracy or the welfare state anymore. Now they need a Napoleon to entrench their rule. That is why, after 9/11, the forces of oligarchy are erasing the Bill of Rights, democratic freedoms, the UN Charter and international agreements, and creating a new world of a few billionaires, a squeezed middle class, pauperised workers, a powerful army and police force. They plan to emerge unassailable at the end of the turmoil. But this darkest hour is also a time of hope. 
Tomorrow is hidden from our eyes for a good reason. We have now reached the great bifurcation of history, says Wallerstein, a historic crossroads, one of those that happen once in a millennium. By definition, forking is a time of instability. That is the time when even the puny efforts of a lone man can change things. In periods of stability, even huge efforts do not change much. For a few hundred years, people believed in the predestined and unavoidable outcome of history: in the Marxist dream or the Welfare state or in the Second Coming. This time of certainty is over. We can fall into a New Dark Age, into a bleak anti- Utopia, and our children will not forgive us for our passivity. Or we still can pull and push, and hope for the best.
Karl Marx once described human history as a history of class struggle for ownership of the means of production. Neo-Darwinists view it as group competition, or Clash of Civilisations. It is more aptly described as a war of ideas. The US bombing of al-Jazeera TV station in Kabul, coming so soon after their bombing of Serb TV in Belgrade, is an added proof that words are important. Indeed, owners of newspapers, TV, universities and cinema, in short, the Masters of Discourse, emerged as the strongest power of our days. The y, and not the oil and steel manufacturers, decide our fates. The most important war of our days in the war for discourse: it should be liberated and returned to people. 
This question is discussed now all over the world. From Japan to California, from Malaysia to France people try various strategies to meet the challenge. More and more often they turn to religion as the defensive weapon. Intuitively they feel the vast potential of brotherhood inherent in religion. There were no cannibals in the besieged City of God, as people united by their communion would eliminate the offender and not succumb to his charms. This approach finds an additional proof in the response of the enemy, who hates ‘fundamentalism’, whether Muslim, Russian or Catholic, more than anything. The leading Mammonite force of our planet, the Great Satan, nominated ‘fundamentalists’ as their chosen adve rsaries in their War on Terror, immediately after destruction of the communist Utopia. But the ‘secular’ forces of the Left and the Right are hesitant to join efforts with unexpected allies. That is why we are called to reassess the relations of Man and God in our struggle for the free world. 
 	29
II 
From the times of old, Man knew the most important thing in the world is his relation to the Sublime. There were many kings, but only temples survived the obliterating abyss of ages. Sailing down the Irrawaddy River, along the bleak reaches of Upper Burma, one notices a space fleet landed on the hills at the river bend. It is numerous shrines pointing to the sky. On the far bank of Nile, the temple of Dendera raises its columns, guarding the precious and fleeting image of Nut, the goddess of Night. Her body flows like river in the sky, its bend forms a direct angle. Across the water, to the south, two rows of sphinxes lead to the temples of Karnak. The Egyptians build the eternal pyramids to outlast mankind and devastation. They built the temples to remind us: the most important thing in the world is our relation to the Sublime. 
On low, frequently flooded banks of Nerl River near Suzdal, a small exquisite white stone church stands like a candle. The Church of Intercession on the Nerl was built some eight hundred years ago, and it is still able to take our breath away. Tucked away in the forgotten corner of Massif Central, the Cathedral of Conque is covered by intricate Romanesque figures of saints. Perfect dome of the Jerusalem mosque shines for hundreds of years above the deep valley of Kedron, like a great beacon in the sea of troubles. The Laura of St Sabas nests on the precipice just a few miles below the stream of Kedron. Heavy pillars surround an ancient stupa on the island of Ayutthaya, the old capital of Siam Wherever you go you will find the most beautiful and important creations of our ancestors – from Nidaros Cathedral at the Polar Circle, to Tiangboche Monastery in Himalayas, from the black stone of Mecca to St Jago de Compostella, from the megalith might of Stonehenge to the smooth maze of Machupicchu. They remind us of our purpose, of our task, and of our reward. 
Purpose? Do we have a purpose at all? Oh yes, people have a purpose on earth. For millennia, they considered their way to God their purpose. Between battles and embraces, they turned to God. Open Odyssey and Beowulf, Dante and Cha ucer, Tolstoy and Goethe, and you will find this thought embedded in every page of the books. Now, this idea is carefully excluded, and a different purpose is proposed, that of amassment of wealth. Not a lazy and tolerant hedonism, but dynamic and devoted greed became the ruling paradigm. Still, our inbuilt, inherent purpose remained as it ever was, to achieve harmony and union with the Spirit and with Earth. Not as individuals only, but as mankind, we desire to fulfil our purpose. 
Nature, or God, or Evolut ion usually provides a reward for our proper behaviour. Though mating is necessary to produce offspring, it is also very rewarding experience. Religion, being ‘a right thing’, also bears reward. 
Reward? If we would believe Friedrich Engels, an important revolutionary thinker, 
religion is but our fear of unknown forces of nature. A primeval man could not understand the 
 	30
reason of thunder and he invented a god of thunder, wrote Engels. His ideas of god were but a mirror of his society, and One God is but a celestial twin of One King. There is no reward but fear, and the sooner we remove the source of fear, sooner we shall move to the just society. Sounds reasonable. However, if we accept Engels’ views on God, we may accept Marcus Aurelius’ views on Love, as well. Love, said this Roman emperor and philosopher, is but friction of mucous membranes. It is but a view of an impotent, we would say. This assessment is equally true regarding Engels. A man unable to experience the turmoil of physical passion or ecstasy of spiritual unity is severely retarded and should be pitied. 
Religion is a way to achieve union with Divine. This union is the most rewarding experience man knows. It has many names: ecstasy or grace, elation or trance, satori or nirvana, and many levels, from elevation of prayer to thrill of communion to total immersion in Divinity. It is as well known and much-described feeling as that of sexual satisfaction, and akin to it. What could be better than sex with a fifteen-year-old blonde, asked Woody Allen and replied, “Sex with two fifteen-year-old blondes”. However, comparing to grace this Allen’s dream is as exciting as filling in an annual tax return. Heavy drugs or hallucinogenic acid can’t beat it: nothing can. 
A modern Russian writer Victor Pelevin renders a campfire chat of three men eating hallucinogenic mushrooms. ‘The drugs do not alter reality, but open some locked rooms in our mind’, says one. The second man asks: “Is there a way to open the rooms without drugs?”, and their instructor answers: “Thi s way exists, and that is what they do in churches and monasteries. Over there, he continues, they achieve perennial “high”. “Why then we do not know of it?” Demands a mushroom eater, and the instructor explains: “This knowledge would demolish The Market. People would not bother to consume, to work hard, to steal, as they would concentrate their efforts on obtaining grace, and then, you would not make your handsome profits”. 
Until recently, this ‘secret’ was universally known. Though the Great High was prob ably obtainable just by a happy few, even an ordinary Sunday worship could supply enough joy to last for a week for a regular person. A man could hope to rise to higher joys and to receive grace. It was incompatible with the Market, and indeed, the Market had but a modest place in the life of society. The society of men was united around the church, temple or mosque; it was the first and most important building to erect in a new settlement, because spiritual needs of man are of no less importance than his material needs. 
III 
We are conditioned to accept materialistic reasoning and reject explanations that defer to forces on a different plane. This is an important part of the aberration that made people reject the spiritual component of the world. Until the Aberration the very idea of a totally materialistic 
 	31
world, explainable by sheer materialistic laws, would have been an oddity. Man’s vision of the world varied with time and place, but it never was so purely materialistic, and for a good reason. It is almost impossible to describe the world in purely materialistic terms. Our world in general evades such description. 
The ancient thinkers saw the world as a spiritual- material, multi- layered continuum where forces of Good and Evil, Virtues and Sins, Nations and Ideas have their own semi-independent existence. These forces were described as gods or angels or demons. The New Testament speaks of the Prince of the World and other forces that confront Man. St Paul was aware of troubles to come, as ‘our struggle is no t against flesh and blood, but against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms’ 18. 
Their vision has been better adapted to reality. It is easier to explain calamities and salvation, catastrophes and prosperity by interaction of Higher forces, than in terms of purely material factors or God’s changes of mood. It is easier to explain why the Trojan War lasted ten long years in terms of the struggle of pro-Trojan Gods with pro-Greek ones, tha n by Helene’s beauty or trade interests. The Cold War can be seen as the struggle of the Russian Communal Spirit with the American Mammon. The forthcoming WWIII against the peoples of the Third World can be spoken of by a religious mind as ‘Armageddon’. 
The connection between the religious and materialistic can be understood by probing interrelations of God and Man. Man’s search of God was frequently compared to earthly love. This imagery appears in the allegoric poem Yusuf vaZulaikha by the Sufi sheikh of the Naqshbandii order, Jami. Mawlana Nur al-Din ‘Abd al- Rahman Jami wrote the poem in AD 1483 at the age of seventy. Joseph, endowed with heavenly beauty, represents God, while Zuleika symbolizes the soul of mystic. With this in mind, the love story is in fact one of Man’ s search for love of God, writes Alice Shamir in her treatise on illuminations of Joseph story. 
But ot only Man thrives to reach God; God thrives to reach Man, as well. In the besieged Palestinian city of Nablous, sitting on the thick carpets of the Green Mosque, I heard the words of the preacher. 
You love Aisha from Ramallah, and she loves you, says the preacher. You want to be with her, and she wants to be with you. But you can not reach Ramallah, as the checkpoint Kalandia divides between you. Often you go to Kalandia, but the Israeli soldiers never let you through. Often Aisha comes to the checkpoint, but she can’t get through, either. You send messages, make phone calls, wave hands on the distance. It’s the same between God and Soul, and Shaitan is manning the Kalandia checkpoint.
These attempts of God to reach Man are presented in the Bible, first, as God’s union with 
Israel, and, after its failure, in the feat of God’s Incarnation. The Transcendent God makes the 
 	32
supreme miracle and incarnates in the Immanent body of Man. Still, even this effort and sacrifice 
were practically undone by His opponent. 
Serge Averintsev, the prominent modern Russian thinker, reminds us of the paradox of Biblical faith and asks: ‘How could the omnipresent, transcendental and spiritual God bless by His Presence a specific place, be it the Holy of the Holies, or Mary’s womb, the body of Jesus the Man or the bread and wine of the Eucharist?’ He points out that it is one of the tenets of faith, ‘I will dwell among the Israelites’ 19, said God of the Old Testament, and the same verb is used again in Gospels: ‘the Word became Flesh and has dwelt among us20’. It is surely a miracle, or rather, the miracle of human existence. Our dreams of being discovered by the incredibly intelligent and benevolent extra-terrestrials are materialistic interpretations of our genetic memory: of Man’s contact with the Sublime.
Averintsev reveals a God- inspired thought: ‘The Prince of the World21, that is, the force hostile to God’s Presence, attempts to separate the Transcendent from the Immanent, to close the doors of Creation in the face of the Creator, and in this way, to cleanse Nature from all that is Super- natural. He is supported by an unwilling ally: the zealot rationalist theologian who strives to remove all traces of popular beliefs or esoteric plurality and to reach pure transcendentalism22’. It is a deep thought: Satan supports (or generates) ideas that exclude God’s Grace from our life. His mega-task is to profane the world, while God’s mega -task is to fill the world with holiness. In Satan’s world, love is commodity; in God’s world, sex is manifestation of Cosmic Love. The Prince of the World wants Man to forget about spiritual life, God wants Man to rise up to Him. 
God is not indifferent to our fate; He made an incredible deed and was incarnated as a Man, suffered, died and came back to life for us. His great protagonist, familiar to us from the Book of Job, is not giving up, either. They still play with new ideas on the big checkerboard. Satan can pervert every idea of God; God can turn every idea of Satan into a wonderful thing. For example, love for the land of Christ caused murderous Crusades, but materialist Communism brought great uplifting of hearts. The present players are not acting directly, so it is our human task to make right moves, and thereby help God to win the game. Conceited warriors of yore used to say `God is with us’. Humble thinkers of the present, we should say, ‘We are with God’. 
In order to understand the events and the outcome, we have to take a daring step, one that we were taught not to take, ever. For 500 years the material research and spiritual quest were separated, and we were indoctrinated into keeping them separate. This proposed treatment of reality is not the dua listic Manichean approach now peddled by the proponents of the Apocalyptic WWIII. There are more shades of grey than a simple Black and White picture. Let 
 	33
us try and integrate these two lines, of the Immanent and the Transcendent, and achieve a whole 
picture of the world. 
We shall discover to our amazement that the two lines run parallel, as two different languages describing one reality. For instance modernity re-discovered the love of nature and named it with the long word ‘environmentalism’ or the colour -code ‘green’. It can be called ‘love to Our Lady’ by a Christian society. Indeed, Dostoyevsky identified Our Mother Earth with the Mother of God. Destruction of nature can be connected with the rejection of the Virgin. Averintsev’s ‘all traces of popular beliefs or esoteric plurality’ point to the local spirits still worshipped by the less materialistic part of mankind. 
The New World Order is, in religious terms, the beginning of the Kingdom of the Antichrist, based on the removal of all spiritual elements from our life. In practical terms, it is an ambitious attempt at the total enslavement of Man. 
IV 
It is not as easy as it seems. A man is connected to this world by four ties: he has roots in his native soil; he belongs to his family, his territorial community, and to God. As long as the ties survive, a man can not be enslaved. These four pivotal points represent the ancient figure of the Cross as it was depicted by the ancestors of modern Palestinians on rocks and walls. Long before it served as a tool of execution, the Cross was a great mystic sign of old, hidden from laymen. It was known to Moses, who put a sign of the cross on the forehead of his people while the angel of death roamed outside. The cross is found in the oldest levels of Palestinian and gyptian archaeological digs. 
In the Chalcolithic Age, over five thousand years before Christ, ancient Palestinians, cave dwellers of Tel Abu Matar near Beersheba laid down the sign of the Cross with small pebbles; each one of them also carried a sign of the Cross. ‘The cruciform mark was intended as a sign to avert evil and give protection’, wrote the noted archaeologist Jack Finnegan23. In the days of the Bible, it was called ‘tau’, while Greeks named it ‘chi’. King David made a sign of the Cross (tau) while in danger24 . Prophet Ezekiel25 promised salvation to good people who lament over injustices committed (by Sharon and Olmert?) in Jerusalem. These good men will have their forehead marked with the saving sign of the Cross (This is still done nowadays by Egyptian and Ethiopian Christians). 
The Essenes of the Damascus Covenant quoted these lines of Ezekiel, as they apparently knew of this ‘sign of protection, deliverance and salvation’ 26. Thus it was understood by the Church Fathers, Origen and Tertullian, who were able to ask their Palestinian contemporaries. Priests of the Jerusalem Temple were anointed by the drawing of the Cross on their foreheads in pure olive oil27 , as if the name of Christ (X) were written on them. The choice of the Cross for 
 	34
the execution of Christ was, therefore, meaningful: his enemies wanted to disprove and undermine the idea of salvation. But followers of Christ accepted the challenge and made this secret sign public. They drew it on their foreheads: ‘It is a tradition from the Apostles’, said the Christian Palestinians of Jewish origin to Basil of Caesarea in AD 375. Gnostics preserved these ideas in their texts. 
The spiritual meaning of the Cross, as we said, was a sign of the four ties of a man. A man is tied to the earth, to his family, his folk and to God. As long as a man retains but one of these ties he will never be totally suborned, totally corrupted, or totally enslaved. Still he needs all four, and in the right balance. If he cares about his family but forgets his community; if he loves God, but neglects the soil, and vice versa, he is doomed in the long run. 
The new proponents of the ancient subjugation-paradigm wish to do Satan’s work and remove the Divine Presence from our world. For this reason, they fight Faith, they destroy Nature, they profane Love and they uproot Man by breaking his territorial, social and familial ties. They do it everywhere, from Vermont to Afghanistan. However, Palestine is the pilot project for the new world order, as Spain in 1936 was the pilot project of rising fascism. 
The Holy Land is essential for a reason, as its native people are deeply rooted in its soil and daily witness God. The holiness of the land is not a historical coincidence, but a feature of its unique landscape and people. On this hill, by this spring, under that old tree, the Palestinian heroes Abraham, David and Jesus united with God. The villages of the Palestinian Highlands are the anchors of mankind, and without them we shall be thrown onto the reefs. 
V 
Men fight uprooting, but their measures are often ill-conceived and erroneous. Modern nationalism is a failed mechanical defence against uprooting. When the real thing – love of one’s community and soil – is gone, it is supplanted by a fiction of a nation. German nationalism offe rs us a case study. 
While German society still retained its roots, the Germans loved their towns and villages, their small kingdoms and duchies. They listened to Beethoven and Bach, ate their wurst mit sauerkraut, and they were happily parochial and content. When the fabric of the society was damaged, the Germans chose the phantom of German patriotism as their healing balsam. The Viennese painter Adolf Hitler was an uprooted immigrant in Germany, a man who had severed his ties with his soil and his community, with his family and his Church. Even worse, he was not aware of his loss. His love of Germany and of the German people excluded the landscape and the soil of Germany from his consideration. That is why he dreamt of the conquest of Eastern Europe and Russia in order to create in these lands a new Aryan Master Race Empire, as Anglo-Saxons had created the United States on the lands on the Native Americans. He did not 
 	35
understand that Germans removed from German soil would lose the qualities he admired. 
Expansion to the regions outside of the natural landscape of the people is a deadly trick. 
His nationalistic ideas were borrowed from the vast arsenal of Jewish thought. The Jews worship Jews; this sinful egocentrism was copied by German and other Nationalists. The idea of racial superiority, of Master Race and Untermench can be found in many fervent Jewish religious teachings. Genocide is permitted, nay, ordered by the Old Testament, and the commandment ‘Exterminate the nation of Amalek’ still is listed as No. 604 of the 613 commandments of Orthodox Judaism. Recently the orthodox Bar Ilan University Rabbi published a concise treatise called The Commandment of Genocide in Torah, elucidating and elevating the concept of genocide to the level of positive commandment for believers. (We shall not enter now into the separate question of praxis, the practical applications of theories). 
The deep similarity of Jewish and German Nazi approaches was noticed in 1942 by the eminent Russian theologian, Fr Serge Bulgakov. This friend of Jews regretted that “the children of Israel were persecuted in Europe after yesterday’s triumph”, but remarked that “Jewish self -consciousness is idolisation of its own nationhood. It degrades into Jewish racism, while German racism is but an envious parody of it” 28.
As many copy-cats, Hitler failed to observe the difference29. The Jews are a non-territorial group, while Germans were formed and based on their territory. Territorial people do not have to expand beyond their natural limits; moreover, they can not exist outside of them. A proof of this was provided by descendents of Germans in Pennsylvania and elsewhere in the US: they lost their ethnicity and became Americans. 
One can understand his error. Hitler was horrified by Jewish success, by ‘the rise of the Jew’, and decided to emulate the Jewish strategy. His boycott of Jewish shops and enterprises was an emulation of the boycott of Gentile enterprises and the lockout of Gentile employees by the Zionist Jews in contemporary Palestine. His idea of mass expulsion of the Jews copied the concept of the transfer of Palestinians, as envisaged by Zionists since Theodor Herzl in 1896 and executed in 1948. 
An American psychologist, Kevin McDonald, described the Nazi doctrine as ‘a mirror image of Judaic strategy’ and therefore the greatest threat to Jews. He predicted that in the future, Gentile Europeans and Americans worried by ‘the rise of the Jew’ ‘will emulate aspects of Judaism by adopting group-serving, collectivist ideologies and social organisations30’. McDonald was right in stating that ‘it will constitute a profound impact of Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy on the development of Western nations’. His conclusion is deeply pessimistic: the Judaic strategy is doomed to win, whether carried out by the Jews, or by the host nations.
 	36
For a white supremacist, this conclusion calls for the speedy action of applying the Judaic strategy in the interests of the host nation. For a Jewish supremacist, the Judaic strategy should be applied by Jews only. But for us, non-racists, the Judaic strategy is bad per se, whether applied by Germans, Jews or WASPs. There is a possibility of providing a totally different, non-Judaic response. While copy-cat strategy is self-defeating, there are other strategies, based on non-Judaic concepts of territory and local content. 
Nationalism is the difference between real and perceived national content. A fully rooted Englishman has no need for English nationalism, as he breathes England. He is a vessel full of local content, in which there is no place for ‘Englishness’. When an Englishman feels he has lost a part of his ties, he tries to make it up by love of the English idea. Nationalism rises on the ruins of local ties. When the ties of a man with Tuscany, Kent or Burgundy weaken, he needs the substitute of Italy, England, or France. Eventually nationalism turns into chauvinism and forgets its real local content altogether. 
American super-patriots, the Neo-Cons, are totally devoid of American national content. Their jingo ist flag-waving comes instead of love for the real America and of Americans. They support unlimited immigration into the US, as they do not care for their fellow-Americans. They do not care for the rest of mankind either, as they would bomb Iraq, the homeland of Abraham, for the sake of Israel. People justly repelled by the Cyclopean aggressiveness of this sect are being manoeuvred into an anti- nationalist, universal and cosmopolitan agenda. Could it be that we are doomed to make our choice between facelessness and jingoism? 
There is a real alternative to both diseases, to Scylla of nationalism and to Charybdis of the ubiquitous rootlessness, and that is love for a specific region and village. Faulkner’s love for Yoknapatawpha and Barth’s for Maryland, Joyce ’s obsession with Dublin, Rolland’s passion for Burgundy, and the Florence-centred world of Dante and Botticelli gave us the key to universal human nature: local content verily exists, as opposed to abstract generalities. 
Zionist leaders with their cheap sophistry used to claim that ‘there is no Palestinian People”. As does every sophist, they spoke some truth, but not the whole truth. The Palestinians’ local content was so rich that they had no need for the uprooted man’s nationalism. Palestinians are the people  of their villages; for them, their Jifna and Taiba, Nasra and Biram are irreplaceable. We get an inkling of this concept by recalling the plaque on the cross: ‘Jesus of Nazareth’.
And that is one of the many things we can learn from Palestinians. Love for our territorial communities, villages and towns, and their people instead of a glorious idea of the nation and the state. In an American context it means giving priority to the rights of states over federal power, priority for county over state aut horities, support for Village Vs County. We can learn some 
 	37
good ideas from the Swiss: a person can not immigrate into Switzerland unless he is accepted by one of its territorial communities. This is fair: if some rich neo- liberals support immigration, let them take the immigrants into their neighbourhoods as their neighbours. I guess this would stop immigration almost completely. 
Local content actually exists, as opposed to the abstraction of ‘the nation’. It also provides a secure protection against the alienating and unifying plague of Globalisation. I agree with the critics of nationalism and the nation state: nationalism failed profoundly everywhere, from Italy to Japan, from Serbia to Israel. In a way, it was the 19th century Gentile imitation of Jewish self-adulation. It had shed rivers of blood, created mafia- like structures, oppressed liberties and caused strife. But what is the alternative? Is it the Mammonite universal super-state rising nowadays on the base of Pax Americana? Is it emulation of Jewish strategy by uprooted national groups in a multicultural society? No, it lies in the unique character of our villages and cities. 
Power should be devolved downwards, to the level of the local community. On this level, there is no room for bureaucracy and manipulative ‘democracy’. This will save ordinary people from the dictatorship of clever experts and rich moguls31. We should learn from our Palestinian brothers to love our villages and cities, and to make them as unique as Jifna and Florence. One can not be a true patriot of one’s land unless one loves one’s town. Not in vain, did Ulysses long for his own Ithaca, rather than for Greece. 
V 
Many good men object to Zionism and compare it with colonial settler movements or with German National Socialism. Certainly, its praxis despoiled the lovely land of Palestine and acted as a great concentrating tool in the hands of the supremacist Jewish leadership in America and elsewhere. However, Zionism had its reason, alas, unmentionable in the age of Political Correctness. Let us dare and state it. Zionism and anti-Semitism have not only supported and nourished each other, as anti- Zionists are wont to say. Early Zionists thought that some peculiar Jewish qualities are bad and should be eliminated, preferably by removing Jews into the harsh environment of Palestine, or Uganda. Zionists called the traditional Jewish mindset, ‘Galutiyut’ (Diaspora features), but it was basically identical to Jewish- ness, as seen by anti-Semites. 
Recently, the witty American Jewish anti- Zionist Lenni Brenner commented on Chaim Weizmann’s letter of 1914. Weizmann, the leading Zionist and first president of Israel, had an important talk with Lord Balfour (of the Balfour declaration) and Balfour confided that ‘he shared many anti-Semitic ideas. <Weizmann> pointed out to him that Zionists too are in agreement with the cultural anti-Semites’. Brenner triumphantly concluded, ‘translated into blunt English, Balfour thanked Weizmann for confirming his anti-Semitism’. 
 	38
This might sound odd to young readers used to sycophantic Jewish writing, but the first Zionists were very strict with the Jews they knew. For them, a plethora of Jewish lawyers, porn dealers, currency traders, lobby activists, bankers, media lords, real estate moguls, liberal journalists was ‘an undesirable, demoralizing phenomenon’, in the words of Weizmann, or ‘scum of the earth’, in the harsh words of David Ben Gurion. Zionism accepted the main premise of anti-Semitism, and offered a remedy, a Mao-style ‘re-education’ in an isolated, remote countryside. 
However, History decided otherwise. Galutiyut, the (Diaspora) Jewish-ness turned out to be a winning strategy in the Mammon-worshipping West. The said lawyers and media lords captivated America’s mind and became the model for many Americans, Jewish and Gentile. Israeli Zionism lost its spirit, having degenerated into military dictatorship and only survives today thanks to subsidies from captive America. Still, it does not mean that the ‘anti-Semitic’ diatribes of the early Zionists were all wrong, as worldly success is not the only measure of things. 
There was one feature of the (Diaspora) Jewish mindset that was particularly strange and unique. When good Russian Jewish kids of the fin-de-siècle left the sheltered life of Jewish townships and entered the Gentile world, they became aware of a tragic element of Jewish existence: its almost total divorce from Nature. Jews were not interested in Nature at all; they did not describe it in verse or prose, they did not paint it, they did not connect to it; they did not care for the landscape outside their schtetl. Young men and women felt it has to be changed. Some of them moved to Argentina, where Baron Hirsch tried to attach Jews to land. Others established colonies in the Crimea, or in Palestine. 
They planned to get rid of their Jewishness. They did not mind the name (well, some did, and demanded to be called Israelis or Hebrews, or Canaanites), they minded the qualities of ‘the Jew’ and wanted to be rid of them, and reunited with Nature. Not be ing strict Zionists, we would say that some people of Jewish origin succeeded to get rid of this feature without going to Palestine. (Probably they should be described as ‘descendents of Jews’ rather than as ‘Jews’). The majority of Israeli Jews failed to attach themselves to the land in Palestine, as it hardly could be done without fusion with the local inhabitants. 
The reason for the Jewish divorce from Nature was explained in different terms, but to the same effect by an important Russian historiographer, the ‘Russian Toynbee’ Lev Gumilev. He considered ‘ethnos’ to be the quality of a group connected to its landscape. Ethnos can’t exist outside of its ecological niche. Gumilev defined Jews (or unreconstructed Diaspora Jews, a Zionist would say), as people of anthropogenic (man- made) landscape. That is why it is so easy for a Jew to change his place of living: he disregards Nature, while modern cities are basically all 
 	39
the same. That is why a Jew has an advantage in competition: while a part of, say, the English mind refers to skills needed in the natural environment of the British Isles, the Jewish mind is wonderfully concentrated on advancement in man- made environment. 
Gumilev replaces the traditional dichotomy of Jews vs. Gentiles by another one, people of man- made landscape vs. people of Natural landscapes. This does not coincide with a city/village division, as a city dweller can be an integral part of its landscape. People live in the beautiful old cities, Florence and Oxford, Jerusalem and Mecca, Suzdal and Leon. These cities grew like flowers in their setting, they created art, built cathedrals and mosques; they were unique and local and universal at the same time. There is a place for great cities of the world, - Paris, London, New York, Bombay, Shanghai – they are the meeting places of civilisations. However, modern man-made cities, Milton Keynes, Luton, St Denis, the suburban spread of New Jersey, our Holon and Afula are faceless, similar to each other and devoid of culture. 
An ethnos is successful in its own ecological niche, and unsuccessful in a foreign one. In order to win in the competition with other ethnic groups, an ethnos tries to adapt itself to its environment or to adapt its environment to its needs. We observe a similar process while catching a big fish: the fish tries to pull the fisherman into its own environment, water, as it rightly presumes it can win there. The fisherman tries to pull the fish into his own environment, dry land, as he is certain he can win there. 
That is why (Diaspora) Jews are wont to exclude foreign (for them) natural landscapes and supplant them by man- made ones, where they know how to apply their strategy. It is as instinctive a move as the attempt of a fish to pull the fisherman into the sea. An example of such strategy is provided by the Canadian Jewish dynasty of Reichmann. 
This pious Orthodox Jewish family was active in real estate in Canada, England and elsewhere. They immigrated to Canada from Austria in Hitler’s days, and in the 1980s their wealth was assessed at $40 billion. The Reichmanns invented the shopping mall, the urban design that changed the lives of people all over the globe. Malls undermined socially integrated inner cities, killed small traditional shops, devastated artisans and supported brand names, big companies, car ownership, suburban living and social disintegration. Malls eliminated the advantage of a local product or producer over an imported or centrally produced one, for in the mall there is no traditional shop or traditional shopper, no loyalty or age-old craftsmanship. 
The malls made the Reichmanns fabulously rich, and as Canadians used to say, there are the rich, the super-rich and the Reichmanns. They supported various Jewish charities and Israeli projects, and spent much money on Rus sian (‘Russian Jews’) immigration to Israel. But they caused more harm than good to the nascent Israeli society. Their malls devastated Tel Aviv and West Jerusalem as relatively affluent shoppers switched to malls, while local shops, and after 
 	40
them local cafes, the local social meeting points, lost their clients. Israeli society, once rather cohesive, disintegrated into an amalgam of various groups. The children of immigrants, with their tentative and dubious connection with the local landscape, stopped playing on the slopes of the Judean Hills, and spent their free time wandering the malls, getting used to man- made environment and to shopping as entertainment. Mall kids can easily move from a mall in Jerusalem to a mall in Toronto, with the same brand names, built by the same Reichmanns. Thus the (Diaspora) Jewish trend succeeded to undermine the Zionist utopia, as well as the social life and traditions of many countries around the globe. 
VI 
The Mall did not appear on the empty space. Shoppers for the future malls grew up in mass-produced, rectangular, standard housing blocks built after WWI. Inspired by Gropius, Le Corbusier, and Niemeyer, they are basically the same all over the world, including my native Novosibirsk. These housing blocks brought us into ma n- made environment, divorced from local content, national traditions and natural surroundings. Faceless cities rebuilt after the great destruction of the World Wars are particularly depressing, but even cities untouched by war madness were often ruined by the modernist trend. 
The Swedes invited Oscar Niemeyer, a Brazilian-born son of immigrants, a disciple of Lucio Costa and Gregory Warszawchik, to contribute to the beauty of Stockholm. He proposed to demolish the medieval core of Gamla Stan, the Old City, and replace it with an accurate row of rectangular blocks. This project was scrapped, but as a compromise, the nice 19th century central area of Hotorget was erased and transformed into identical blocks. The same blocks were erected on the site of the beautiful 18th century Arbat area of Moscow. A friend of the Soviet Union, Niemeyer influenced the programme of mass production accommodation building in post-Stalin Russia that turned many Russians into man- made- landscape men. 
Once I took a Russian TV director, a pretty Russian girl from Moscow, for a walk in the En Jedi canyon, one of the most charming and delightful spots in Palestine with its springs and wild goats, lush greenery and small pools. ‘Couldn’t you have made a replica of this canyon in an Eilat hotel spa?’ she complained after the walk. She was serious: this city dweller has no need of nature with its beauty. She was not alone. While showing the gorgeous Arab mansions of Jerusalem to Russian tourists, I heard a sceptic remark, ‘Well, probably one can live there, if there is no choice’. But the standard housing blocks on the outskirts of Jerusalem brought out their enthusiastic acclaim. 
Rural Russia was transformed as well by the introduction of the standard housing, by collectivisation and by the mass shift of population to the cities. Eventually, Russia became a land of two paradigms, of man- made and of natural landscapes. The division was felt in the arts, 
 	41
literature, politics, preferred economics and the social structure. The dominance of the man- made was almost total, as the post-Stalin Communist leaders were increasingly Western in their desires. The dissident opposition supported man- made policies even more thoroughly. Natural- landscape writers and artists were marginalised. 
The consequences of this advent of the man-made paradigm were grievous for Russia. Its nature was destroyed; its rivers were poisoned by industrial waste, its villages erased as economically unviable. The events of 1991 completed the transfer of power and influence into man-made hands, which was signalled by the meteoric rise of Jewish oligarchs, a few super-rich bankers and the industry moguls. 
A similar process took place elsewhere as well, and the man- made paradigm became the dominant paradigm of the world. Now, I do not think that Niemeyer, Reichmanns and other creators of man- made environment were consciously labouring for the sake of (Diaspora) Jewish world domination, as conspiracy fans would have us believe. Some of them acted subconsciously by creating an environment they can prosper in, i.e. a man- made environment. Others could not even understand that a man- made environment is deadly for Natural Man and explained the people’s resistance by their prejudice. Strong-willed and stubborn, they thought they know better what is good for the people. Probably they did not even understand that it was good only for them. 
Instinctively, as the fish pulls the fisherman into the deep, the Jewish media owners formed public opinion for the man- made; Jewish financiers provided funds for man- made projects; Jewish real-estate developers built and promoted housing estates, because they sympathised with the man- made world and felt that they would prosper in this new world. I think these actions were instinctive rather than conscious for they took place in the Jewish colony in Palestine as well. There is no doubt these people had deep sympathy for Israel, and Niemeyer lived for a while in our country, but their activities in Israel were as destructive as they were elsewhere. 
One can compare this process with a similar development that took place earlier, when the British immigrants colonised North America. They had to compete with local inhabitants, the Native Americans, who lived in a perfect symbiosis with Nature. In order to survive, the colonists had a choice: to change themselves or to transform their environment. The Pathfinder of Fennimore Cooper was a man who adapted to nature and to the ways of Native Americans. If Native Americans had been strong enough to block or limit immigration from Europe, if the English colonists would had shared the French excitement with the Savage, there would have been a possibility of adjustment. 
 	42
However, the English settlers, fervent Protestants, devotees of the Old Testament, were inspired by the idea of their Chosen-ness, of being a New Israel repeating the conquest of Joshua. Local people were, correspondingly, ‘Canaanites’ who should be ‘dispossessed’ (Ch. 33:53 and ‘utterly destroyed’ (Ch 21:3). The paradigm of the Old Testament (overturned by the New Testament and the Koran) is the paradigm of total war, annihilation, dispossession and domination. By reverting to the Old Testament, the colonists declared war on less-Chosen. That is why they not only killed and dispossessed the Native Americans whene ver they had a chance, but they also destroyed the environment: killed bison, poisoned wells, ruined the prairie. Destruction of the environment is the natural mode of takeover by a foreign group. 
By destroying Nature, they did Satan’s work, for Satan wins (God save us!) when all traces of Divine Presence are eliminated from our world. Nature is a source of divine inspiration, and He Who dwelt in the tents of the Israelites and in Mary’s womb, also dwells in a spring below a mountain shrine in the Highlands. That is why Satan tries to destroy Nature, and to destroy Man’s capacity to communicate with Nature , by hands of those who have perfectly mundane reasons for doing it. 
VII 
The reasons for landscape destruction are frequently presented as purely financial. Whenever a beautiful spring dries up, a river swells with industrial waste, a forest is cut down or a hill is desiccated, we are supposed to blame human greed. However, one witnesses this process in the absence of profit- motif, as well. In my native Siberia, many villages were destroyed and whole landscapes ruined by creation of man- made lakes and hydraulic power systems. In Soviet Siberia, there was no profit motif, and vast supplies of electric power were not needed32. One can offer thousands of examples, where destruction of nature goes on without real profit being sought or taken. One of the most inspired writers of the Web, Diane Harvey, asked in despair:
The purposeful relationship between the ruling minds of Earth and the agonizing death of the natural world is mystifying. What could motivate the present owner-operators of this globe to allow planetary life-support systems to degrade into a state of toxic shock? The death-throes of nature intensify, yet the fatally destructive human operations continue unabated, as if this state of affairs had nothing to do with human life. We must ask ourselves if those powerful men at the helm of this sinking ship, responsible for the poisoning of an entire planet, have genuinely lost their minds. We wonder if such ardent devotees of greed have finally been overwhelmed and driven mad altogether by this master-vice. Are we being carried along in a slipstream of reasonless chaos, toward the abyss? 33’ ’
 	43
Diane Harvey, like Immanuel Wallerstein, makes a heroic effort to see reason in the apparently unreasonable behaviour, and she almost succeeds by stretching the concept of greed. She concludes: 
The global corporate power structures… have engineered the destruction of nature as the greatest business opportunity of all times. They have in mind to force mankind into total dependency on their replacements, and to control us absolutely through these very substitutes for natural existence they plan to sell us. I propose that the forces of corporate totalitarianism are deliberately destroying this entire world in order to sell their simulated version of it back to us at a profit’. 
Her diagnosis is bleak, but it is not bleak enough. Who promised Ms Harvey she will be sold the replacements, air and water, in the dark tomorrow of our nightmares? After all, greed and profit, even capitalised, presuppose a lasting mode of operation. They call for an effort to recognize that greed is neither an elementary particle, nor a simple force. Beyond it, there is an older and darker figure, the domination drive. For domination, greed is just a means to the end. Yes, it is nice to sell air to Miss Harvey and to make a handsome profit. But maybe it is even nicer to refuse to sell her air and watch her death throes? After all, my ancestors, obsessed with the domination drive, paid good money for the Christian captives after the Persian sack of Jerusalem, then slaughtered the prisoners, refusing the profit-taking34 . Profit is not the last word; greed is not the ultimate sin. No greed can explain the drive of a billionaire to make more billions. He is after different game: domination. 
As we said, domination calls for slaves, and no man can be enslaved while he is connected to nature. That is the reason for the destruction of nature; it has to be done to enslave a man. But beyond the domination drive, beyond the destruction of nature, we observe something else. As a Columbus sailor at landfall, we rub our eyes in disbelief: it just can not be so! 
For two hundred years or more, Christendom tried to live without God. Some denied His existence, some didn’t, but believers and unbelievers explained our existential problems without appealing to God’s presence in the Universe. Our good and bad drives and desires would suffice, normally. There is an adage ascribed to various scientists, from Newton to Einstein, who, when asked about God, said: ‘I had no need to introduce that concept into my formulas’. A medieval English scholar from Surrey, William of Ockham (he served as a prototype for the principal character of Umberto Eco’s thriller, Name of the Rose), stated a principle called Ockham’s Razor: ‘Do not multiply entries beyond necessity’. He meant that of two competing theories, the simplest explanation is to be preferred. That is why we do not usually appeal to spiritual categories while explaining mundane events. 
 	44
While we relaxed in our totally material world, another principle of medieval logic, the Law of Manifestation, was preparing to ambush us. This law decrees that ‘an existing entity will eventually manifest itself’. A non- manifesting entity could be called non-existent as well, without loss. Theoretically we knew that at certain speeds, space wouldn’t conform to Euclid’s age-old rules. Instead, a new geometry established in the 19th century by the brilliant son of a Hanover priest, Bernhard Riemann, became operative. Practically, our mind refused to accept it – until it became a reality. 
Theoretically, a believing man should be prepared to observe a manifestation of the spiritual world, of God and of the lower Forces. Practically, we refused to believe in such a possibility. A Swedish lady pastor was asked what she would do if she were granted a vision of St Birgitta. ‘I’ll have two beers, a big steak, and if it will not help, I’ll take myself to a psychiatric clinic’, she replied. If that is the approach of a priest, what can one expect from laity? 
While we turned away from God’s presence, and screened Him out of our life, we have helped His adversary at the checkerboard. Now, his influence and plans have become palpable, and no amount of steaks and beer can change this fact. The latest developments in human history, gratuitous destruction of nature, and war against the spirit can not be plausibly explained by rational material causes. Beyond all-too- human igures of fbig corporations, beyond capitalised Greed, beyond the paradigm of Domination, the faceless Destroyer has made his appearance as Lord Darth Vader on the captive planet. 
A Study of Art 
Wandering on the great peninsula of Peloponnese I drove into the medieval- looking town of Nauplio. Its harbour is guarded by a grey-walled islet, cosy cafes line up the waterfront, while behind them, narrow and curvy lanes rapidly climb up the steep mount, crowned by a Venetian fort. City streets are fresh and dainty, and preserve the proverbial charm of Greece. There are not many places on the Greek mainland that so effortlessly captivate a stranger. Greeks call it ‘Nafplio’, probably in honour of Nafnaf the Pig. Unusual for Greece, it was built up by Crusaders on their way to Jaffa and Acre, sculpted by Venetians, Turks, French and Bavarians, ruled by Duke of Athens. Nauplio was for a short while a first capital of independent Greece, but mercifully was spared the grim fate of Athens: it did not become a centre of overcrowded honking urban spread. 
It is a good base to scout the plain of Argolis. On its main square, there is an old Venetian building. It houses now the local archaeological museum. Its collection starts with the great Mycenaean civilisation, a child of Minoan civilisation of Crete. This art blossomed not far away, in the walled cities of Mycenae and Tiryns, once ruled by the accursed Atreid kings. It is a period of wonderful free and inspired art, with voluptuous (like Baroque nymphs crowding the 
 	45
ceiling of my hotel room) figurines of goddesses, jolly octopuses (octopi for Jennifer) on the jars, and frescoes reminiscent of Palestinian work in Deir el- Balach. Mycenaeans could read and write, built castles and palaces, carved the magnificent lions above the gate of their capital. But as one continues the tour, all of a sudden one witnesses the great collapse. Art disappears, and its place is taken over by bare geometric forms. Centuries will pass – from 12 c BC to 6 c BC, until local inhabitants will regain the developed forms of art, knowledge of writing and sophistication of old. 
One feels this lacuna of time while reading Odyssey. Homer composed his anachronistic masterpiece some four hundred years after the collapse, and he did not know that his heroes could write and read, and their princesses did not have to do laundry by themselves. After the collapse, one finds pieces of art strangely similar to our modern creations. In the small museum of Acropolis in Athens, there is a precise copy of Giacometti statuette, made some 2700 years ago. Geometric forms of that period are reproduced now as best examples of modern art. Thus, in the small museum of Nauplio, I found a missing piece to fit into the puzzle. Death of Art is a symptom of civilisation collapse. 
For another piece of the puzzle, I travelled to the other end of Europe, to the Basque capital Bilbao, where the great Jewish American family of Guggenheim built a huge museum of modern art. It is probably the biggest building erected in modern Spain, looking like a flagman of the merchant fleet entering the shore of Biscay. Its forms are unique, there are no right angles, and curves are too complicated and defy easy definition. It is a building that intends to impress and it impresses you as a spacecraft on the village street. 
Inside, it is less imposing. Some pieces of corrugated iron, video screens, bare geometric forms are being offered as the chef-d’ouvres of the modern art. A New York artist brought here fifteen ton of rusty iron plates, a Japanese artist has a big room where dozens of TV screens show endless emptiness. Four large floors of nothing are surmounted by the fifth floor, displaying the collection of Armani suits. Every piece could be easily interchanged for another one. There is no ‘Rafael of rusty iron’, an artist as creator of art disappeared and gave place to the museum curator, the collection owner. It is he who decides what sort of junk will be displayed, whose name will be written under the photo of tinned soup or a dead rat. Only Armani brand reigns supreme, impervious to curator’s will, or perhaps it is the curator’s ideal art. 
The museum of Modern Art in Bilbao was supposed to contain Gernica, Picasso’s modern version of the Last Judgement. Instead, it is stuffed with corrugated iron. It is a good place to contemplate the present decay, nay, demise of the European visual art. As good as any, for the example set by Guggenheim is followed everywhere. In Biennale of Venice, Belgians exhibit a row of chairs, Japanese – two hundred yards of photo of a cell, Israelis – bookshelves 
 	46
with yesteryear cheap books, English – trashed old cars. On my way through Milan, I passed by a lorry carrying a dozen of flattened car wrecks to the scrap yard. It could make a good object of art for Biennale, as well as a heap of garbage. I am sure nobody would find it out of place if it would be provided with a name of artist, his country and his media. 
In Amsterdam museum I saw a collection of rotten decomposed pig trunks. Newspapers wrote that a certain trunk immersed in formaldehyde took fancy of an American private collector and was sold for fifty thousand dollars. It became a piece of art by decision of two Mammonites, the curator and the collector. In St Nicolas Church of Copenhagen, instead of inspirational images of Madonna (banned from the church by the good Protestants) I saw huge full colour photograph of naked old and sick woman, next to a door-size print of female genitals, next to a photo of homosexual oral act. A church in Amsterdam had an exhibition of beach snapshots. It carried a double message: the church has to be profaned as well as art, and it achieved their double purpose – churches of Amsterdam and Copenhagen stay empty, and their artists produce junk. 
How come these nauseating prints or rotten cadavers or cheap porn are considered a form of art? The Modern Art predecessors, Gustave Courbet and Edouard Manet, rebelled against Romantic rejection of real life and real Man. The pioneers of Modern Art, Marcel Duchamp and Kazimir Malevich, intended to épater le bourgeois, to extend the borders of art, to show limitless spirit of Man. But their paradoxical joke ‘everything placed in a museum is art’ was taken with dead seriousness and accepted for truth. 
It was a good principle for Guggenheims, this great family that established Modern Art museums in New York, Bilbao, Venice. They had enough money to build a museum, they knew what they liked, and they did not mind to become the supreme arbiter. Guggenheim became the brand name in art. Whatever they proclaimed as art, was art. In the beginning, these were works of some dubious value like ‘abstract painting’ of Jackson Pollock, and eventually we came to rotten swine, corrugated iron and Armani suits. Art was destroyed. 
II 
A day drive from Bilbao, in the old royal city of Leon, one sees the masterpiece of stained glass in the Cathedral, one of the oldest and most wonderful in Europe. Churches and temples were the first and most important depositories of art, and art was produced for them. They were not ‘custome rs’ in a way a modern bank orders a painting from an artist. Visual art is inherently connected to temples and churches, it is a form of exquisite worship, proclaiming affinity of God and Man. The walls of Kremlin churches are covered with medieval Russian icons; in churches of Italy one finds a Caravaggio or Rafael painting, divinely human faces of Buddhist images shine from the niches in Pagan and Kyoto temples. Perfect marble bodies of 
 	47
Aphrodite, serene faces of the Virgin, severe images of Christ, gracious forms of Buddha in 
Theravada temples were the prevailing form of pre- modern art. 
The artists are still inspired by God, and still ready to build cathedrals and fill them with painting proclaiming our love of God. The Starry Night of van Gogh could be an altar-piece, Gauguin painted but Nativity and Paradise in Tahiti; and the Dove of Picasso is the one that John the Baptist saw on the banks of Jordan River. Gaudi spent years of his life to create the uncompleted Barcelona Cathedral, while on the other end of Europe, in the one-thousand-years-old first capital of Russian civilisation, Kiev, the unique St Vladimir Cathedral was built and decorated. Outside, this cathedral is quite an ordinary church in Byzantine tradition, but inside it is a miracle. All the walls and ceilings of the church are decorated with frescoes by the great painters of the fin-de-ciecle, Surikov, Nesterov, Vrubel. It is the Sistine Chapel of the Eastern Christendom, and it is almost contemporary with Malevich. 
The Russian painters used the traditional scheme and subjects of Orthodox church decoration, but their manner of painting was new, strong, fresh. Who knows, if the Soviet revolution of 1917 would not be so brutally anti-Christian, the great fire of Christendom could be lit again by the Russians. It did not happen, and the Russian churches were destroyed, turned into warehouses, or – in case of St Vladimir Cathedral – into a Museum of Atheism. But the spirit did not die so easily, and the noble and inspired Pilots and Sportsmen of Deineka, a Russian Soviet painter of 1930s, and of his Nordic contemporaries, proclaimed divinity of Man created in God’s Image. Nowadays it is contemptuously called the Totalitarian Art, though Stalin and Voroshilov by Gerasimov is not more totalitarian than Napoleon by David or Henry the Fourth by Rubens. 
There is no totalitarian art, but the totalitarian regime in art, totalitarian domination of single tendency in visual art connected with virtual ban of other tendencies. For Guggenheim curators and for the modern art critics, only their ‘art’ is acceptable, while figurative art is ostracised. 
A leading figure of British art establishment, Ivan Massow, the Chairman of the Institute of Contemporary Arts, rose against this totalitarian trend. In an article in the New Statesman titled It’s All Hype , he noted the totalitarian regime established by the closed gang of art curators: 
Totalitarian states have an official art, a chosen aesthetic that is authorized and promoted at the cost of other, competing styles. In the Soviet Union, the official art was socialist realism. Working in any other mode was considered — and treated as — an act of subversion. In Britain, too, we have an official art — concept art — and it performs an equally valuable service. It is endorsed by Downing Street, sponsored by big business and selected and exhibited by cultural tsars such as the Tate’s Nicholas Serota who dominate the arts scene from their 
 	48
crystal Kremlins. Together, they conspire both to protect their mutual investments and to defend 
the intellectual currency they’ve invested in this art. 
Massow noticed the damage it causes, for the artists are forced to fit into Procrustean bed 
of this anti-art: 
It seems sad that so many talented young artists, clawing to be noticed for their craft, are forced to ditch their talent and reinvent themselves as creators of video installations, or a machine that produces foam in the middle of a room, in order to be recognized as contemporary artists. In this, if nothing else, the arts establishment is guilty of conspiring to make concept art synonymous with contemporary art. 
Thousands of young artists wait in the wings to see whether the taste arbiters will relinquish their exclusive fascination with concept art. It’s a crime. We need art lovers to tell artists that they’re not obliged to reinvent themselves into creators of piles of crap, or pass their work around like samizdat. 
He felt that he is breaking the rules of the game: 
By outing this opinion in public, I realize that there will be plenty of people waiting, like Madame Defarge with her knitting needles next to the guillotine, for my head to roll into their laps. The ‘arts establishment’ (what a weirdly oxymoronic phrase that is) is terrifyingly powerful and, like all centres of power, it is no friend to heterodoxy.
His prediction materialised: immediately after the publication of the article he was sacked and ostracised by the British art establishment led by the Jewish cultural tsar Nicholas Serota, and by the Jewish art collector and advertising magnate, a friend of Pinochet, Thatcher and Conrad Black, Charles Saatchi. His power is unique, and an art critic, Norman Rosenthal of the British Royal Academy suggested that "the Saatchis are probably the most important collectors of modern art in anywhere in the world."35
III 
“Does it matter that they are Jewish?”, asks the annoyed reader. “So there are a few Jews in the thoroughly anti-Christian, profane, totalitarian world of modern art. So what? They are still a tiny minority”. Well, not re ally.
The large database on Jewish influence in the US, www.jewishtribalreview.org gives 
following names and numbers (Incidentally, the database uses exclusively Jewish sources):
The Jewish influence in modern art is well attended. By 1973, some estimated that 75-80% of the 2500 core "art market' personnelof the United States - art dealers, art curators, art critics, and art collectors -- were Jewish36. In 2001, according to ARTnews, at least eight of the "Top Ten" US art collectors 
 	49
were Jewish: Debbie and Leon Black, Edythe and Eli Broad, Doris and Donald Fisher, Ronnie and Samuel Heyman, Marie-Josee and Henry R. Kravitz, Evelyn and Leonard Lauder, Jo Carole and Ronald S. Lauder, and Stephen Wynn. 
"Today, " wrote Gerald Krefetz in 1982, “... Jews enjoy every phase of the art world: as artists, dealers, collectors, critics, curators, consultants, and patrons. In fact, the contemporary art scene has a strong Jewish flavo ur. In some circles, the wheelers and dealers are referred to as the Jewish mafia since they command power, prestige, and most of all, money. ” 
In 1996, Jewish art historian Eunice Lipton explained that she went into a 
career of an art historian in order to be in a field dominated by Jews: 
“I wa nted to be where Jews were -- that is, I wanted a profession that would allow me tacitly to acknowledge my Jewishness through the company I kept."37 The field of art history... was filled with Jews. One might even say it was shaped by them38.  At the Metropolitan Museum of New York, Arthur Ochs Sulzberger (former publisher of the New York Times) eventually became its chairman. He oversaw an institution in which Jews, says George Goodman, "have enriched every area of the Museum's collections, including pre-Colombian ceramics (Nathan Cummings), African art (Klaus Perls), ancient Mediterranean and Middle Easter Art (Norbert Schimmel), Old Masters Paintings (Lore and Rudolph Heinemann), French decoration arts (Belle and Sol Linsky) modern European Art (Florence May Schoenborn), modern American art (Muriel Kallis Steinberg Newman; Edith and Milton Lowenthal), Indonesian bronzes (Samuel Eilenberg), and South and Southeast Asian Art (Enid Haupt and Lita Hazen, Walter Annenberg's sisters). 39 Throughout the Met too, galleries, rooms, theatres, and gardens are named after Jewish sponsors including Iris and B. Gerald Canter, Helene and Michael David-Weill, Lawrence and Barbara Fleishman, Howard Gilman, Leon Levy, Henry R. Kravis, Janice H. Levin, Carroll and Milton Petrie, Arthur, Mortimer, and Raymond Sacker, Laurence Tisch, and Ruth and Harold Uris. (Among the various Jewish curators at the Museum is Barbara Weinberg, head of American Paintings and Sculpture). 
 By the 1980s, four of the ten board members that dole out the MacArthur Foundation "genius awards" were also Jewish; two Jews also sat on the board of the Russell Sage Foundation. 40 The Kaplan Fund has also had an important impact on the art community in divvying out awards. One of J. M. Kaplan's 
 	50
daughters was the Cha irman of the New York State Arts Council. 41 Joan Kaplan Davidson was appointed as chairman of the $34 million New York State Art Council in 1975 despite the fact that she was "not professionally trained in the arts." Her mother, Alice Kaplan, was once president of the American Federation of the Arts. 
The Getty Museum, founded by the non-Jewish oil mogul, J. Paul Getty (and with $4 billion of funds, the richest museum on earth) has consistently had Jews at the economic helm. In 1998, after 17 years, Harold Williams left the presidency of the J. Paul Getty Trust. Williams, notes George Goodman, was "raised in a Labor Zionist home in East Los Angeles."42. The new president of the J. Paul Getty Trust is another Jewish administrator, Barry Munitz, formerly the chancellor of both the California State University system and the University of Houston. 
The fact that Jews are so dominating in the art world is very rarely publicly acknowledged. It is forbidden -- as always for anyone, anywhere -- to discuss the subject for fear of being branded "anti-Semitic." Typically, as example, an entire 1989 academic volume on the "Sociology of the Arts" fails to mention Jews as sociological entity in the modern art dynamic. There are analyses of art galleries, "artist groups," art patrons, and art audiences, broken down into gender, age, income, occupation, and even "racial and ethnic minorities." We can find that, negligibly, "blacks, Orientals, and persons of Spanish origin constitute about 7% of the art audience," but there is nothing whatsoever about Jews, even their own percentage of that "art audience," let alone how many art galleries they own, museums they direct, and articles they generate about art value.43 
Why did it happen? What is the reason of Jewish success in the field of Modern Art? It is not due to great achievements of Jewish artists: they are quite modest, and despite the PR support of Jewish art collectors, curators and critics, they are well within what could be expected for a fifteen- million-strong wealthy community. Interaction of wealthy Jewish collectors and philanthropists with Jewish critics active in the Jewish-owned media provides us with a partial answer. 
Still, the Jews were extremely ill equipped for their conquest of Olympus. For many generations, Jews ne ver entered churches and hardly ever saw paintings. They were conditioned to reject image as part of their rejection of idols. In the course of two thousand year long selection process, visual gifs of Jews were not developed, as opposed to abilities to learn, argue and convince honed to perfection in Talmudic environment. Rejection of Christ – this main 
 	51
fountain of creativity – is even deeper reason. There is no visual art or poetry outside of God, at best, a godless person can imitate art. For this reason, Jews are, as a rule, poor painters and sculptors. (Chagall and Modigliani embraced Christ, and Chagall made the mosaics of Chartres). While their mastery of word and ideology is very high (well above average of 100, at 130), their average visual ability is only 75, extremely low. One can consider it a scientific proof of ‘no art without Christ’. Indeed until recently there were no important Jewish painters or sculptors. The Jewish temple was supposedly built by Phoenicians and Greeks, and it had a very few images. Even illumination of medieval Jewish manuscripts was usually done by non-Jewish artists, who made very obvious errors trying to copy Jewish letters. 
Jewish success in the Art world is amazing. If the Olympic Sports committee would consist of handicapped persons, and a fair share of sports commentators would be lame, and even some winners of the games would be lame, we would have reason to be astonished. But probably, looking at it carefully we would find that the main Olympic sport is Run in Bags, or chess.
Visually handicapped Jews created a similar anomaly – that of non- visual ‘conceptual’ art. A piece of ‘conceptual’ art is describable and explainable. It is a narration. Tracey Emin’s ‘Unmade bed’ fully describes the object, while another beauty, Alighiero Boetti’s sculpture ‘Yearly Lamp’, a light bulb that illuminated itself only once every twelve months , is fully described by this description. Preparation of these items places no demand on artistic abilities. They can be done by anybody. Such art is perfectly within Jewish abilities. Moreover, Jews with their good ability to produce ideas and read iconography will surely succeed in it. Thus, the Run in Bags, the kind of sport that began as a new entry into Olympic games, eventually is promoted to the position of an all- important one. 
We can easily dismiss demonising talk of ‘the Jews who destroy art in order to break Aryan spirit’. Jews bend art to fit their abilities, in order to succeed in this difficult (for them) occupation. Breaking (or not) the Aryan spirit is quite irrelevant for them. While there are wealthy Jews able to buy art and provide for an artist who makes what they like, while there are witty Jews in the media that approve of the art Jews like (one that is easy to tell about), the y would create bias in favour of the art they like and understand. But how did they get into this position in the first place? How the lame runners of our example have got their opening into the Olympic committee? 
Despite their wealth and media domination, the Jews would not ‘make it’, but for a few 
previous developments.
1. Photography and reproduction. Recently I visited an excellent photo exhibition of 
Hagia Sophia mosaics, made to the highest standard. The photographs are so good that one has 
 	52
to touch it in order to recognise that these are not real mosaics. But for a strange reason, the photocopies do not inspire. One can look at them all day long but the soul is not stirred. And then, one comes across the real thing, and the heart turns to God. 
Photography is to painting as pornography to real women. Both create an illusion of real thing, but leave a lingering emptiness. In the long run, the ‘real thing’ suffers. Pornography undid many happy unions. Reproduction of art conditioned us to view uninspiring beauty. It is difficult to view a painting of Mona Lisa without instinctively comparing it to its endless reproductions. In a way, the modern art was a botched response to reproductions, for an artist needs to attract attention of blasé viewers. 
Photography was an important stepping stone to demise of art. Great paintings were reproduced in albums, and caused no great uplifting in the hearts. Purely materialistic vision of the age precluded even to referring to the vast difference between original and copy. Painting lost its uniqueness. 
2. Museums. Removal of paintings and sculptures from the churches into museums was fatal for the West. A painting lost its context, it was de-contextualised and de-constructed. Paintings and sculptures of Annunciation and Passion were given into the custody of the new priesthood, the curators and critics. It undermined the living practice of faith: despoiled of their precious art, empty churches did not attract visitors. 
De-contextualisation of art was done under cover of not-too-sophisticated sophisms. “God needs no paintings, true faith needs no adornment , art will be safe in museums” etc. As if the organisers of mass confiscation wished to strengthen faith, as if they wished to bring people to the church!... It reminds me the favourite Jewish sentence so frequently used: ‘It (whatever you are doing or saying) is undermining the Palestinian cause’, as if they wished to help Palestinians. 
In France, churches lost its riches in the beginning of the 20th century, and since that time both faith and art (after a short splash) went downhill. Need to ‘protect art from thieves’ was frequently used as a pretext for undermining it. It was similar to locking princess away in a Maiden Tower of so many legends. The Tower protected her, to be sure, but it turned her into an old spinster.
The chef d’oevres of the human spirit were removed from the churches to museum, - to jail. People go and visit the jailed dear friend for a while, and it brings profit to jailers, while the churches brought no profit; but eventually they forget the jailed man, and it is even more profitable, for spirit interferes with profit. 
 3. De-sacralisation of art. It was achieved after removal of art into museums. From this 
point of view, while Bilbao Guggenheim is quite repulsive, its mother institution is even worse. 
 	53
New York Guggenheim Museum of Modern Art carefully mixes sacral art and junk. Exposition is done in a way saying: they are the same. Sacred images of Brazilian Virgins are placed next to rude idols, or to erotica. Indeed, pictures of Christ and His Mother are plentiful in the modern art. But as a rule, they are aimed to profane their image. Made of faeces, or presented in indecent poses, they are part of the war on art and Christ. A photograph of crucifix in a container of urine, entitled Piss Christ was exhibited in the Whitney Museum which is headed by a great friend of Ariel Sharon, a member of Mega, Leonard Lauder. Recently I saw in Stockholm an image of Christ presented as the poster for the week (or was it the month?) of gay pride: a crucified black man was erotically embraced by a white muscular Nordic man. He even placed the inside of his leg on the crucified man’s body. 
If one wants to shock people one can follow the example of a small Russian city that placed the icon of Christ on its coat of arms. All Moscow-based American correspondents visited the dashing rebels and asked them whether they are not afraid of Jews. Probably that is the only ‘sacrilege’ that still has some shocking value. Alternat ively, one can envisage a model of the Wailing Wall with urinals in public toilet.  It is impossible to rule whether the Jewish participation (surely very active) in the processes of de-uniquisation, de-contextualisation and de-sacralisation of art was decisive. Consider a city with a big oil company which supplied the citizens with oil. There was also a tiny kerosene shop that provided a few diehards with the stuff in an old-fashioned way. It was impossible even to compare the two companies. But eventually the big company was streamlined, broken to pieces ‘to enliven competition’ – surely in the best interests of the customers, - forced to tender some of its operations, and was undermined. The tiny kerosene shop received the same status as the once great corporation, and when the corporation’s plant was burned down, it rose to unexpected greatness. Was it achieved by the kerosene sellers, or did they enjoy the windfall? 
 Now we come to a stumbling block of ‘conspiracy’. Can one believe that the Jews, ordinary Cohens and Levys, actually conspired to remove art from churches, develop photography and place sacred images in juxtaposition with profane things in order to kill art and the European civilisation? Should we consider a possibility of Jewish conspiracy against art as a part of the warfare against spirit? 
In order to unravel this mystery we shall introduce a concept of a Group Interest. Groups (classes and nations) have interests which do not coincide with the sum of interests of its individual members. Moreover, individual members are not always aware of this Group Interest. Let us consider Mammon – personification of capitalist Class Interest. A capitalist may wish to sell drinking water, but Mammon wants to poison all water in order to force everybody to buy 
 	54
drinking water. A capitalist may build the mall, Mammon wants to destroy the world outside the mall, for the outside world interferes with the only meaningful occupation, shopping. While a separate capitalist can do a lot of damage, his Class Interest, Mammon, is more dangerous, nay ruinous for the world. Mammon will try to eliminate every distraction to shopping, be it churches, art, forests, rivers, seaside, fresh air, mountains. An individual capitalist probably is not aware that he follows his Class Interest when he dumps chemical poison waste into a river. 
As for Jews, their Group Interest lays in undermining visual art for they can’t compete in it. But even deeper group interest of Jews is to undermine Christianity, their main enemy. We see this interest satisfied now by relentless attack on Mel Gibson who dared to produce a film about Christ. Not about Jesus – a kind Jewish Rabbi, neither about whoring Jeshu from jolly Nazareth – but about God Who Died on the Cross. As sacrality in Europe is unavoidably Christian, profanation of art is certainly within Jewish Group Interests. It does not mean the Jews, or even some Jews understand that they act in their own group interests. 
However, they did it before, as well, for the Eastern Christianity experie nced a similar development twelve hundred years ago. The Jews were prominent in the great tragedy of Byzantine art, the iconoclasm. In the beautiful and spacious Church of Hagia Sophia, the arguably greatest achievement of the Eastern Orthodox Christianity, lovingly restored in 20th century by Turkish masters, in vain one seeks mosaics of Justinian and Theodora copied at Ravenna. One finds only relatively late mosaics and frescoes. Everywhere, with a very few exclusions, the sacred images of that fruitful period were destroyed, when the rejection of images became the official doctrine of the Empire. They survived in far away places: in St Catherine of Mt Sinai, in remote monasteries, to haunt us with their sublime beauty and with feeling of irreparable loss. The contemporary writers leave us no doubt: Jews (a powerful community in these days as nowadays) were extremely active in promoting this concept.
However, this comparison brings some hope, for after two hundred years of iconoclasm, people got tired of boring non-spiritual churches, and brought the visual art back. Until now, the Church celebrates Sunday of Orthodoxy, when the Art Came Back. We also can do it. The sacred images should be returned to their rightful place, in the church. All of them, the delightful Annunciation by van Eyck from Washington Museum, and Trinity by Rublev in Moscow Museum of Old Russian Art, should be re-contextualised. We should not be cruel to collectors: in my opinion, Saatchi may keep all formaldehyde swine he likes. 
And while at it, other cultural properties should be re-contextualised as well. Let us return the mosaics of Pompeii to their place from the boring museum of Naples, and the Greek marbles to Athens, let the treasures of Mesopotamia go back to Iraq, and the statues of Hisham Palace back to Jericho. Let us empty the Grand Louvre and fill small French towns with art. It will 
 	55
repair the broken fabric of spirit. Art objects can’t be owned by private persons, they are our connection to Divine. Restoration is possible: during last few years Russia restored vast amount of churches, and precious icons were returned to them. In Old Ladoga, an old Russian town, (70 miles from St Petersburg), restored churches of 12th century shine again on the bank of Volchov River after years of neglect. With gruesome complaints the Russian museums give up church properties swallowed in 1920s. The West can do the same: there will be thousands of visitors in the churches after their art pieces will be restored to them, the fountain of faith will supply us with endless creativity, and the Aberration will be over. 
Sumud and Flow 
The Palestinians call their adherence to soil, to the particular and unique piece of land they choose to live in, by word Sumud. Intifada is an active form of Sumud. Sumud is a form of Resistance to the uprooting might of Zionism, proclaimed Emile Habibi, a Palestinian Communist Christian Orthodox writer. He remained in Haifa, reads epitaph on his tombstone. While the Jews tried to uproot his community, Habibi stayed put. This is Sumud. 
Sumud is not nationalism. Progressive Zionists usually present the Palestinian struggle as ‘Arab nationalism confronting the Jewish nationalism’. That is why they offer to satisfy this imaginary Palestinian nationalism with symbols: a flag, an anthem, a state, a seat in the UN. The adherence to a specific place on earth is a foreign and weird thought for Jews; that is why they try and project their feelings on Palestinians and other peoples they encounter. But our world was created on the idea of Sumud, this natural state of man. 
Successful democracy of ancient Greece was based on Sumud. A citizen of Athens could not easily move to another city-state, say Megara, for he won’t become a citizen in Megara. He would be able to live there, but his rights would be severely curtailed. A commune is the right size state for better future, the ideal for mankind concluded Vladimir Lenin in his State and Revolution using Karl Marx’ analysis of Parisian Commune 1871. Extremely local, parochial, Sumud-based towns and villages of our future will restore the broken fabric of human society. 
The ferocious neo-cons now in charge of the US foreign policy are mainly Jews, and many of them are of Trotskyite ideological origin, noted Michael Lind of the New Statesman, and offered an explanation that "there is a distinct Trotskyite political culture, which shows its residual influence even on individuals who renounced Trotskyism or who were never Trotskyites but inherited this political culture from their parents or older mentors. An unusual belligerence in foreign policy combined with a desire to export "revolution" (first socialist, and then, among ex-Trotskyites who move to the liberal centre or the Right, the "global democratic revolution")44" 
It is an interesting but insufficiently deep thought, for instead of reducing the problem to its Trotskyite roots we should seek a commonality of roots between Trotskyites and Neo-Cons.  	56
For it is not ‘revolution’ they wish to export, but a globalist vision. These Jewish radicals attempt to break- up the nation-state and eradicate local traditions, whether under the red banner or under the Stars and Stripes. It appears these people do not really care for the banner, as long as the y can undermine native traditions and specifics, the diversity of the world is erased. 
Despite enormous differences, they have much in common with other proponents of Globalisation, be it George Soros, von Hayek or Karl Popper. Their Jewish origins are not accidental to their views, as Dr Avi Beker, the director of International Affairs of the World Jewish Congress, a member of the boards of Yad Vashem, Bar Ilan University and Beth Hatefutsoth, points out in his Dispersion and Globalization: The Jews and the International Economy45. He writes:
“An examinatio n of economic history during different periods demonstrates time and again the outstanding influence of the Jews on economic development, and especially their role in the creation of its more global aspects. From a historical perspective, it appears that the dispersion of the Jewish people, their concentration in certain branches of the economy, their movements towards economic centres, and perhaps even their national and religious characteristics gave them certain advantages that were required for a global economy at various historic periods.
It may be that Jewish historians have been deterred from attempting to examine methodologically and comparatively, the connection between Jewish dispersal and the process of globalization of the world economy, precisely because of the anti-Semitic accusations of Jews exploiting and controlling the world's finances. The Jews were not the only leaders in the world economy and, contrary to anti-Semitic claims, they are not the richest. However, they have played a critical and innovative role in the world economy in different historic periods.
For hundreds of years, Jewish existence in the Diaspora has been based on globalization and today, as in many periods in the past, the Jews promoted the ideas of globalization, and served as its agents. In economics as in other fields, the unique Jewish historic role and the intrinsic historic awareness of their universal mission has been vindicated.” There are a few ways to interpret Jewish tendency to internationalism and globalisation. 
Optimists view it as a proof of supreme humanity of Jews. A prominent Jewish art critic Clement Greenberg, the great proponent of Abstract Art, said that "it is possible that by 'world- historical' standards the European Jew represents a higher type of human being than any yet achieved46." Well, it is possible. It is also possible, as the cynics say that Jews see but little difference between various nations and peoples; for Jews, a goy is a goy, and the goyim can be lumped 
 	57
together; and quote such Jewis h statements as “The nationalities must disappear! The religions 
must pass! Israel however will not cease, for this small People is the chosen one of God47." 
A Jewish joke refers to the Communist future, when all the nationalities and religions will vanish, and only one question will be retained in questionnaires: “Have you been a Jew in pre -Communist past?” Though it implies Gentile suspicion, this joke can be interpreted as a feeling that Jewishness will outlast the nations and creeds. 
Kevin McDonald remarked that elimination of nations would be useful for Jews in a practical sense, for they would be able to play as a team against separated individuals. However, it would imply an ability to foresee remote future. It is much easier to notice that the very process of facilitating communication (Flow) is good for Jews, for they are placed in different countries and can easily interact. That is why the Jewish interest coincides with interests of many other men in need of improved communications. 
But improved communications are not a sheer blessing. When the communications are really marvellous, and one can easily commute from place A to place B, very soon the reason of commuting disappears, as A and B become very similar, if not identical. On the other hand, lack of roads and modern communications protects the country from tedious tourists and cruel invaders. A clever Palestinian nobleman was asked by an English traveller in 19th century, why do not the Arabs build roads. He replied: why should I build a road for a stranger to visit my wife? He was right: better roads brought in foreign armies, and afterwards, the Zionists came. 
Now we may consider the paradigm of Flow that offers the common ground of different Jewish movements. Flow is the most general form of free movement, whether by liberal economic measures as in the Open Society of Popper and von Hayek, or by brutal force as in Zionism, or by revolutionary measures of Trotskyism, or by American military intervention as by Neo-Cons. All these differing movements support Flow against Sumud. 
A philosemite would express this thought in standard “Jews always stand for freedom”, while an antisemite would say, “Jews are hell -bent on destruction of Gentile societies”. Both will be correct as to consequences. Likewise, river supplies water, carries goods and people, and destroys villages on its way when flooding. It is impossible to conclude that ‘river is always good’, or ‘Jewish influence is always beneficial’. Only God is always beneficial, while tendencies are beneficial up to a point, when well balanced.
The world is better presented not as the Manichaean battlefield of good and evil, but as the Taoist arena of eternal struggle of opposing forces, of Energy and Entropy, of Diversity and Uniformity, or of Sumud and Flow. Both are needed, but total victory of one of the forces should be prevented, if mankind is to survive. 
 	58
Diversity, i.e. thousands of tribes, cultural traditions, languages, beliefs is the Paradise Lost of mankind. It is the spiritual equivalent of oil supply, as well, for Diversity is the source of energy. When Diversity, the huge battery full of energy, is being discharged, Energy is released and Uniformity, or Entropy increase as ‘the fee’ for the Energy released. Multi-culturalism is false Diversity, just a brief stop before the Uniformity, and death. 
Flow discharges ‘the battery’ of Diversity. In a balanced state, the released energy should create Art and Faith, but it could be redirected into utilitarian usefulness. Mammon, this personification of greed worship, competes with God (Art and Faith) for the released energy; or, as the Gospel puts it, ‘One can’t serve God and Mammon’. 
In theological terms, The Chosen People were supposed to direct the discharged energy unto God, by helping the divided tribes to unite in spirit. They fully achieved this purpose, by bringing forth Christ. But since then, they continue to discharge the batteries of Diversity. In a Jewish folk tale, a trainee magician activates the Golem, a mindless robot, and asks him to bring water. But the trainee does not know the magic word that stops the Golem, and the creature keeps bringing water until the house is flooded. In a way, the Jews are a runaway Golem, flooding our world. Sumud is the magic word used to stop the Golem. 
Flow is a way to freedom. Consider a flock of sheep locked in a shed. They want to escape into freedom of the green meadows, away from their squalid surroundings, maybe away from the flock and the rude shepherd. They can’t open the door, but they have found an o utside ally: the Wolf. The conclusion was well known to La Fontaine, but not to us. The sheep still can be saved if they recognise the intentions of the Wolf and stop his further plans to facilitate the Flow of mutton to his stomach. 
Unlimited Flow is deadly for the people. You can find it out on your next vacation trip to Turkey. While your friends lounge around on the beach, take a car and drive into the rocky mountains of Anatolia. There, by fast streams and rapids, you will discover the ruins of great Byzantine cities with their deserted churches. St Paul, a local man, visited them, and St John sent them his fiery epistles. What disaster had befallen them? They became a victim of Flow. A thousand years ago, the mountains and valleys of Asia Minor were inhabited by a sturdy Byzantine folk. Peasants and warriors, the Anatolians provided hinterland for the developed cities of the coast. When Constantinople was attacked by the Arabs on their lightning campaign up North, the Anatolians stopped the invasion and put a border between the Arab Muslim lands and the Orthodox Byzantine Empire. The Anatolians kept the Persians and the Caliphate of Baghdad at arm’s length, and the Empire was at peace. 
But then the neo- liberal ideas were introduced into Byzantium, for the great inventions of 
the Nobel Prise winner Milton Friedman belong, together with usury, to the oldest plagues 
 	59
discovered by Man. The Byzantine neo- liberals explained to the native nobility and emerging capitalists that it makes sense to privatise the lands of Anatolia, give up commercially unprofitable mountain agriculture, and develop big scale sheep grazing instead. The rich and powerful followed their sound advice. They seized the lands, turned them into pasture, and made a handsome profit. The unemployed and landless peasants flocked into Constantinople, deserting their barren mountains. 
The neo-liberal idea proved its worth: the Great City on Bosporus was receiving vast supplies of cheaply produced mutton and equally vast and cheap labour. At that time the Turcoman tribes looked across the border into Anatolia and had a pleasant surprise: they saw the great emptiness of Asia Minor populated by multitudes of sheep and a few shepherds. They walked in, used the sheep for kebab, absorbed the local shepherds and created the Ottoman Empire. In a while they took the Great City as well, for a city without hinterland cannot stand.
That was the end of Byzantine Empire. It was not destroyed by the Turks, as our school-books claim, but by Neo-Liberals, while the Turks just picked up the depopulated countryside. The same end is prepared for the Judeo-American Empire, for it quickly destroys its power-base. However, their ideologues also learned a thing or two out of history, and found a solution: to turn their policies into global recipe. Indeed, if the Turcoman tribes were neo- liberalised, they would never walk into Anatolia: they would sweat in sweat-shops in their steppes. If the people of Flow succeed, all Mankind faces grim future. 
Mankind had a very long run of Flow. It gave us more personal freedom than we could have otherwise. But it was not a free lunch. We lost much of precious Diversity. When it will run out, we shall be spiritually dead. In order to survive, we should turn to Sumud.
The 19th century thinkers of Left and Right, from the peasants’ son Pierre-Joseph Proudhon to the brilliant Viennese suicide Otto Weininger intuited that the Jews prosper in the conditions of Flow, while Sumud is the Gentile response to excessive Flow. Thus, present Rise of Jews can be perceived as a worrisome symptom for Mankind.
It does not mean that the Jews create Flow for we observe Flow without Jews as well. Their place can be taken by Asians in East Africa, Bengalis in India, Scots in England, Yankees in the US, or by ho me- grown Flow people. Rather, unusual Jewish prosperity should serve as an indicator of society disorder. Superficial antisemites think that if the Jews were removed from their positions, the problem of excessive Flow would be solved. But it is a classic error of a young doctor who treats palliative disregarding the disease. The discrimination of Jews is not only morally unacceptable: it is erroneous policy as well. If the Jews were removed, their place would be filled by aspiring ‘Jews’ of non-Jewish stock. Instead, the society could heal itself by using this great indicator. If the Jews prosper as bankers, banking system should be reorganised 
 	60
until bankers’ prosperity would be an ancient history, like that of Dutch tulip growers. Vladimir Lenin proposed to cap bankers’ income by the average workers’ salary, and it helped: in Soviet Russia, in total absence of discrimination, the banking system did not attract Jews. 
If the Jews prosper in the media, media should be democratised. Internet offers us a new free and accessible- for-all forum to exchange views and gather information. If the Jews gather in advertising, this genre can be liquidated. We shall live better without constant appeals to buy and consume. If in the US, Jews make the bulk of lawyers, the legal system should be re-adjusted until multi- million suits and torts will be forgotten. 
If Jews concentrate in alcohol production, as it happened in the 19th century Russian Empire, there was a solution. The Russian government nationalised breweries, and received from it more income than income tax, incidentally ending wave of alcohol poisoning. (This action, rather than ‘persecutions’ had sent the Jewish immigration to the US). 
If the Jews succeed beyond their wildest dreams in the world of art, it means the world of art is sick and should be attended to. If the Jews dominate the American film production, Hollywood should be closed down, for we can do without Terminator-3 and Sex in Big City. Anyway, the only worthy films of recent years were created outside of the Judeo-American world, in Iran and in China. 
Imperialism is a manifestation of Flow. Modern American Imperialism is promoted by the right-wing Neo-Cons. But left-wing Trotsky’s faction in the USSR supported Imperialist policies of world-wide revolution until stopped by Stalin with his Sumud slogan of ‘Socialism in one country’. British Imperialism was promoted by the right -wing Prime Minister of Britain, Disraeli, who despite being baptised, retained Jewish hubris and ferocious chauvinism. (Disraeli dreamed to create a Jewish State, and was a true founder of Zionism, rather than Theodor Herzl). He fought against sensible conviction of Englishmen ‘that colonies were millstones around the mother country's neck 48’ . The French ‘left wing’ politician Adolphe Cremieux, the founder of Universal Israelite Alliance, was a great supporter of French imperialism. (He gave French citizenship to the Jews of Algeria while leaving their Muslim neighbours the second-class citizens in their own land. Thus he planted the seeds of the Algerian war of 1950s.) 
Imperialism did not improve the lot of ordinary English and French people of the ‘mother countries’. It brought them many wars, mass immigration and ended in total exhaustion. If we would have an Earth to spare, we could give the US to have its run of imperialism until it would collapse; but alas, the world will collapse earlier. Thus, Sumud is anti-Imperialist tendency that can be upheld by the right of Gladstone or Pat Buchanan and by the left of Eugene V. Debs of IWW.
 	61
Gay Pride movement belongs to the Flow. In this combination I do not object to the word ‘gay’. After all, private life of men and women is their private business. But Hubris is not a private affair, and ‘pride’ is but English translation of Hubris. Proud Jews, Proud Gays, Proud Americans waving their rainbow, blue-and-white or stars-and-stripes flags are equally repugnant for they symbolise Hubris of Flow. 
It does not mean that Flow should be eliminated. World needs some Flow, for without it we would have no universal ideas, no great exchange of information on the Internet. But its hubris should be broken, by the way of greater awareness, for the Flow consumes pent-up energy of the Diversity, our common heritage. In a similar way, Jewish settlements with their green lawns and swimming pools flourish by consuming non-replenishable water of underground aquifer, leaving Palestinian villages dry and thirsty. 
The Flow and Sumud approach is a non-racist one; it stands in opposition to the ‘Blood and Soil’ slogan. Soil is the first and the last, for Blood is not really sufficient. After 1993, many Palestinian refugees came back to Palestine. It is very good process, and one hopes more of them will be allowed to come back. The returnees are wonderful people, full of good intentions. They are Palestinians by blood. But they lived for many years elsewhere, and lost touch with the soil. They became People of Flow, and in a better world, they would have to learn from the local peasants how to become natives again. But in the real world, the Flow people teach the natives by their example and their success. The native villagers and the town folk of Palestine often express their dissatisfaction with the Rise of the returnees. The returnees are their close relatives, often cousins, but the power in Ramallah and Gaza is being disproportionately concentrated in their hands, at the expense of the locals.  However, it is not a question of power: y good friend, an American Palestinian returnee Sam built a mall in Ramallah, though the mall will speed up separation of the local Palestinian children from their soil. The green hills around Ramallah are dangerous place to frolic, for watchful Israeli snipers shoot at children and grown- ups alike, and the children of Ramallah have to run in the corridors of the Mall. Tomorrow they would not care for the hills; they will prefer the man- made environment. Thus, Zionist Flow of the Israeli Army and Capitalist Flow of the American Mall ‘conspire’ against the Palestinian Sumud. Good intentions of Sam lead to less than wonderful results. 
What can they do, the returnees, or indeed any immigrant anywhere in the world? Are they – us – doomed to support Flow after being uprooted from our native places by the storm of war, by persuasion of hunger, by curiosity or chance? No. 
In British India, a Raj official stationed far away from the British power centres, had to 
send an annual report to his paymasters. Sometimes, they would read it carefully and write on 
 	62
the last page: “Thompson is hopeless. He’s go ne native”. It meant he took a native wife, wears native dress, spends time with natives and does not care much for the White Man’s Burden. He was lost for the Empire, for the Flow, for he crossed the Divide and joined a new Sumud. 
Ernest Fenollosa, an American Orientalist of Sephardi origin from Salem, Mass gone native in Japan of Meiji era. He learned the language, fell in love with the Japanese culture and saved the traditional Japanese theatre No – the quintessence of Japanese Sumud – from extinction. His work inspired Ezra Pound, another man of Sumud. 
That is the way out for us: to go native, to give up Flow and to join a new Sumud by carefully learning the ways and the customs of the land, by following its rules, by loving their people, by joining their church, by accepting their guidance, by speaking their language, by giving up the Hubris of Flow and by loving the very idea of Sumud. I thought of it standing behind a little black girl in a line for communion in our parish church. 
The Jews and Palestinians: First Encounter 
Palestinian Highlands, the heart of the Middle East, a beautiful land of hills and deep valleys, has quite stable and permanent population since seven thousand years ago. This modest land had no great resources, and trading routes bypassed it. The Palestinians of old cultivated olive tree and vine, walked with their flocks, and worshipped God, perceived as a sacral couple, as Ying and Yang principles, on the hilltops, in the sacred groves, near springs and at great old venerable trees. The male Deity was the Spirit, the female Deity was the Earth, and together they created the world as we knew it. Man is feminine in comparison with Heaven, and masculine in relation to Earth. This faith still reverberates in our veneration of Our Lady, Her Son and the local saints, this link to the beautiful earth-bound and spirit-related tradition. 
The Palestinians of old had an epic cycle of stories of the tribes of ne Israel, their legendary ancestors. Their cultural heroes, Abraham and David, star in many stories, like their contemporaries Prometheus and Achilles. Those were stories about ‘good old days’, like stories of King Arthur of Britain, but more than that. These stories described Man’s way to God as it was discovered by Abraham the spiritual path-finder. Thus, the Palestinians created the narrative of the Bible, and some parts of it were written down. They never established a powerful state, and stories of David and Solomon were just that: attractive stories. Their small states were subdued by Assyria and Babylon, and since then they were well integrated in the Bilad as-Sham, or the Fertile Crescent, still preserving their identity of a mountain folk. 
The Jews, a religious fraternity, or a  mystery religion community, came into being between 5th and 3rd centuries BC, in the big cities of the Middle East – from Susa of Persia and Ctesiphon of Babylonia to Antioch of Syria and Alexandria of Egypt. In those years, the old  	63
world collapsed and a new world came into being. Tremendous upheavals of Babylonian, Persian and Macedonian conquests ruined villages and small towns. Uprooted peasants, priests of destroyed temples, nobility without estates were drawn into the first big cosmopolitan cities. They had to do without traditional support, without their local gods and shrines. They responded by forming supportive fraternities, related to the cults of Isis and Mithra, or Orphic, Eleusinian and Dionysian mysteries. The Encyclopaedia Britannica writes: 
The different mystery religions were not exclusive of one another, but they appealed to different sociological groups. The middle class of the Greek and Roman cities preferred the Dionysiac societies, the festivals of which were a cult of beauty and merriment. Isis was worshipped by lower middle class people in the seaports and trading towns. The followers of the Great Mother in Italy were principally craftsmen. Mithra was the god of soldiers and of imperial officials and freedmen. 
Thus, it was not ethnic origin, but affinity of temperament that caused people to choose their mystery religion. One of the fraternities chose the Unseen God, Who chose them. They called their God by the name of the ancient deity of desert and thunder, Yahw, and themselves, the adepts of Yahw, Yahwids. (Though the name of the deity was Semitic, the ending was a Greek one, as the cities spoke Greek.) That is the origin of the self-appellation of Jews, ‘YeHWDim’. While describing the contemporary cult of Isis, EB writes: 
The higher grades of the Isis Mysteries were reserved to persons born of the priest caste of Egypt. To be born into this caste was more important than talent or skill. This limited the quality of the priests and was a serious disadvantage in the community's competition with other religions. But a second way of advancement within the religious group was devised for men of Greek or Roman origin. In Egypt, there was a group of elevated laymen— the porters of the holy shrine (pastophori). They were inferior in rank to everyone of the priest caste; but in Greek and Roman countries the rank of the pastophori became a surrogate for the native priest caste of Egypt. The pastophori were, in fact, the religious leaders of the communities. 
In a similar way, the priesthood of the Jews was that of the priest caste of Jerusalem temple, and Pharisees were the equivalent of Pastophori of Isis cult. The fraternity members were not mainly people of the small principality of Judah, a tiny place on the map of Middle East, which lost its short- lived statehood many years ago. People of Judah did ot call themselves ‘Jews’, nor ‘Yehudim’, but later, this proximity of names created a myth of Judean origin of the Jews. Such puns are commonplace in historical folklore: Modern Russian nationalists derive the Russian self-appellation, ‘Russki’, from the old Italic tribe of Etruscans. Israelis derive the name of Jerusalem, Yerushalem, from shalom, peace, instead of Salem, the 
 	64
Semitic god of sunsets. Visitors to troubled Jerusalem would be first to admit: the city has more 
wonderful sunsets than peaceful days. 
Paradoxically, the leaders of Jews – Jerusalem priests and non-Palestinian Pharisees - identified themselves with  Israel, the big neighbour and eternal adversary of Judah. They adopted a cycle of Palestinian Bne Israel stories and traditions, compiled the old texts, edited them, connected, deleted, added and created the Old Testament as we know it. They used the stories and traditions of Bne Israel as the Dorian bard of 8th century BC, Homer used ‘the court epic of Mycenaean Greece’ (words of Robert Gra ves in The Anger of Achilles) while composing Iliad and Odyssey, or, as did Peisistratus, the tyrant of Athens in 6th c BC, who published the texts of Homer. 
The new Bible preached monotheism, or denial of local spirits and manifestations of God. Traditional Palestinian faith, and faith of other ‘territorial’ nations, filled the Earth with signs of Divine presence. The new ‘extra-territorial’ Jewish approach to God may remind us of the museum curators’ attitude to art: the Jews ‘removed all traces of God’ from small shrines of Palestine to their great Temple in Jerusalem. For this reason they destroyed temples and shrines in Shechem and elsewhere. Like Le Louvre concentrated the masterpieces of art and left towns and cities of France bereaved, the Temple of Jerusalem was a giant Hoover that concentrated Spirit in one place and left the rest of the land spirit- less. 
Metaphysically it corresponded to the great concentration of spirit in One God, and it left the world of their perceptions devoid of spirit. The Israeli archaeologist Israel Finkelstein of Tel Aviv University noticed in his popular The Bible Unearthed49 that Deuteronomic source of the Bible elevated King Josiah to the highest place in its hierarchy, for he destroyed all sanctuaries of the land save one in Jerusalem. It is not all that clear to what extent the description of Josiah’s deeds corresponds to the real historical facts, and one may prefer the careful position of Thomas Thompson of Copenhagen University who views all ancient ‘history’ of Isra el and Judea as an after-construction of much later days. It does not matter for us, whether the Jewish leaders and theologians received some tradition from the old days of Josiah, or invented it, for it became the foundation of their anti-territorial faith. 
Christianity undid this metaphysical knot. Every Christian Church is the Temple. Every priest is the High Priest. Toulouse and Minsk are as sacred as Jerusalem. The faith of Christ and Virgin was universal and local, at once. Veneration of local saints fully restored the fabric broken by the editors of the Hebrew Bible. Christ reversed the action of the Jewish Hoover, emptied Jerusalem of excessive burden and filled the earth again with spirit. The Jewish temple was destroyed – it was the end of the spiritual dotcom bubble.
 	65
But the Jews still wish to reverse the process. There are dreams of destruction of all churches, crystallised in a special blessing of the Lord who overturns the shrines of ungodly. A Jew is supposed to say it whenever he sees a deserted or ruined church. There are dreams of restoration of the Jewish temple in Jerusalem on the site of the al-Aqsa mosque, expressed in public campaign and in erection of the cornerstone of the Temple. Even Shimon Peres, a ‘secular’ Jew called to create the world capital in Jerusalem and to fulfil the eternal dream of Jews. However, their dreams are others’ nightmares. The world needs no capital, no central temple, for all the Earth is His Temple.
The new Bible contained other troubling ideas. The original theological thought of Man usually contained the memory of loving union of Heaven and Earth, mirrored in love of Man and Woman. Interpreting the old myths of creation, the Gnostics taught of the primeval union of Gaia the Earth and the Spirit of God. The soul of Adam was consubstantial to Christ, and St Luke counts generations from Adam to Jesus. The Gospels spoke of the Union of Virgin the Mother with the Spirit of God that begets Christ. The union of Man and Woman is to remind us of the cosmic embrace that gave birth to Man, and that was the central part of mysteries performed in the temples of old. 
The new Bible undermined the position of woman: all- male God created an all- male Man, while Woman brought God’s Anger upon him. In the later Talmudic stories Adam did not touch Eve for hundred thirty years after the Exile from Paradise. Denial of Earth is connected (identical to) Rejection of Woman. In Palestine before the Jews woman was as sacral as man, and their union was sacral, too. Priestesses of love were called ‘kedesha’, ‘holy women’ in the ancient Biblical texts. (Modern translations offer rather misleading term, ‘temple prostitute’). 
Christianity undid this knot, too. The New Eve washed off the sin of the old one. The cult of Our Lady overturned the Judaic scheme. Once again, Woman – Virgin, Mother, Earth, Nature – was venerated by Man. 
As much as She is venerated by Man, She is hated by adepts of the Jewish values. ‘Blessed is the Lord for he did not create me a woman’, a Jewish man is supposed to sa y daily. Their fight against veneration of Our Lady manifests in their involvement with pornography. The Jewish publishers of Playboy and Penthouse, these flagmen of porn, contributed hugely to the effort to profane love and degrade woman. The first fruit of the Cabal-promoted US victory in Afghanistan over ‘fundamentalists’ was fresh delivery of smut to the local market. 
Marx noticed that pornography de-contextualised woman’s body and commodified it. But it also undermined the Virgin worship. A person whose eye is constantly bombarded by images of naked women is not likely to stand and watch in ecstasy the tender face of Madonna.
 	66
Sigmund Freud, in vein of Friedrich Engels and Marcus Aurelius, offered his interpretation of Heavenly Love as a substitute (sub limation) of earthly sex drive. If a man has enough sex, he won’t be interested in Divine lo ve, said Freud. He was mistaken, but the two feelings are indeed connected. Why Jews move their bodies at prayer, a Tsadik was asked, and he replied as a Sufi could reply: we copulate with the female face of God, Shechina. This connection of sex and worship found its sublime (not sublimated!) form in the Virgin worship. Freud’s thought could come only to a man who never experienced Grace or love of woman, to a spiritual and sensual impotent, but the idea fitted with vulgar materialism of his time.
Still, Love remained the subject of the Bible ; love of the Fraternity (they called it ‘Israel’) and their God. Thus the Fraternity became a Deity. Eventually it became the only Deity, for God Almighty was removed from this world. Marx wrote: “Jealous God of Israel is money”. But actually, the true God of Israel is Israel. The Jews worship Israel, i.e. themselves. 
Christianity and Islam undid this knot in two ways. Christianity created the idea of New Israel, the Church, all-embracing community, (Ummah of Islam), and returned to the original idea of Covenant of Man and God, as it was perceived by Abraham and Moses. ‘Abraham was not a Jew, he was a Haneef’, i.e. a man who sough t God, in words of the Prophet Muhammad. Love of Man and God took place of Love of Community and their God.
The Jews retained their narcissist self-deification. (The late Israeli playwright Hanoch Levin, parodied it in his early play, the Bathroom Queen50.) Self-deification of the Jews created the chasm between divine Israel and other nations. Chief Rabbi of Israel, the greatest modern proponent of Judaism, Rabbi Kook, wrote: “The difference between a Jewish soul and souls of non-Jews is greater and deeper than the difference between a human soul and the souls of cattle”51 because a Jewish soul is an integral part of the deity called Israel. Many authors accused the Jews of clannishness, of mutual support and disregard of an outsider. They rarely understood its religious component. The Jews have a higher purpose: to make all people on earth recognise the divinity of Israel. 
Modern Jews rarely comprehend their feeling towards the Jewish People. They are aware of their deep sense of belonging, but the element of deification remains outside of consciousness. Still, it defines a very important feature of Jewish behaviour. Jews respond immediately and strongly at any perceived negative judgement about Jews as a whole or about Jews as separate beings. The strength and persistence of Jewish response caused Charles Dickens to regret the depiction of Fagin (rhymes with Begin) in Oliver Twist.
Since then, a rare author dares to introduce a negative Jewish character in his book. Le Carre managed to write a book, Single and Single, about dismantling of the Soviet Union and mass theft of Russian communal property without a single Jew in it. This is like describing Mafia 
 	67
without mentioning Italians. He has a sinister character, a lawyer operating from behind the scenes, but this Lidsky or Slutsky is a Pole, the author stresses repeatedly. Well, Le Carre is a careful guy, and Poles, or indeed Italians or Brits do not mind. Nobody minds, but the Jews because they feel it a sacrilegious attack on their deity, the Jewish People. 
Alexander Solzhenitsyn encountered this problem52, as in his books there are complex Jewish figures. They are KGB officers, informers, top of prison administration. None is demonised, but none is made a saint, either. He was immediately attacked and offered a way out: to introduce a main character, a ‘noble strong and daring Jew’. He ignored the advice, and received a letter from - me Pomerantz, a leadingM	Russian Jewish intellectual, quoth: “The Nation is the very foundation of life, it is sacred and consubstantial to God. One who speaks against the whole Nation speaks against God”. Solzhenitsyn doubted her sincerity: “Surely we would be allowed to refer to the qualities of ‘whole nations’ if we promise to condemn ourselves and glorify the Jews”. But the remar k of M- me Pomerantz was partly sincere. She expressed in a clear and unambiguous way feelings of Jews towards the Jewish People: it is a Deity, as only Deity is “sacred and consubstantial to God”, and one who speaks against Deity, naturally speaks against God. 
The original faith of Jews established in 5 – 3 cc BC was hugely successful. By the 2nd century BC, millions of Jews lived in the big cities. They were fraternity members of heterogeneous ethnic origin, judging by their names and letters. The communities of Jews came to control commerce and politics of the Middle East. 
Least of all, the Jews lived in Palestine, the land of the Biblical narrative, as Palestine had no large cities. In 450 BC, indefatigable Herodotus walks through Palestine (and called it ‘Palestine’, though Jewish apologetics attribute the name to Romans of the 2 nd c AD). He did not see a Jew; he never heard of them; even Jerusalem was too small to be mentioned. The Return to Zion as narrated in the Book of Ezra, was just a story.
Biological descendents of the Bible characters, the Palestinians of Shechem and Hebron, probably did not pay much attention to the editorial job done in Antioch and Ctesiphon. They lived in their villages, and still live there now, and worship Christ and the Vir gin, or Allah on the same sites where their ancestors of old prayed to El and Anath, Yahwe and his Ashera. They still cultivate olive trees and throw stones at bulldozers, as their ancestors did at Goliath. Farmers of Cornwallis do not give much thought to the latest editions of the Mort d’Arthur, nor do they sit around the Round Table, either. 
 But later the Jews came to Palestine and turned the ruined fortress of Jerusalem into their headquarters and place of refuge. It is an established pattern of fraternities. Knights of St John had their headquarters on Rhodes and, later, on Malta. Assassins or Nuzairis chose impregnable 
 	68
castle of Alamut for their Old Man of the Mountain. The Jews also needed a centre for their policies. Rich and industrious, they built up Jerusalem and went out to conquer the natives. At that time the anti- native narrative of the Bible were composed. Only conquering immigrants could compose these violent calls to kill every native.
In bloody Maccabean wars (168-110 BC), the Jews subdued the Palestinians and forced some of them to accept a new faith. They did not make the converts equal, though. The Palestinians, the biological descendents of Abraham and David, remained second-class citizens (‘am ha-aretz’), in the Jewish Commonwealth. Even native descendents of priests (cohen am ha-aretz) were a way below salt. 
The relations between the Jews and the Palestinians were as bad then, as they are now. The Jews had a great propensity to genocide, and modern archaeologists find the horrible relics of mass destruction everywhere from Maresha to Shechem. The conquered cities were given to sword, temples burnt, survivors taxed to death. When in 63 BC, the Roman general Pompey came to Palestine, he was met as a liberator by the native population. The Jewish rule in Palestine lasted less than 80 years and collapsed as they proved themselves too cruel rulers even for that illiberal epoch. 
Still, even after loss of bigger part of Palestine, the Jews retained Jerusalem and its vicinity for another 130 years, and from this base, the fraternity tried to influence the known world. First half of the first century has been a time of great ascendancy of the Jews. There were millions of Jews in Rome and Parthian Empire, but even more sympathisers, ‘God-fearers’, upper-class Gentiles who inclined to the synagogue. 
(Why upper classes and not the ordinary people? Because Judaic approach of the huge gap between ‘our’ and ‘their’, or ‘outgroup’ and ‘ingroup’ is particularly suitable for the upper classes. It allows them to enjoy supreme luxury while disregarding wishes and needs of low classes. Neo-Liberalism is Judaic approach stated in general terms, and we know it is good for upper classes and bad for lower classes whose right to life is denied). 
Every second matron of Rome observed Sabbath. In those days the Jews formed a big part of the imperial elite, and Seneca wrote in his proverbial Latin, ‘victi victoribus leges dederunt’ (‘the defeated lay law to victors’). Complaints of Tacit could be written by Pat Buchanan. The acme of Jewish influence was achieved when this great pyromaniac, Emperor Nero, converted to Judaism, according to Jewish sources. 
The similarity with our time is even more staggering, bearing in mind that in both cases, this rise of Jews took place within historically short time, just over hundred years. Romans of Sulla (d. 78 BC) knew of Jews as little as Americans of President Monroe (1824 AD), while Nero (d. 68 AD) was as aware of Jews as President Clinton.
 	69
II 
The Jews of Christ’s days were a heterogeneous lot of millions adepts, spread from Babylon to Rome to Alexandria. They spoke a variety of languages, and had various ethnic origins, but shared the affinity of temperament and character. In Palestine, the majority of ‘Jews’ were the natives of Palestine, forcibly converted into Judaism by the Hasmonean kings in 168-110 BC. The Palestinians remained second-class natives (‘am ha-aretz’), who had to provide and to be prepared to give their life for the first-class Jews. 
Talmud contains numerous references to the natives ‘It is better to feed one’s daughter to lions than to let her marry a native’. (This maxim was repeated last year by Avrum Burg, a Labour leader and speaker of Israeli parliament. He said: ‘Palestinians are not the people you would like to marry your daughter to”.) Rabbi Yohanan said, ‘it is permitted to tear a native like one tears fish’. Rabbi Eliezer the Great said, ‘It is good to pierce and stab a native even on Yom Kippur coinciding with Sabbath’ . His shocked disciples tried to correct him, “why don’t you say ‘slaughter a native, dear Master?’ and he replied, “Slaughter demands a benediction while piercing does not demand a benediction”. An animal should not be slaughtered without a benediction, to pacify his soul, but R. Eliezer did not want to waste a benediction on a native (i.e. he was not willing even to deal with natives like with animals)53 
The leaders of the Judaic mystery religion wished to make their faith a world-embracing one. They did not want to turn the whole mankind into Jews, as even in their Palestinian fief they were not willing to allow for equality of converts and the ‘real Jews’. They wished for mankind to worship Jews, to adore Israel, to participate in veneration of their Deity, as ‘the God of Israel’ in their eyes was but the spirit of the People of Israel. That is the true meaning of ‘Jewish world domination designs’ . 
But 2000 years ago their domination plan misfired.  The second-class citizens, new converts of Galilee, were tied to their soil. They loved their land, their terraces and olive trees, vineyards and springs. People of soil cannot understand the need to be a master, nor do they wish to be slaves. The Palestinians considered themselves the descendants of Abraham, the hospitable friend of God, of David, the Palestinian king of old. They corrected the mistake of self-adoration by a ruse: they expanded the Fraternity and made it universal Church, thus returning the Jewish faith to its Palestinian origins of Abraham and Moses. (That is why the result is called ‘fulfilment of the Mosaic faith’. ) They turned every church into a temple. They repudiated usury, authorised by the Bible editors. They venerated Mary, the spouse of God, a woman of Sepphoris in Galilee. Their veneration of local saints restored holiness to the whole land. They made images reminding that Man was created made in the likeness of God. 
 	70
Mystics and spiritualists would say that the force of good made a wondrous supposition, and instead of Enslaver of Nations, Spirit of Brotherhood was embodied in a man of a small Palestinian village of Nazareth. It was manifested in a wild countryside of Judean desert, where the ruddy colour of soil gave it name of Ascent of blood. Nowadays there is a small building called the Good Samaritan Inn, of the parable told by Jesus about a man wounded by robbers and left to die in the desert. The Jewish priest avoided him, a Levite passed by, but a Samaritan treated the man as his brother and saved him. The Jews hated Samaritans like the modern Israelis hate Palestinians, and for the similar reason: Samaritans were the true descendants of Israel, whose name the Jews adopted. By elevating the Samaritan, Jesus broke with the tradition of denying other people’s humanity. That is why the Pharisees and the Priests sentenced him to death. 
The Divine punishment was swift. The Roman Empire, almost suborned and taken over by the Jews, reasserted itself and destroyed the Temple of Jerusalem, removing the territorial base of the Judaic creed. It took another hundred of years of rebellions and wars to subdue and break down Jewry. With Divine assistance, Mankind corrected its errors, rejected supreme egoism and continued its normal troublesome life. On the broken ruins of Jewry, Christianity sprung, as butterfly from the discarded caterpillar shell. 
Majority of Jews in Palestine embraced Christ and became an integral and undistinguishable part of the Palestinian people. It was a long process, while some were received in the Church, and others converted to Islam, a Middle Eastern native form of Christianity with strong Judaic elements, a prefiguration of Protestantism. 
Millions of Jews in the Roman Empire did the same, and became assimilated in Egypt and Italy, Spain and Greece. Old Judaism was perceived as too archaic even before its demise, as in Christ’s days, the old religion of animal sacrifices was outdated, and people looked for new forms and new meaning. Christianity contained all the good elements of Judaism of old: Christ was the new all-embracing transfiguration of God of Israel, while the Church provided the community belonging and joint service of God, but it never became on object of self-adoration, as the Holy Virgin, the Mother of God took place of the female Deity in people’s minds. (Centuries later, Calvin’s destructio n of Marian cult was connected with rise of self-adoration, or ‘Jewish-ness’ in terminology of young Marx, and eventually with the Rise of the Jews). 
Still, the powerful fraternity of Jews did not disappear. Small groups of adepts in other countries carried out their Counter-Reformation and created a new faith, strongly anti-Christian and anti-Gentile. Its credo contains the Birkat Ha-minim, the Curse of the heretics. In the original form that survived in Geniza of Cairo, it was directly aimed against Christians, but later 
 	71
it was altered and its original meaning obscured. At its beginning, it was a religion of sheer hate 
to a goy. 
Shmuel Hugo Bergman, a German Jewish philosopher, later the President of Hebrew University, wrote: ‘Two factions forever struggle within Judaism. The separatist faction hates Gentiles. Their slogan is ‘Remember Amalek’ (i.e. ‘Kill the Goy’). But there is a faction of love and forgiveness, Judaism of ‘Love thy Neighbour’.
Bergman was mistaken. The Judaism of ‘Love Thy Neighbour’ is called Christianity. But Christian influence on Judaism could transform the Hate of Amalek into Love of Neighbour within souls of individual Jews. Some of them would become Christians, others would – in harmless vanity – claim like Bergman, ‘we were always like that’. But often the spirit of hate would pull them back into abyss. Thus Bergman, a supporter of one democratic state in Palestine, eventually condoned Zionist crimes54 
Most horrible adjectives and laws against Gentiles were formulated by the new faith. (For instance, Rabbinic Judaism permitted killing of Gentile by a ruse: a Gentile may be enticed to descend into a well, and then a Jew may remove the ladder and leave the goy to his death. In order to avoid sin, he should just ‘remember’ that he needs the ladder for some purpose.) 
Critics of Judaism (“antis emites”) published many books full of dreadful quotations from Talmud and later scriptures of Jews. Young generation of Jews doesn’t believe these books, because of their combative nature. Older gene ration of learned Jews knows these things but hesitates to admit these quotes are correct. Still, they are confirmed by modern discussion of anti-Gentile tendency in Judaism, as carried out by few Israeli and American Jewish scholars, notably by Israel Sha hak and Norton Mezvinsky, Israel Yosef Yuval, and Abraham Shafir, whose dissertation made in Dropsie University, Phila. 1976 is still one of the best and waits for a publisher. On the other hand, nowadays some Rabbis in Israel freely repeat most awful things against Gentiles, orally and in writing. Such is a treatise by Rabbi Alba purporting to prove that a Jew is entitled to take life of a Gentile. It was published in the volume dedicated to the mass murderer Baruch Goldstein. 
Eventually this hatred calmed down, but it never was admitted and exorcised. That is why 
it came back with a flourish in the moment it was encouraged by the Jewish leadership.
Take Two 
[This short private message to friends sent on Easter 2001 caused a considerable
controversy.]. 
Easter Sunday is a beautiful day, a day of new hope and new promise. Two thousand years ago, the first joust of two spirits, the spirit of brotherhood of Man and the spirit of Master-Slave domination, was over. Jesus taught: love your neighbour as yourself, even if he is a 
 	72
traditional enemy of Jews, a Samaritan. That is why he was hated by the Jewish supremacists of his time. He said: you can not worship God and Mammon, the god of greed, you have to choose. That is why he was hated by supply-side economists and bankers of his day. They sentenced him to death and the Empire obliged and carried out the execution, in order to keep peace with these important forces. Our fathers did not dare to speak against their leaders. The spirit of domination scored a victory, but the spirit of brotherhood did not vanish. 
I received the Easter message of Naim Ateek, a priest from Jerusalem. He writes, “Here in Palestine, Jesus is again walking the Via Dolorosa. It only takes people of insight to see the hundreds of thousands of crosses throughout the land, Palestinian men, women, and children being crucified. Palestine has become one huge Golgotha, the place of the skull’. 
The supremacy forces and the greed worshippers united again to crucify Christ. The US, this New Rome, again gives hand and agrees to become the executioner. Now it is our turn to decide. 
History gave us an incredible luxury, Take Two, as they say in the movie production. We can now repeat the mistake of our fathers and silently connive with the plans of our self-appointed leaders. We can correct this mistake now, and stop the crucifixion. 
In the Jewish Passover narration we say, each one of us has to see oneself as if he personally was liberated from bondage. I say to you, each one of us, Jew and Gentile, has to see oneself as is he personally stands on Via Dolorosa, and decide, whether the execution will be carried out. Two thousand years ago, only people of Jerusalem were present, while Christ was rushed to Golgotha. Now, in the global village of 21st century, the whole mankind became a witness of this tragic and lasting event. We all stand on the sidewalk of Via Dolorosa. The fateful question, ‘whether this man should be crucified’, applies to all of us. If we keep our mouth shut, we deserve to be called ‘Christ killers’. If we stop it, we shall change history. The scarlet as blood sins of past will become white as snow. 
Two thousand years ago, the spirit of brotherhood rose again, to give hope for the second joust. If he is defeated again, we all shall become fo rever slaves to our faceless masters. They will destroy the Mother Earth herself; turn her into waste lands of Mordor. They need this victory to bind us together by the dark forces of domination. Let us deny them, this time.
Share with me wine and bread of Palestine, my brothers and sisters, as the sign of new covenant of Brotherhood of Man, as an oath of our decision: this time, Christ will not die on the cross. 
Lana Turner 
(Easter Greetings Take Two triggered an orchestrated campaign against Shamir, started 
by two Arab activists, Ali and Hussein) 
 	73
Ali Abunimah and Hussein Ibish spoke against what they feared might be my antiSemitism. I am certainly pleased with their principled stand. As a Jew and a man, I salute them. Any irrational aversion to Jews should be certainly eradicated and condemned. While saluting their good intentions, I consider their judgment to be somewhat premature. It is based on my Take Two which they failed to understand. Christopher Bollyn of The Spotlight stated it well. He wrote:
“I realize that neither of you are probably deeply immersed in Christianity, but you must understand that Shamir …compares the Israelis, Jews, and Americans to spectators of an execution that they can do something to prevent. 
"I say to you, each one of us as to see oneself as is he personally stands on Viah Dolorosa, and decides, whether the execution will be carried out. If we keep our mouth shut, we deserve to be called 'Christ killers'. If we stop it, we shall change history. The sins of the past, scarlet as blood, will become white as snow”, Shamir wrote. 
He is demanding that Jews, Israelis, and Americans do something to prevent the
bloodbath that is occurring in Palestine as we speak”. 
Indeed, while the Jews of old provide background to the Passion, all of us are the background of the present suffering of the Palestinians, which was the theology behind my Take Two. In other words, all of us, Jews and Gentiles alike, are ‘the Jews’ of the Palestinian Passion.  
I perceive the excitement of Mr Abunimah and Mr Ibish could be generously explained away by their relative innocence of theology and history. They even put the exclamation mark of ‘sic’ after my words, failing to recognize the quotation from the prophets (scarlet sins and white snow) which is a part of Yom Kippur liturgy. They are not attuned to read what I wrote. 
Anyway, Ali Abunimah and Hussein Ibish are entitled to their opinions. Their concern for the purity of the Palestinian banner meets my approval. However, my appreciation of their position is slightly diminished by some additional facts. The present accusatory letter is not the first, nor the second they composed in connection with my humble self. In their previous letters, the accusation of anti-Semitism was absent, but they called me alternatively a Mossad agent, a pursuer of Arab money, and even a false pretender to the high rank of an Israeli Russian journalist and a Vesti columnist. Such insistence combined with inconsistence makes one wonder if their goals were limited to fighting anti-Jewish prejudice. If I were a suspicious man, I would probably suspect their motives. 
But I am ready to give Ali Abunimah and Hussein Ibish full benefit of any doubt. It is probable that they were motivated not by spite and envy, not by a fear of competition or of ‘rocking the boat’, not by working in cahoots with the Jewish lobby, but by nobler feelings. They remind me of the young police officer in this period piece movie, LA Confidential, who tries to 
 	74
arrest a blond Lana Turner look-alike, and proclaims: “a hooker who looks like Lana Turner is still a hooker, not Lana Turner”. His colleague stops him: “she IS Lana Turner!” The kid made a silly mistake. 
In plain words, I do not pretend to be a friend of Palestine: I am a Palestinian. I am quite used to this sort of accusations; they are the professional hazard for whoever is engaged in the struggle. A fainthearted man should fight for the well-being of whales, as it is a noble cause that brings no flak. 
Now I shall refer to other concerns raised by Ali Abunimah and Hussein Ibish. As for my alleged comparison of the Jews with ‘virus’, I quote the lines of Ellen Cantarow, who was present at the talk. 
“I do want to stress that the comment about "viruses" cited by Ali in his letter was taken out of context. I was there; I heard the talk. This is NOT what Shamir said. Which makes me feel that THE JERUSALEM POST reference should be looked up in context. I do not feel it wise, when one has not read the entirety of a text, especially in a controversy like this one, to fan the flames by circulating partial statements. In the Tufts talk Shamir referred to the movie "Matrix”, with its references to "organic" "mammals" and to predatory viruses. He then said that the original Palestinian population had an "organic" relation to the land in Palestine, whereas the European-Jewish immigrants and colonists did not, and in their consequent actions, expelling the original inhabitants, destroying villages with beautiful architecture, etc., could be compared to the "viruses" in "Matrix”. I find this in perfect keeping with his "Dulcinea" essay and other pieces”. 
I would add to it, that in my opinion every man, Jew or Gentile, can choose whether to behave like a virus or like a mammal, or even as a vulture. It is actually an idea deeply rooted in the Zionist discourse of Hertzl and Borochov, who wished to reconnect Jews and soil as the means of rejuvenation of the Jewish people. In my opinion, it failed because the settlers did not connect to the native inhabitants of the land. 
(The ‘virus comparison’ is present in the discourse on Palestine. But it was made by the Prime Minister Barak, who called the Palestinians – ‘a virus’. However, his comparison created no ripple.)
Let us move on to the blood- libel accusation in the Jerusalem Post, repeated by Ali 
Abunimah and Hussein Ibish. This Conrad Black newspaper wrote:
“One of NIF's beneficiaries is the Israel-Palestine Friendship Centre in Tel Aviv. The centre promotes the Palestinians' 'right of return' to their-1948 homes. Two weekspre ago, Russian- language journalist Israel Shamir told a largely Jewish audience: ‘Jews only exist to drip the blood of Palestinian children into their matzas.' No one protested”. 
 	75
It is obviously rubbish. I certainly did not say the words they attribute to me. Have no doubt, the nice middle-class Jewish audience in Tel Aviv, where the misquoted talk was given, would protest such silly stuff instead of pouring their love on the speaker. The purpose of the JP allegation was to smear these wonderful people, who work very hard on charity lines to feed the hungry and clothe the needy in the besieged villages. It is to be regretted that Ali Abunimah and Hussein Ibish were deceived by the right-wingers’ blood libel against Israeli supporters of Palestinian rights.
(My full discussion of Blood Libel is available in this volume). 
As for me, I can repeat the words of an unjustly punished Russian poet, “The insult hurts, 
but it is not the issue: let my destiny befalls me, it is the destiny of mankind I am worried about ”. 
Christ Killers 
Psychologists like to offer their patients to play an allusion game in order to free imagination. They drop you a word and you should reply with the first word that comes to your mind: “bed” - “sex”, “husband” – “pay”, or “drink” – “police”. Th ese replies help the shrink to understand the works of your mind. But sit a Jew on the couch, whisper one word, “Christ”, and you will get one response: “you call us Christ killers”. 
I compared killing of Palestinians who are the beloved children of Christ with killing of Christ, and immediately two hired boys voiced this Jewish complaint, “he called the Jews – Christ killers”. I was rather vexed, as I know I did not say it because I do not think so. But they would not take ‘no’ for an answer. 
When the Pope John Paul II visited the old capital of Umayyad Caliphate, Damascus, the young Syrian ruler reminded his audience of the transcendental meaning of the battle for Palestine. The Palestinians fight the enemy of Christ and the enemy of the Prophet, he said. 
Words of Bashar Assad caused consternation of Jews. A Conrad Black newspaper, always supporting the Israeli ‘extra-judicial killings’ (read: murders), wrote indignantly: ‘this was anti-Semitism of the worst order. Down the centuries, the charge of deicide has been a pretext for persecuting Jews, who stood accused of "killing Christ". 
Please re-read again. Bashar Assad did not say, nor did he imply that Jews killed Christ. Neither did I: there is no collective guilt over many generations. But the Masters of Discourse know better what people are supposed to say. In the same way the y know better who should represent Palestinians instead of ‘irrelevant’ Arafat, they know better who should rule Iraq, they know better who attacked America and whom America should attack, and even whom should elect the Blacks instead of Cynthia McKinney, in the same way they know better: we should say, ‘Jews killed Christ’. They wait for it like a passionate lover for consummation of his desires, like 
 	76
a brave soldier for the battle call, as they know how to reply. They will insist on it until we say it, 
like in the joke. 
A Jewish joke tells of a Jew who pestered a Chinese man in New York subway, “Are you a Jew?” – “No, - replied the Chinese. But the Jew asked again and again the same question, and the exasperated Chinese gave up “Yes, I am a Jew”. The satisfied Jew smiled at him and said, “Isn’t it strange? You do not look like a Jew”. 
This accusation is false; it is but an anti-Christian libel. None of the Church Fathers, none of the “right wing religious fanatics” of old, none of the Crusaders would or did condemn the present day Jews for killing Christ just because some of their ancestors killed Christ. They were not that silly: nobody is. This accusation is but a figment of Jewish magination. The eminent scholar, professor David Flusser, was right: ‘the Jews should not be blamed for killing Christ anymore than French blamed for sending Joan of Arc to the stake, or Greeks for sentencing Socrates to death’. 
Why, then, the Jews insist on the false accusation? They do it, in order to obscure the real one: of hostility to Christ, Christianity and Christians. My dear late teacher David Flusser was a very fluent and skilful Jewish apologist, who could and would justify anything done by Jews. His reasoning is correct, but it lacks sincerity. Why, indeed, the French are not blamed for the fiery death of the Maid nor considered ‘enemies of the Maid’? But for the simple reason: though the situation appears similar (foreign occupation, corrupt local judges), the French people condemned the French judges who sentenced Joan, and made her their beloved saint. The Jews of old, on the other hand, were defiantly proud of the deed of their ancestors. They were quite happy to concur in it, and busily copied The Gospel according to the Jews, a manuscript that could be called “How we killed Christ” . 
Who killed Christ? 
T.R. Reid of the Washington Post, a staunch supporter of Israel, declared: ‘it’s time for Christians to never repeat the complete distortion of history, that Jews were largely responsible for Jesus’ crucifixion. The church should re -write the Passion’ – he demanded, and his call was seconded by Black’s Boston Globe. As the US Congress usually follows the orders of AIPAC, probably the Gospel will be soon outlawed in the US. And not only in the US: American Jews are fighting hard to ban the centuries-old medieval production of the Passion play in Obergammau. 
The Gospel tells that Jesus was sentenced to death by the High Priest of Jews and his camaraderie, then the sentence was confirmed by Sanhedrin, the Jewish High Court, and afterwards the prisoner was given to the Roman chief commander in the land to be executed. While the old Jewish theologians and scholars happily concurred with the story, the modern 
 	77
Jewish historians and religious scholars say that anti-Semites invented the story, to spread hatred 
of the Jews. 
Hayim Cohen, an Israeli High court judge, wrote that Jews would never sentence an innocent person to death. Hiyam Makkobi, an English Jewish scholar, (alas, a fanatical nationalist), claimed that Jesus led the fight for the Jews and against the Gentile rule, and that he was killed by the Romans as a result. David Flusser, an Israeli scholar of Qumran texts, thought the Passion narrative was written many years after the event as part of the Church’s anti-Jewish polemics. Others denied the Jews practised crucifixion or applied death penalty at all. 
However, reading of the Jewish sources disproves these arguments. A Jewish sage of pre-Christ days crucified eighty witches in one day, tells the Talmud. If Jesus were a fighter for the Jews, he would be venerated as the brigands of Masada were. In such a case his claim to the title of Messiah would not be a hindrance: Simeon Bar Kochbah, the last Jewish ruler in Palestine, was proclaimed the Messiah by Rabbi Akiba, the highest Jewish spiritual authority of his days, and he is still highly esteemed. Even better proof to the contrary is supplied by the numerous devotees of the late Lubavitscher Rebbe. Posters of this bearded old Jew cover many walls in Israel bearing a legend ‘Messiah the King’. Thus, even death of the Messiah is no obstacle for Jewish veneration, while rejection of the Jewish exclusivity certainly is.
Christian historians and scholars, from Origenes of Alexandria and Eusebius of Caesarea to Chesterton, thought the Gospel description of the Jewish leaders actually condemning Jesus to death was perfectly realistic. The traditional Jewish sources, from the Midrash to later medieval writings, also accepted the story, and added that it was a good thing to do. Moreover, adepts of Judaism kept fighting Christ and Christians. Soldiers of the last Jewish king Bar Kochba massacred Christians in 135. In Yemen, a Jewish ruler Yusuf Zu Nawas burned churches and killed thousands of Christians in 519. Palestinian Christians were slaughtered in 529 and 614.
Afterwards, the warfare switched to ideology. The Middle Ages are full of rather crude Jewish anti-Christian propaganda. Its examples could be found in Jesus through Jewish Eyes55, a recently published compendium of Jewish writings about Jesus, and they include infamous Toledot Yeshu and Nestor Hakomer, written in Arabic in 9th century. Even today, leaflets in Jerusalem describe Judas as ‘the Redeeme r of Israel’. That is why, as a short - hand, the Jews were described as ‘enemies of Christ’. 
Christians fought back, and slaughtered quite a lot of Jews as well. It is a peculiarity of modern convoluted discourse, that Christian persecutions of Jews are well known, while persecutions of Christians by Jews are consigned to oblivion. There is ‘post-Auschwitz Christian theology’, but there is no ‘post -Mamilla Pool, or post-Deir Yassin Judaism’. This distortion of history is used by the Jewish leadership in order to induce Christians with destructive guilt 
 	78
feeling. That is why it is important to explain that the relations of Jews and Christians weren’t as 
one-sided as depicted by the Jewish apologists. 
Jews versus Christ 
The millennia-old ideological warfare against Christ became the most important element of Jewishness, and it is still with us. ‘T’is better to serve Hitler than Christ”, - words to such effect said a well known Israeli Rabbi. Acceptance of Christ is the worst possible crime for a Jew, and it is felt by vast majority of the community. Jews aren’t just ‘non-Christians’, like we are ‘non-Buddhist’, they are anti-Christian. Even now, when majority of Jews ceased to practice the rules of faith, this anti-Christian streak is not gone. For instance, a baptised Jew is banned from receiving Israeli citizenship by the Law of Return. Recently, a few good Jews in America wrote to the State of Israel renouncing their right to Israeli citizenship. There is just one way to do it: accept Christ and you would lose this ‘right’ . 
There are, for sure, many Jews who feel different. No group is that monolithic as to exclude dissent. Even in the leadership of the German Nazi Party, there were people who conspired against Hitler. But it does not mean there was no Nazi ideology. Among millions of Russian Communists one could find people of every possible opinion, but the Party had its structure and ideology. That is why one should not hate a man for being a Jew, or a member of Nazi Party etc, but one may reject their doctrine. 
For many years, a son of enlightened parents, I could not force myself to enter a church. I did not spit at seeing church, as my great- grandfather would, but I was taught to despise Christianity, “a silly prejudice”. The Jewish faith was never considered to be a prejudice in our circles. Still, a young Jewish man could toy with Buddhism or pray in ashram, or dance with Sufis, but Christianity was beyond the pale, a totally forbidden thing. That is why many young Jews of J. Salinger’s days were looking for spirituality in foreign Buddhism: they really did not dare to embrace Christ. One could eat pork, even marry a shiksa, a slightly smaller sin, but we had imbibed hostile rejection of Christianity with our mothers’ milk. 
The opinion of the Jews about Christianity would be quite irrelevant if the Jews would live on the Moon. It would be bearable if the Jews would be shoe-shiners or cotton-pickers. It was survivable while Jews were visibly separated by dress and manners, as in Middle Ages. But since the Jews became an important part of the American elites, their massive presence undermined the delicate social and spiritual fabric. 
It is particularly deadly, as spirituality of our tripartite ecumene (the Western Christendom, Eastern Orthodox world and Dar al- Islam) has been built on Christ. The cathedrals of Rome, Assisi, Chartres, Köln and Canterbury, mosques of Damascus, Baghdad and Jerusalem, paintings of Botticelli, Andrei Rublev and Blake, great poetry of Rumi and Elliott, Block and 
 	79
Brodsky flow from this rock. It is as basic as water and earth for our civilisation. Even books arguing with Christianity: Rabelais and Voltaire, Mayakovsky and Marx still are based on it. Removal of Christ kills the Western civilisation as certainly as poisoning its air does. Human beings will not die, but the civilization will collapse after their sacred unity will be gone. 
The scary present of the US is the result of this collapse. This neo- fascist state of billionaires and hungry children that scraps the human rights, tortures prisoners in Guantanamo, rejects all norms of the international law and plans aggression against sovereign Iraq just after devastation visited upon Afghanistan is the moral perversion built upon Christianity undermined. My friend and an important American Islamic scholar of religion Maria Hussain wrote: “Christianity has been very weak in the US. In Ann Arbor where I was raised it was understood that you do NOT mention the name of Jesus unless it is to make fun, and you do NOT publicly admit to believing in Christianity, unless you want to be avoided by your peers”. 
Christian Zionists as a social neurosis 
The strange uniquely American phenomenon of Jew-worshipping Christian Zionists is but a result of social neurosis, caused by strong guilt feelings induced by the Jewish elites. These simple Christian souls try to combine their love to Christ with the society- induced adoration of Jews. They look for the Jewish approval, while sticking to the church. These opposing forces misshape their psyche like the bodies of children were misshapen by the medieval freak- makers. They should be helped to reassert their love to Christ and freed from the emotional dependency on the Jews. 
Appearance of the Christian Zionists was predicted in long gone 1902 by a Viennese Jew, Solomon Ehrmann. He spoke of future when “all of mankind will have been jewified (verjudet) and joined in union with the <Judeo-Masonic> Bnai Brith” 56. Now when the Bnai Brith are strong supporters of Sharon and Foxman, one understands that these Christian ionists have been thoroughly jewified. 
Their pitiful spiritual condition should remind us: Christianity and Judaism are NOT mirror images of each other. While the Church wants to bring every Jew to salvation, to make him equal to the rest of believers, to turn him or her into a dear brother or sister, the Jews want to turn the Christians into jewified Christian Zionists, emotional and spiritual slaves of the Jews. It means that the struggle is not over yet. It is an ideological, not a racial struggle; and the Christians of Jewish origin were always an important element, a beacon for their hesitating brethren, as it is the battle for the souls of Jews as well. But as precious as they are, they are not a bit more precious than the souls of other folks. If the spiritual and ideological struggle with the Jewish influence won’t be vigorously resumed, I am afraid the Christian Zionists will become the biggest and most powerful denomination in the US, and then seep over to Europe. 
 	80
Professor David Perlmutter wrote to me: 
Sure, maybe 20 years ago the "Israeli lobby" was made up mostly of Jews. And campaign donations were important. But now it's the Evangelical Christians who are dominant, and most politicians are nominally pro-Israel not because they want Jewish money but because they either believe in the "holy" cause or listen to their huge number of evangelical voters. Bush did not go easy on Sharon because of Jews, but because his own constituency rebelled. This is something that most Arabs and Israelis don't understand - but you see it here in the Churches and in DC. Every major US evangelical Christian leader is farther to right on Israel than most Jews I know, and after 9/11 they consider it their own personal crusade. The traditional Israeli Lobby (AIPAC etc.) has become almost irrelevant. 
The Jews are often described as ‘yeast’ – because of their ability to judaise people, to transfer some Jewish qualities; ability rather enhanced by their positions in the discourse, media and universities. If the preachers would not feel the support of media lords, probably they would not become as pro-Israeli as they are now. If the cause of Christ would not be so completely undermined, their flock would not feel obliged to support the Israeli genocidal apartheid state. 
Trotsky and the Church 
The accusation of trying to destroy Christianity was an important part of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. But the reality is more complicated: in my opinion, Jews are not consciously aware of the damage they cause through their rejectio n of Christianity. In the same way, Europeans were not aware they bring various diseases to the native people of Polynesia, as they were immune to the malady. Still, the natives died in droves. 
It is intuited by the Orthodox Jews, who try to minimise their interaction with the Gentile world. It is intuited by anti-Semites, who prefer a traditional Orthodox Jew in his shtreiml and peyoth to an assimilated Jew. Few of them understand, however, why assimilated Jews unwillingly cause much damage to the national fabric. 
A tragic example is provided by Leon Trotsky, a Jew by birth, who thoroughly rejected Judaism and described himself as a ‘non-Jewish Jew’, but was involved in massive destruction of Russian churches. He did not dream to destroy the church in order to rise up the banner of George Soros or Ariel Sharon. He was not a philosemite. He liked goyim and didn’t like Jews. He believed that Jews handled money for so long that their souls were almost irremediably warped. They retained, he said, petty-bourgeois consciousness, while the Jewish intellectuals were ‘fickle untrustworthy semi- foreigners’. He spoke Russian and apparently lost his command of Yiddish. He was proud of being considered a real Russian, not a Jew57. 
 	81
Why, then, he became the soul of the campaign against the Russian church? For the best of reasons. He did it instinctively, as he felt, and quite right, that Christ stands on the way of his full integration within the Russian people. He did not rise to accept Christ, but tried to remove the obstacle. Thousands of churches were destroyed, and the future of Russian communism was undermined. Eventually, this schism of communism and church caused the great successes of George Soros and Mark Rich in Russia after 1991. 
Many good people of Jewish origin in Europe and America repeat the same error. They fight the Church as they feel it stands between them and the rest of the population. Alas, the example of Trotsky proves there is no short-cut. They have to submit, or cause irremediable damage to souls of people they care about. 
Canterbury Tales
The Spectator, a venerable British institution, recently purchased by the great supporter of Israel, ex-Canadian media mogul Conrad Black, published a long article by a Miss Melanie Phillips, a heady brew of theology and actuality called ‘Christians who hate the Jews’ 58. Despite the punchy title, it deals with Christians who dare to profess Christ, rather than a form of Judaism adapted for Gentiles. Miss Phillips writes as a young girl straight out of convent school while encountering “the facts of life”. Apparently, she never knew that Christians have a New Testament. Why should these strange Gentiles replace a perfectly good Old Testament with a New One? Her insufficient grasp of ideas calls it ‘replacement theolo gy invented by a revisionist Palestinian theologian’ . 
Needless to say, this term is but her invention, while the correct term is ‘supercessionism’. A genuine article is ‘replaced’ with a substitute, w hile an outdated idea is ‘superceded’ by a newer one. It was indeed invented by a ‘revisionist Palestinian theologian’, but his name was not Canon Ateek, as she claims, but Prophet Isaiah. He spoke of the New Covenant that will supersede the Old one. Afterwards, this idea became the cornerstone of Christianity, as the New Covenant between God and the Church (Israel of spirit) superseded the Old Covenant between God and Israel of flesh. 
Ignorant Jews present it as an act of “hatred to Jews”, but it was just an opposite: the act of eradicating hatred between Jews and non-Jews. St Paul59 speaks about Christ as of "our peace who has made us (i.e. Jews and non-Jews) one and has broken down the dividing wall of enmity”. “ In Christ, this enmity was abolished, because through Christ, the Jewish faith was fulfilled. Christianity was not established as some new religion; it was accepted by chosen Jews who were the first Christians precisely because their belief in Christ as Messiah was for them 
 	82
nothing else but the fulfilment of the Jewish faith that is the faith of their forefathers from 
Abraham down to the time of Christ60“. 
In modern terms, Christianity was an upgrade of the old Judaism, or alternatively, return to its Palestinian roots and sources. Miss Phillips mistakenly identifies modern Jews with	 Biblical Israel. However, this identification is an act of faith, as arbitrary as any. No person in his right mind thinks that the victor of Agincourt is the same man who killed Anne Boleyn, though the name is identical, King Henry of England. Still, it is a common error to think that Judaism of our contemporaries is the Judaism of the days of Jesus. 
The brilliant Israeli scholar, Prof. Israel Jacob Yuval of Hebrew University in his book, Two Nations in Your Womb61, proved that Judaism we know of (Rabbinic Judaism) came to existence in the end of the first century after Christ. It came out of ruins of the old Temple-centred Biblical Judaism, practically at the same time as Christianity. It is a full answer to the notion of ‘superseding faith’. Christianity actually superseded Biblical Judaism (by return to its sources) and became the faith of millions. Still, a small band of men challenged its advent, and offered an alternative, Rabbinic Judaism. In the eyes of its followers, Rabbinic Judaism superseded Biblical Judaism. 
 Rabbinic Judaism has as little in common with Biblical Judaism as Christianity. It produced its own holy books, the Mishna and Talmud, as Christianity produced the New Testament. Prof. Yuval wrote: The Biblical Judaism died, and two religions claimed to be the legitimate heir, Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism. They had a good reason, as old Biblical Judaism contained elements of both. In a similar way, National Socialism and Communism are heirs to Hegel’s philosophy. 
Thus, Judaism we know of is a jealous sister, not a mother faith to Christianity. Its adepts are not the people who remained faithful to the ‘old religion’, as the Biblical Judaism with its sacrifices, Jerusalem Temple, ritual purity, tithes and priests disappeared two thousand years ago. It is a new faith explicitly made to fight Christianity. 
As for Miss Phillips’ specific remarks, they express unmitigated ignorance of Christian 
faith and traditions coupled with a strong streak of Jewish supremacy. 
· 	Miss Phillips found the words of the Bishop Riah ‘an astounding interpretation of the Old Testament’ . The Bishop Riah said of Palestinian Christians, ‘We are the true Israel’. There is no doubt that the Palestinians, Christians and Muslims are true descendents of the Twelve Tribes, of Prophets and Apostles. But the 
‘true Israel’ appellation denotes the basic tenet of Christian faith: the Church is the True Israel. In other words, it is not an ‘astounding interpretation of Old Testament’, but an orthodox reading of the New Testament. 
 	83
· 	She thinks Canon Ateek trie s to “sever the special link between God and the 
Jews”. She apparently believes God feels more for a Jew than for an
Englishman, or a Palestinian. Well, she is mistaken. 
· 	She chastises David Ison, canon of Exeter cathedral, who took a Palestinian guide. That is right, for a Jewish supremacist, only Jewish guides are kosher. 
As I guide pilgrims myself, I heartily concur with this idea. But I also ascribe to the notion that genocide is now being “ waged in a long, slow way by Zionists against the Palestinians.’ 
· 	Stephen Sizer, vicar of Christ Church, Virginia Water says that Israel is ‘an apartheid state’. She objects as “ Israeli Arabs have the vote, are members of the 
Knesset and one is even a Supreme Court judge”. Well, the good vicar is right: two thirds of Palestinians have no vote, send no members to Knesset. ‘Israeli Arabs’, in Zionist parlance, are Palestinians with the right of vote. ‘Even one supreme court judge’ sounds a bit too paternalistic for 45% of non-Jewish population of Palestine. Presence of one Jewish Government minister in Brezhnev’s USSR did not stop the kin of Miss Phillips to fight ‘Russian antiSemitism’. 
· 	Anyway, what it has to do with ‘Christians who hate Jews’? Many good Israeli 
Jews share the hope of Vicar Sizer that “ Israel will go the same way as South 
Africa” – into equality. 
· 	She quotes with horror Rev. Sizer: ‘The covenant between Jews and God,’ he states, ‘was conditional on their respect for human rights’ . Again, this thought was expressed by St John the Baptist, who said: if you do not observe human rights, God will turn these stones into new children of Abraham.
· 	She does not mind generalisations and victimisation per se, as long as it is 
Muslims and Christians are stereotyped and blamed for. “ Dr Patrick Sookhdeo, the director of the Institute for the Study of Islam and Christianity, has been addressing Christian groups up and down the country on the implications of 11 September. When he suggests that there is a problem with aspects of Islam, he provokes uproar’ . Well, if he would suggest there is a problem with aspects of Judaism, would she quote him with such am empathy? 
The Protestant Churches in the Holy Land hold a variety of opinions. On one end, there is a preacher of equality and liberty, Canon Ateek. On another end, there is a priest of the Church of Christ at Jaffa Gate, who supports Zeevi’s plans to expel all Gentiles from Palestine. Rather, 
 	84
he would like the Palestinian Christians to leave by their free will, while the Muslims will be 
‘transferred’. 
The Church of England did not make up her mind yet. The article in Spectator could be conceived as an attempt to scare some equality- minded clerics and suborn the Church. It is also a promotion paper for Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Wales and a contender for the see of Canterbury. He is presented as a great friend of Israeli apartheid. Williams told her, ‘When I hear “the Jews” used as a term, my blood runs cold ’. Probably it is meant to be a compliment, but it sounds like an anti-Semitic jibe: what is wrong with us Jews that our name chills a hot-blooded Welshman? (He became the Primate of the Church of England, and the C of E duly blessed the war on Iraq. But the day is not over yet!)
Christendom made a grave mistake by unilaterally abandoning ideological struggle against the Jewish paradigm. One should make a clear distinction between Jews as persons, and the Jewish paradigm as ideology. Jews are just human, and deserve to be treated and accepted as human. The Jewish paradigm should be confronted and counteracted. Two important issues were confused: the question of external relations, human and civil rights, human dignity on one side and ideological difference and variance, on the other side. They can, and should be treated separately. 
Two Sisters 
The two sisters, the Church and the Synagogue, forever struggle for the title of legitimate heir of the  Covenant of Abraham and Moses. It is not an abstract theoretical question for theologians: victory of the Jewish idea would complete neo- liberalist and globalist takeover of Europe and America. The question of relationship between Judaism and Christianity turns around the axis of Supercession. However, the Catholic Church developed recently a dangerous doctrine of ‘supercession and co-existence’, saying that, while the Old Covenant was superceded it was not voided. If it is correct, there are two Israels, one of the Old and one of the New Covenant, and that is a logical and theological nonsense. If one accepts this doctrine, one accepts Judaic approach: Christ was the founder of the religion for Goyim. 
For the last year, painful as it was for the inhabitants of the Holy Land, nothing caused me more sorrow than a single document called ‘the Reflections on Covenant by the US Conference of Bishops Committee’ 62. Some innocent folks probably expect the end of the world to come in the polychrome version of Revelation, with live dragons and beasts galore. But each generation has its own signs, and ours chose bureaucracy. Drab and bureaucratic language of the Reflections could not obscure its nearness to what could be described as the Apostasy of Church and Denial of Christ. 
The Reflections state, inter alia: 
 	85
While the Catholic Church regards the saving act of Christ as central to the process of human salvation for all, it also acknowledges that Jews already dwell in a saving covenant with God. However, it now recognizes that Jews are also called by God to prepare the world for God's kingdom. Their witness to the kingdom, which did not originate with the Church's experience of Christ crucifiedand raised, must not be curtailed by seeking the conversion of the Jewish people to Christianity. The distinctive Jewish witness must be sustained if Catholics and Jews are truly to be, as Pope John Paul II has envisioned, "a blessing to one another”. This is in accord with the divine promise expressed in the New Testament that Jews are called to "serve God without fear, in holiness and righteousness before God all [their] days" "Luke 1:74-75). 
In plain words, the Reflections deny the Mission of Christ and of St Paul and reduce Christianity to the second-tier- faith for goyim. Jews are already saved and need no Saviour –Caiaphas would repeat this line without hesitation. If the Gentiles wish to imitate Jews, while recognising Jewish inborn superiority, it is their business. For the Committee, Christ died in vain, and St Paul fought in vain. In the fateful Antioch confrontation, the emissaries of Jerusalem Church were right, while St Paul and St Peter were mistaken. Two-thousand-year-old struggle of the Church and the Synagogue was capped by this Capitulation Treaty. 
It is my deep conviction that the Reflections are wrong, on many various and
contradictory levels: 
1.	 	It is an act of cruelty to Jews. The Jews do suffer as they have no grace, while grace comes through Christ. Jewish Messianic movements, political involvement, troublemaking, Zionism, lust for power and money are caused by their subconscious desire for grace and communion with Christ. Yes, unbeknownst for themselves, the Jews desire Christ. Being told they do not need Christ would surely reinforce their blind and stubborn rejection of the only saving remedy. 
2.	 	It is an act of discrimination against our Muslim brothers who love Jesus Christ and His Holy Mother as much as we do. 
3.	 	It affirms the Zionist ideology of the Jewish "eternal covenantal right to the 
Holy land", the ideology causing so much of bloodshed and uprooting of 
memory of Christ from His land. 
4.	 	It is an act of betrayal of the Christians of Jewish origin, of Apostles and 
Martyrs, who died professing Christ. If the holy Martyrs were to repeat the 
 	86
words of the Reflections, none of them would be martyred, not even Jesus 
Christ and certainly not St Paul and St Peter. 
5.	 	It is an act of betrayal of the Christians of Gentile origin, as it places them at the eternal second-class position of people who have to work hard in order to become almost equal to the Jews. 
6.	 	It is a rejection of Mission of Christ. Rabbinic Judaism and Christianity parted ways on the relation of the Chosen people to the rest of mankind. Jesus turned all his followers, Gentile and Jewish, into the Chosen people, into the people of 
God. He erased the chasm between a Jew and a Gentile. Jesus, like Prometheus, brought the Divine Fire of Grace to mankind, while his adversaries had wished to keep it to themselves. He acted like a prince who ennobled all his people, while the old nobility has revolted against Him and had denied His sovereign right to ennoble whomever He wishes. In the Vineyard Parable, He proclaims His right to give the same reward to the first-called and later-called servants. The Committee denied Him this right. 
7.	 	It is a denial of Christ’s Divinity. By agreeing with the false Jewish claim that 
Christ is the Messiah expected by the Jews, the Bishops rejected Godhead, for the Jews do not expect a Divine Saviour. Christ is the Messiah of the Old Testament, yes, but the Jews did not and do not understand it. 
8.	 	It is a denial of the Mission of St John the Baptist. If a modern Jew does not have to be baptised, even more so the ancient Jews did not have to be baptised, nor did Jesus Christ. 
9.	 	It is the end of the Mission to the Jews, as if the Church rules they do not have to be baptised, they won’t. Not in the Catholic Church, anyway. 
10. 	It will have severe repercussions for the social fabric of Christendom. Christ eliminated the privilege of Divine Election by giving it to everyone who wants to take it. In most general way, Judaism and Christianity struggled as two paradigms, that of supremacy, and that of brotherhood. Now the Committee had accepted the paradigm of supremacy. 
11. 	A similar process took place in India, where the equality-based Buddhism was defeated by the older, caste-based Hinduism despite many successes. Since then caste-bound India declined spiritually and materially. Christendom will inevitably follow the same road. 
12. 	The Church has to re-assess its attitude to the Jews. Its present conciliatory 
attitude is due to the Rise of the Jews, a unique and unprecedented
 	87
phenomenon expressed in the mantra of ‘Three Great Monotheistic Faiths’. Theologically, it is meaningless, as the Jewish concept of Tribal God of Israel connects rather with Zoroastrianism than with the universal faiths. It is meaningless historically, as Jews were a constellation of small social groups in other civilizations. It is meaningless numbers-wise, as there are less Jews than Jamaicans. It is meaningless cultural contribution-wise, as probably the Jews are on a par with Welsh or Czech, not with the spiritual might of Christendom or Dar ul-Islam. It has just one meaning. Tiny Jewish community has as much money and power as a billion of Christians or a billion of Muslims. 
13. 	For Christians, (as opposed to the Jews and Calvinists), wealth and power are not the proofs of Divine Blessing. The wealth and power can be provided by the Christ’s adversary, the Prince of the World, who can give his servants everything but grace. In the millennia- long argument, the Prince of the World tries to prove people prefer him and wealth without grace, to God and grace without wealth. Once cho sen by God, the Jews have become the chosen tool of the Prince of the World, as we witness daily in Palestine. That is the source and meaning of their Rise. 
14. 	Now the Jews do to Christianity what the US did to the Soviet Union. Despite the sweet talk of rapprochement and co-existence, they try to undermine its foundations. It is not a chance coincidence that the Reflections were written in the city of the sex scandal, Boston. Continuing the simile, the Reflections usher in the Perestroika, and unless their authors will be stopped, the collapse of the 
Church is inevitable. 
15. 	While there is no place for violence in the inter-communal relations, the ideological struggle should not stop. The Church should audibly and strongly reject the ideas of the Reflections. The relations between the Jews and
Christians are those of competitors, and the Jews did not give up their old dream to reduce the rival. It is the right time for the Church to cease its apologies and to counteract the adversary in strength.
The Orthodox Church avoided the problem by skipping the idea of supersession altogether. The New Covenant is absolutely identical to the Old one of Abraham and Moses; Christ admitted Gentiles to the Covenant but it remained the same Covenant. “ The Covenant, established by God with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is the same Covenant which afterwards was established with the whole Jewish nation, and the same Covenant was established through Christ 
 	88
with those both Jews and non-Jews who believe in Him. As there is only one God, there is only 
one Covenant 63”.  
The Jews, who rejected Christ and rejected the Covenant, are OUTSIDE of the one and only Covenant. “Since God through Christ has opened his Covenant to the Gentiles, those, from the Jews, who do not consider themselves to be in one beloved Israel of God with righteous Christians from all other nations do not belong to Israel either and do not participate in the Covenant of God. There is only one way to participate in the Covenant - to believe that there is one Israel, one Covenant, one faith, since there is only one God. There cannot be two Israels, two or more different Covenants of God or two or more Gods64”. 
While terminology is different, the Apostolic Churches were of one mind: the Jews, who do not wish to be in the same Covenant with God as non-Jews, reject God. The word ‘Israel’ has two meanings. The first is ‘People of God’, and the Jews (like the Apostles) who chose to be in the same Covenant with Gentiles are part of it. The second meaning of ‘Israel’ is ‘Rebel against God’, and the Jews who , out of hybris, refused to be in the same Covenant, entered the state of rebellion against God. 
Consider a city where is just one hotel which admits everybody. A person who insists to stay in segregated hotel will sleep on the bench in the park; that is the good logic of Christian theology. However, there is a competing establishment, and it is run by the professional Rebel, the Prince of the World. Sooner or later, the proud vagabond will find his way to the Prince. 
We can come back to our previous interpretation. God wants to unite with Man as much as Man wants to unite with God. God chose Abraham and taught him the union. God chose Moses and tried to teach a whole tribe. He gave to Israel many precious gifts, including the gift of persuasion, for them to spread the knowledge among men. But Israel became intoxicated by the gifts and God’s choice, and instead of worshipping God, turned to self- worship. As Israel rejected God, he became a powerful tool of the Prince of the World.
(We can conceive it as a game between God and Satan, described in the book of Job: who of the two will win in free contest over the soul of Man). Then, God incarnated within Israel as Man. It was a Divine attempt to take over the tool of Satan, just as Satan took over this tool from God. The Jews rejected God again and killed him, as slaves kill the son of the vineyard owner in one of his parables, but mankind received the knowledge of God.
The Jews rejected God and God punished the Jews by withdrawing His grace. Man without Grace is but a nuisance to himself and to others. He can not settle but doomed to wander on earth, as a reminding to others: it is bad to be without grace. But the Prince of the World can give everything but grace, and he made a new deal with graceless rebels. They will do his will, and he will help them to succeed in earthly matters. That is the scaring explanation of earthly 
 	89
successes of George Soros and Marc Rich, of the Jewish state and of the American Neo-Cons, of Russian Jewish oligarchs and neo- liberals, of Freud and Milton Friedman, of Madeline Albright and Henry Kissinger. It feels that whatever they wish the y succeed: they ruin countries and pauperise nations, they cause wars and justify oppression, deny spiritual and upheld destructive carnal desires. 
It was particularly manifest during the 1991 Russian neo- liberal revolution, when suddenly the wealth of Russian people was snatched by a few predominantly Jewish businessmen. Seven out of eight greatest Russian oligarchs were Jews, and they owned bigger part of Russian media and resources. I could not believe my own eyes, but was forced to admit: the Jews were a major partner in this turn of events. The Protocols became reality for many Russians in these days. It was so shocking for people brought up on rejection of this thought, that a Russian thinker proposed as the only way out, the concept of great anti-Jewish conspiracy aimed to ‘frame’ the Jews. But the idea of anti-Semitic conspirators happily pushing billions of dollars to the Jewish pockets is at least as odd as the idea of Jewish conspiracy. 
Could it be that the Rise of Jews, or, say, the Jewish success is but a mirage concocted by our imagination? In order to remove doubts, one can read the Preface65 by Kevin McDonald. Another comp rehensive summary is given by Benjamin Ginsberg'sThe Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State66. Recently, the daring American philosopher Michael Neumann67 tried to show	 this power is not all that great, as ‘the Jews do not own the sinews of America’, but its med ia. But it reminds the famous bon- mot of Stalin, 'How many divisions has the Pope?' Neumann notes, quite correctly, that the Anglo-Saxon Americans own 'sinews' of America, from its oil to its steel, while the Jews' share of ownership is not that grand. Then, implicitly applying the Marx postulate on the primacy of means of production he concludes that the 'Gentiles' of America could do whatever they want and if they pay attention to the Jewish wishes, it is only because they wish so.
However, this idea of Marx is somewhat dated, for two reasons. One, a new phenomenon of financial capital, which exceeds real value of 'sinews' by factor of ten. A broker company, like the Soros fund, has more paper money at its disposal than any oil or steel corporation. This is the financial 'pyramid' of last ten-fifteen years. Second reason is more fundamental: the Jews, in my opinion, form an alternative church of America and the West. The Christian church was never as rich as big feudal lords, but it was the guiding light and the supreme organiser for centuries. Now, in the new church, the Jews form the Nation of Priests, an equivalent of Brahmins in Hindu civilisation. After long struggle, the Brahmins of India managed to undo the achievements of Buddhists, and a similar process takes now place in the West. That is the reason of Gentile America's compliance with the Jewish wishes. Neumann correctly says that the Americans 
 	90
rebelling against 'the Jewish power' are not likely to be shot at dawn. But that is the difference between a church and state authorities. As opposed to revolution against the state order, rebellions against the church are less frequent and rarely succeed, for the church is the most basic element of civilisation, in Toynbeean sense. Full refutation of Neumann was done by Jeffrey Blankfort, and his essay leaves no doubt to the extent of the Jewish power in the US. Similar research was done for other countries, and came to similar conclusions. 
One really can not explain it by ‘Jewish smartness’, as Kevin MacDonald tried. Indeed, “t he latest developments in human history can not be plausibly explained by rational material causes. Beyond all-too- human figures of big corporations, beyond capitalised Greed, beyond the paradigm of Domination, the faceless Destroyer has made his appearance on Earth as Lord Darth Vader on the captive planet68”. Indeed, these successes were an additional proof of the mystical nature of the Jewish People, as was noted by Fr Sergei Bulgakov, a great friend of Jews. He wrote: 
“Israel (in the meaning: The Jewish People) rejected Christ and was doomed to wander like Agasfer and fight Christ. It is a frightening and fateful image: on one hand, Israel is persecuted by Christian nations; on the other hand, Israel is an overt or hidden persecutor of Christ and Christianity. But it is not the worst element of his fate. The worst is that Christ-rejecting Israel is armed by the tools of the Prince of the World, and takes his place. Power of money, Mammon is the world-embracing Jewish power, notwithstanding the fact that big part of Jewry lives in poverty… The spiritual state of Israel is ambiguous : on one side, the belligerent adversary of Christianity, Israel is the laboratory of spiritual poisons targeting Christendom and the world. On the other hand, the religious passion of Israel does not vane. Israel is Christianity without Christ, even against Christ, but it seeks and aspires to Him only”. 
This explanation was commonly accepted for hundreds of years and denied only by thorough materialists of 19th century. We were brought up on this denial and accepted it as a dogma. Like a child in a Zoo who looks at giraffe and repeats, ‘such animal can’t exist’, I repeated our materialistic explanations. And only when they failed, I agreed with what the Rabbis and Priests told: the story of Israel is a manifestation of God’s design. 
For the troubles of Israel we described can be translated into the language of the
Prophets: ‘Israel forgot God’. 
 	91
Yuletide Message 
It is not a coincidence Christ was born in Judea, a day after the winter solstice, the darkest time of the year. It is not a coincidence that he was born in the family of Palestinian refugees from Galilee, hunted by the army to the caves at the edge of the desert. 
Son of Man could be born anywhere on earth, and would be received with great glory. Instead, he chose the darkest time and the darkest place, and the lowest position there is. He came as light comes, where and when it is most needed.
His birth in Palestine is sometimes understood as a sign of special election of the people he was born amongst. The Jews were chosen worthy to give birth to Christ, preach Evangelical Zionists in their drive to support Israel. Another Zionist outlet, Jews for Jesus, try and appropriate Christ as their coreligionist and a fellow Jew, a Saviour for the Jews. A whole PR industry promotes an idea of Jesus as a Jewish Rabbi, and of necessity for Christians to give tribute to Jews. 
But it is possible to read the text in the different light: Jesus chose to be born in the darkest time, in the darkest place, among people possessed by their dark idea. The Jewish paradigm of that time was a system of double morals, of mutual support combined with disregard to an outsider, of inward love and outward enmity. Christ chose to be born here as he felt: this idea is the most dangerous one the mankind faces, and it has to be taken on. 
The tradition tells, after his death, he descended to the netherworld and saved the souls of just. It is called Harrowing the Hell, and a visual presentation of this deed can be found in many churches, for instance, in the small apse of St Saviour monastery of Chora in Constantinople/Istanbul. His birth in Herodian Judea under Pharisee control was a prefiguration of his descent to Hell. He came to the worst place and saved the souls of just, of Peter and Paul, of John and Jacob and of other good men. Short three hundred years after his birth, and his idea of brotherhood of man won the day. Alas, the forces of darkness were not defeated. 
This idea of supremacy, of inequality, of being good to your kin and awful to the rest, is again the biggest danger mankind faces now, two thousand years later, when the world made a complete circle and came back to the same place. Bethlehem again bewails its innocents; a newer, better equipped version of King Herod rules in Jerusalem; the doctrine of double morality again spans the earth and captures the great empires. 
Still, one finds hope today: the darkest time is already behind us. Be merry! 
Yuletide Controversy 
Christmas greetings are supposed to be a pretty non-controversial stuff, but not anymore. 
The date of Nativity caused a heated polemics among my friends and readers. Lane, from Miami 
 	92
wrote, “it was my understanding that the actual time of Christ's birth was in September’. Shanaz from Saudi Arabia was of different mind: ‘Jesus was born in April, check it out’. Prof. John Williams from Virginia explained: ‘You may be aware that most historians believe that Jesus must have been born in September, under the sign of the Virgin. The Church moved his "official birthday" to just after the shortest day of the year in order to emphasize that he was the Light of the World’. And Bryce from Atlanta offered another date: “most scholars will agree that Jesus was born in mid-late October (a kindred Libran)”. 
* * * 
Such variety of proposed dates, and all of them ‘actual’, and agreed by ‘most experts’! Is it a meaningful controversy? Well, up to a point. There isn’t and can’t be any new historical knowledge about the Nativity that was no t available to, say, St Jerome of Bethlehem or Eusebius of Caesarea. As centuries and millennia pass by, we do not learn more about these times, we just forget. People of Bethlehem are not likely to remember the fact of birth of a humble refugee from Galilee. The church decided on the date on the basis of the best data available at the time. The persons who decided were men of great faith, curiosity, desire to establish true facts, and I see no reason to doubt their decision. 
Could the Church move his birthday in order to emphasize that he was the Light of the World? Before replying to this question, I shall quote an amusing booklet published in the second half of 19th century under the title ‘Napoleon as a Solar Myth’. The author ‘proves’, tongue-in-cheek, that Napoleon never existed, but he was just a new version of the Solar Myth, and his 12 marshals were, yes, you guessed it, twelve months or signs of Zodiac. In the same vein, one could argue that Sabbatai Zevi, the great Jewish prophet of 17th century, as an w invention, as he was born and died on 9th of Ab, the day of Destruction of the Temple. Many other important men were born on auspicious dates. Why would not Christ be born on such a day? 
Doubt of Nativity date hides a greater doubt, the doubt of divinity, doubt of predestination, doubt of God’s existence. If God exists, and if He arranged for the Star to announce the coming of Christ, is it strange that Christ would be born on the day of great importance to all mankind? No, it would be logical. The birth of Son of Man was a cosmic event, and it would be expected to happen on a special day. As he was the Light of the World, he was born after the winter solstice. Even more important, the darkest time of the year hints to the darkest place on earth. Jerusalem was the focal point of the system of double morals, of inward love and outward enmity. Christ chose to be born here as he felt: this idea is the most dangerous one the mankind faces, and it has to be taken on. 
 	93
This connection is overlooked by the evangelical Zionists, who misunderstand his birth in Palestine as a sign of special election of the people he was born amongst. The Jews were chosen worthy to give birth to Christ, they preach. One could think Christ was born in purple. The date is especially relevant as it confirms what we know: he was born in the Heart of the Darkness.
If you doubt Christ, then it makes sense to doubt the cosmically significant date of Nativity. And then you can find yourself on a wrong side of the frontline that goes through New York and Bethlehem, as the struggle is far from over. 
The Washington Times (28.11.01) published an interesting article called ‘Calendars for Advent appear more secularised’. Newspaper reporter visited a few bookshops in the US, from Barnes and Noble to Borders, and found that the Advent calendars dropped Nativity. There are mice, bunnies, Santa Claus, bears, ‘Nutcracker’, but no Bethlehem, no Nativity. ‘The stores do not want to offend any non-Christian shoppers’, offers an explanation an interviewee. 
Who are those ‘non-Christians’? Surely not Muslims, who commemorate the Nativity of Christ as much as anybody, and who are anyway disregarded in the US. There are not too many Neo-Pagans, either. So, why could not they write in less oblique way, ‘the shop owners feel the Jews do not want to see anything connected to Christ’? Probably because it would be a painful truth. The Orthodox Jews have even a special routine for Christmas. The preferred occupations are cutting toilet paper for the forthcoming month and suchlike, reported the local Jerusalem newspaper Kol Ha-Ir. Non-religious Jews forgot the reason why, but still keep fighting Christ and Christianity. 
Forward69, the most progressive Jewish American newspaper, dedicated a long article to Jewish Christma s customs. It refers to the traditional Eastern European‘	Jewish custom of playing cards on Christmas Eve’ and explains it: ‘ The most precious commandment for religious Jews is learning Torah.... The only time Jews would not learn was at times of personal or communal mourning — and on Nitlnacht. There would be no learning to bring hono ur and merit to the one that was born on that night (i.e. to Jesus Christ)’ . 
Jews would not say ‘Christmas’. Punning derogatorily in different languages on “ Christian words fo r this holiday, it turns out, was indeed a time- honoured (!) Jewish practice. For instance, Nitlnacht (a pun on nit, nothing, or on Hebrew nitleh, "the hanged one,"), Kratzmakh, (a made-up Yiddish word that sounds like "Scratch- me"), Taluy- nakht, "the night of the hanged man", blinde nakht, "Blind Night" (a pun based on the Ukrainian, in which sviatyi vechir, "sacred evening," was turned by Jews into slipyi vechir, "blind evening"), Khvoristvo (a pun on Ukrainian rizdvo, "Christmas," and Belorussian khvori, "sick."). “Some Yiddish speakers in Western Poland called Christmas beyz- geboyrenish, "Badly Born," playing on Polish Boze Narodzenie, "Divine Birth."  
 	94
Forward concludes: “It's clear, I think, why Christmas should have inspired so many Jewish puns. It was a day that Jews had an instinctive distaste for, it being the holiday on which Christians celebrated the incarnation of God in human form of all Christian beliefs, the one to strike the Jewish mind as the most absurd and repugnant.” Repugnant, no less! 
The Washington Times quotes Patrick Scully of the Catholic League: ‘We witness neutering of Christmas … Christmas suffered a direct hit from this secularisation. One is allowed to see symbolism in Kwanzaa, while a Nativity scene may mean a battle with the (heavily Jewish) ACLU’. As the Christians of the US prefer to avoid battle with ACLU, Israelis can battle the besieged Bethlehem with greater ease, but who knows, which front of this battle is the most important one? 
The American Jewish Committee, the ADL and other major Jewish supremacist organizations have worked relentlessly to forbid the singing of Christmas carols in schools and public institutions. They have made sure that Nativity scenes and Christian symbols are removed from community property, but they have worked for and even received court approval for Jewish Menorahs on public property. 
Take for instance a recent ADL guide for Jewish parents in their campaign against Christmas in public schools, called: Religious Issues in Your Child's Public School: A Guide for Jewish Parents, available on the ADL Website. 
Q. What is excessive when it comes to Christmas decorations on handouts and in 
the classroom? 
A. First, it is important to note that while Christmas trees, Santas, wreaths, wrapped gifts, and reindeer are commonly used as Christmas decorations or symbols, the courts have decided that they are secular symbols of the season. Nevertheless, their inordinate usage is inappropriate. Talk to the teacher about the plethora of Christmas decorations on the homework assignments. Explain that while you understand that displaying such graphics on workbook assignments is legal, such excessive use makes you and your child feel uncomfortable. Suggest alternative winter decorations, including snow flakes, gingerbread houses, and mittens that may be more inclusive. 
Q. Is it appropriate for teachers to hold Christmas parties and to allow those who 
don't observe to be excused? 
A. The students are being told, in effect, "Come to a fun party with gifts, food, and games, or go to the library for the afternoon”. While legal, this party is insensitive to those students who do not celebrate Christmas. With a few adjustments, this party can be a positive experience for all of the students. Instead of celebrating Christmas, the party can celebrate the winter season or a variety of holidays. Finally, since receiving gifts 
 	95
from Santa Claus is a Christian tradition, it is inappropriate in the public school classroom”. 70 The attempts to sow doubts about Christ are regularly done by some Jewish scholars, who usually try to downgrade Him. If he existed, they claim, he surely was just an ordinary bloke, a vagrant teacher from Galilee, who was born anywhere but in Bethlehem, anytime but on an auspicious date, and grew up anywhere but in Nazareth. If he existed he surely did not care about Goyim, non-Jews, they say. Why indeed a good Jewish Rabbi would care about the rest of mankind? (This is the underlying idea of the book of Hiyam Maccobi, for instance, where the Jewish nationalist writer claims Christ was a Jewish extreme nationalist, a Rabbi Kahane of his days). For Jewish scholars, media-owners, opinion- makers the fight against Christ was and still remains an important part of the agenda, and denial of Nativity is a weapon in this struggle. It is not the only weapon, and I shall give you an example. 
The Washington Post printed in its last Easter edition on the first page (not far from its usual glorification of Israel) a feature called ‘The Face of Christ’, containing a police -style e-fit. It showed a rather crude and brutish face of a man, with low forehead, darkish skin, eyes expressive of cunning, a type of lowly menial worker. It bore a caption, ‘Face of Christ’. Bold headlines advised the reader that now the latest tools of science were used in order to find out how Jesus Christ looked, on basis of some sculls found in Jerusalem. Well, 90 p.c. of the readership does not go beyond the bold headlines, into petite letters, and they would remain with a feeling that after all, a scull of Jesus was discovered, and he turned out to be quite an unpleasant fellow. 
Only careful perusal of the feature article shows the face being a reconstruction of a Jewish contemporary of Christ, based on a few sculls found in Palestine. The authors could call the brutish e-fit, ‘The High Priest of Jews’. They could remain neutral and unbiased and call the e-fit ‘a face of a Jewish (?) contemporary of Christ’, but they preferred the misleading legend ‘Face of Christ’, with its implication that Christ actually lo oked like a low criminal. 
With absolutely the same license, they could make a composite photo of a few women from the local old folks house and publish it as ‘a face of Marilyn Monroe’. But then, this newspaper has its own agenda. On this agenda, fighting Christ has higher priority, than debunking Marilyn Monroe. And this newspaper does not stand alone, but it liaises with other media outlets all over the US, Canada, England. The picture of ‘the face of Christ’ appeared in all of them, and afterwards, probably, in every major newspaper, as who would give away such a scoop? 
 	96
Struggle against Christianity and Christ is the raison d’être of Judaism, as Christ symbolises the end of Jewish chosen- ness. We are truly blessed that nowadays, the Jewish war against Chr ist is expressed just in the siege of Bethlehem and a ban on Christ in ‘Christmas’. 
Easter Offensive 
I 
The prevailing theological American idea could be called ‘Judeo-American’ approach, but its adepts prefer a rather misleading title of ‘Judeo-Christianity’. According to the teaching of Judeo-Christianity, there is not much difference between two rival religions. Christianity teaches that He came and will come again, while Judaism considers the Messiah who is Christ did not come yet, c’est tout. But reality is quite different. Christ is God, Messiah of Rabbinic Judaism is Man. Christ is God for all, Messiah is for Jews only. Judaism and Christianity are two diametrically opposing religious systems. A nominal Jew and a nominal Christian can be best friends, indeed, father and son, husband and wife, but ideologically they differ more than a Neo-Con and a Trot. 
 Christianity and Judaism offer two different, indeed opposing approaches. Their struggle is a natural competition. At first sight, the two sister- faiths are similar; both celebrate at Easter/Pesach their accepted sacrifice by a narration, the liturgy of Passion for Christians and the family narrative of Haggadah for Jews. But actually they could not differ more. The Jewish Passover narrative came as the response to the Passion story. In the Biblical Judaism, Passover sacrifice was carried out in the Temple. After Resurrection of Christ and destruction of the Temple, the old custom died, and the Christian Passion story came to be told and performed. The Rabbis created a brand new counter-Christian liturgy, the Passover Haggadah, a family recital of exegetic interpretations of the Exodus. Professor Yuval demonstrates that Haggadah was not told before the advent of Christianity; moreover, it was created as response to the mysteries of the Passion. 
Passion is a story of supreme self-sacrifice of the Chosen one for the sake of universal salvation, the Haggadah is a story of sacrificing the enemies and celebrating salvation of the Chosen ones. At Easter, Christians celebrate resurrection of one who sacrificed himself for us. It is affirmation of altruism to the highest degree. Jewish Passover has an opposite idea: it is our salvation and their death. Egyptians and the people of Canaan should be sacrificed, so we would live better, that is the Passover idea, the affirmation of national egoism. 
This difference is not a pure scholastic one, but a question of praxis as well. Since the rise of the Jewish paradigm, the prosperous nations sacrifice the poor nations so they would live even better. The growing poverty of the Third World is the proof of it. Look at the figures. Between 
 	97
1960 and 1980 per capita income in Latin America grew 73%, and in Africa, 34%. During the period of ‘economic liberalization’, or the rise of Jewish paradigm, 1980 to 2000, that growth plummeted to 7% in Latin America and in Africa it went into reverse - minus 23%.71
- Is it ‘work of Jews?’ – asks the reader. Surely not. The Jews and the Christians influence each other. When Christian influenc e prevails, Jews turn to more merciful interpretations, and become ‘a blessing to all’. When Judaic influence prevails, Christians behave like the worst of Jews. For we do not speak about ‘Jews’, but about ‘the Jewish paradigm’, which can exist without Jews as well. A person of Jewish descent is not necessarily a bearer of the Jewish ideas. There is no need to fight ‘the Jews’, but ‘the Jewish paradigm’ in all its manifestations. 
This paradigm does not stop at the border; it works in the ‘core country’, in the US, as well. There, the rich sacrifice the less affluent so they would live even better. A new study, Divergent Paths72, proved that ninety percent of young workers in the US now doing worse than they would have 20 years ago. Since 1980, only a small percentage of Americans improved their lot, while for the rest, the perspectives of ‘upward mobility’ are gloomy. In the best ally of the US, in Britain, the figures are even worse. Both these countries have now poorly educated youth and inefficient health care. In the same period of time, rich people became richer by far, tells the study; while the Jewish community’s average income became twice that of Gentile American. The result would be even more convincing if we would compare ordinary Americans with Neo-Jews, i.e. ideological supporters of the Jewish paradigm, i.e. neo- liberal ideas and Zionism. 
In Israel, an average Jew has eight times the income of a Gentile, while the gap between rich Neo-Jews and ordinary Jews is vast, as well. Nowhere the praxis of Easter/Passover dispute is obvious as much as in Palestine. When the Jews came to Palestine, they were quite poor. The British administration enacted a local statute allowing building only of stone in Jerusalem. Stone was expensive, Jews were poor, and the statute was described as ‘anti-Semitic’. In 1948, the Gentiles’ stone mansions of Jerusalem were confiscated and given to Jews, while the legal owners were pushed into refugee camps. They languish in poverty so we can live better. 
In the bare hills around al Halil/Hebron, Palestinian villagers have no water, and their flocks die near dried- up spring. The spring water goes by a pipe into the swimming pool of a Jewish settlement. It is also a realisation of the maxim, ‘let them die, if we can live better’. Us ing the Passover idea, the Talmud rules73 on priority for drawing water at a well, “need of a Jew to do his laundry takes precedence over the lives of Gentiles”. It is implemented in real life, in real time, in Israel. 
Theology is ideology, and there is no place for ideological compromise between these 
opposing paradigms. The perceived difference between the twain was stated by the sides as 
 	98
follows. A prominent modern Jewish scholar and editor of Talmud, Rabbi Adin Steinzaltz described Christianity as ‘simplified Judaism, adapted to the childish minds of Gentiles’. On the other hand, a grandson of a Rabbi, Karl Marx, wrote: ‘Christianity is the sublime Judaist thought, while Judaism is a sordid utilitarian application of Christianity’. 
Now, in these days, we should decide what to celebrate – the altruism of Easter or egoism of Passover. I would conclude with the marvellous words of Robert Leverant, “What the Jews are doing to the Palestinians is abominable. To participate in a service where the Jews are going to say “we are victims” is beyond my ability to stomach”.  
The war in Palestine became a part of the global war between followers and deniers of Christ. It is not an accident that at the same time, the Virgin in Bethlehem was shelled74 by a Jewish tank; in the US and elsewhere, the Jewish-dominated media75 began a vicious smear campaign against Catholic clergy; while in France, a film Amen denigrating the late Pope Pius came to cinemas. Suggestively, the Cross on the movie’s posters turns into Nazi swastika. 
Wait, - a reader proclaims. The Virgin was indeed shelled at fifty yards, but do not get carried away. The media just reported real or alleged sexual transgressions committed recently by Catholic priests in a few countries. That is the duty of the press. 
While report of every single misdeed may be true or not, their grouping lies in the eye of the beholder, i.e. the media. The media grouped the events into a single tendency, by picking separate events and creating a world-wide conspiracy of the priests to abuse children, a par with the blood libel of old. While they did it to priests, they carefully avoid doing it to the Nation of Priests. We read of ‘the wave of priests’ rapes”, but e never read of ‘Jewish financial machinations’. In such a case, there are ‘separate misdeeds of separate persons who happened to be Jews’. For instance, a small item in NY Times reported on alleged conspiracy between Goldman, Saks investment bankers and Robert Maxwell. These Jewish tycoons joined forces and swindled thousand English employees of Maxwell’s media empire. The workers lost their pension funds; Goldman and Maxwell pocketed the cash and shipped a share of it to Israel. While giving the facts, the NY Times avoided a reference to the perpetrators’ Jewishness. This praiseworthy political correctness is dropped when it comes to the Church. 
The present crisis in Zimbabwe provides another example. The media reported at length about the attempted framing of the opposition leader into an assassination plot against the president Mr Robert Mugabe, but the personality standing behind the plot and/or the frame-up remained unknown. Very few papers, among them a British weekly, the Economist, told its readers that it was an Israeli officer who claimed expertise on political assassinations. But the Economist avoided bringing up a long line of politicians who were kidnapped and/or assassinated by Jews and Israelis. Among them we would find not only old cases of a German 
 	99
ambassador in Paris in 1938, or attempt at Lenin’s life in 1918, or assassination of Lord Moyne in Cairo in 1944, and the UN Swedish envoy Count Folke Bernadotte in 1948, but fresh cases of kidnapping and assassination of the Moroccan opposition leader Ben Barka and a failed kidnapping attempt of a Nigerian minister in 1970s. The list of assassinated Palestinians would be too long for the article. Still, the newspapers did not write ‘Jews again at assassination games’, rightly avoiding generalisations. It is just for the clergy the generalising headline implying that ‘priests are paedophiles’ was found suitable. Thus, the Jewish-dominated media continues its struggle against the church, by applying double standard to misbehaving priests and misbehaving Jews. 
Pope Pius 
The factual side of Pope Pius controversy was described many times: accusations of Mad Goldhagen, reduction of Goldhagen’s arguments by Norman Finkelstein, many articles pro and contra, make it unnecessary to enter the subject. It is enough to say that during WWII, the NY Times praised Pius for being the only major figure in Europe who was not silent about racial persecution: “a lonely voice crying out in the silence of a continent ”. 
The attack on the Pope fits too neatly into general anti-Christian rant of the Jewish Hollywood, where Christianity is typically ortrayed as evil. For example, ‘ in the film Monsignor (1982), a Catholic priest commits every imaginable sin, including the seduction of a glamorous nun and then is involved in her death. In Agnes of God (1985), a disturbed young nun gives birth in a conve nt, murders her baby, and then flushes the tiny, bloody corpse down the toilet. There are also many subtle anti-Christian scenes in Hollywood films, such as when the director Rob Reiner repeatedly focuses on the tiny gold crosses worn by Kathy Bates, the sadistic villain in Misery76. 
“ Hollywood has portrayed Christians as sexually rigid, devil worshipping cultists, disturbed, hypocritical, fanatical, psychotic, dishonest, murder suspects, Bible quoting Nazis, slick hucksters, deranged preachers etc”, wrote J .W.Cones77, while Joe Sobran rightly concluded, ‘Pius XII isn't Goldhagen's ultimate target; Christianity is”. 
Here again, one is rather worried by lack of response. Instead of discussing whether the Pope spoke loud enough about the Jewish holocaust, why we do not discuss and do not see movies about active involvement of leading Rabbis with the current Palestinian holocaust? Lubavitcher Rabbi did not keep quiet, but called to genocide, and his call was supported by dozens of Rabbis in an ad in Haaretz. Why a poster with the Star of David and Swastika would be condemned by the US senate, while Cross and Swastika poster is displayed on the streets? Why Vatican lawyers do not activate ‘hate legislation’ of Europe against its creators? 
III 
 	100
 The Church’s desire fo r peace was misinterpreted by the supporters of the Jewish idea. After the Pope, while in the Holy Land, said the Catholic Church "is deeply saddened by the hatred, acts of persecution and displays of anti-Semitism directed against the Jews by Christians at any time and in any place”, the Washington Post's London correspondent T. R. Reidcalled the Church to scrap the Passion narrative, or re-write it totally. This call was repeated by a Conrad Black newspaper, Boston Globe columnist. But the media just repeats what some Christian clergy say. Richard Harries, the Anglican Bishop of Oxford and chairman of the Counc il of Christians and Jews, told The Times, “ I would far rather people come to belief in the living God through Judaism than have no spiritual home at all” . 
I am not too surprised. The councils and other dialog groups between Jews and Christians became an arena of fierce competition: who is more pro-Jewish of the two.78 There is no reciprocity. While the Bishop practically calls his flock to renounce Christ, Israeli Parliament (Knesset) debates the Zvili & Gafni Bill proposing up to a year of jail for quoting the New Testament or even referring to Christ and Christianity in a positive way, let alone joining the Church. Gafni was awarded with the desirable post of Israel Ambassador in France, and not even one man in the Favoured Daughter of the Church protested this affront. The Christian clergy, who gave up Christ and preferred the Jewish paradigm, should contemplate the words of Christ: ‘You are the salt of the world, but if salt loses its saltiness, it is thrown away’. They are not needed, as Rabbis would manage without them as well. 
IV 
Nothing attracts as much as success, and these are years of spectacular success for the Jewish paradigm. More Holocaust museums were built, stronger became the US support for Israel. In 1956, a Jew in the US earned as much as a Christian, and the US could order Israeli troops to leave Sinai. Now the average income of a Jewish community member became twice that of a WASP, and the US administration obediently jumps the loop for Sharon.
‘Is it good for the Jews?’ was the standard question of my grandmother. A radical Jewish kid, I rejected this question, saying, ‘What is good for everybody is good for Jews as well’. My grandmother was not so sure. Now I am not so sure myself. It seems the trends and interests of the people and of the corporate Jews diverge again, after a hundred year long interlude. After all, traditionally ‘the Jews’ sided with the king against the people. 
While ‘the Jews’ made this U-turn, there are many Jews who remained with the people, against corporate Jewry. They are our wonderful comrades in arms. Finkelstein and Chomsky, to name just a few, supplied excellent weapons for the people in the war of ideas. Our situation is not unique. Many Whites in South Africa choose to be for the people, not just for Whites. Many aristocrats choose to be for the people, not just for their class. Many Americans struggled against 
 	101
America during the Vietnam War. Now it is our turn to be ‘against our own people’, with the 
people and for the people. 
Freddy Comes Back 
The religious teachings of the Talmud imbued many Jews with a cavalier approach to Gentile property and life. Even non-religious Jews carry this psychological burden from past. If we compare the Jewish faith to an exhilarating drink containing various resins and spirits, the post-religious Jew is left with poisonous brown sediment. That is why non-religious Jews in the governments of post-war Poland and Czechoslovakia supported the transfer of ethnic Germans in 1945, and why in 1919 the heavily Jewish government of revolutionary Hungary in 1919 massacred its opponents on a huge scale. Zionists exceeded all by coupling massacres and transfers. 
The Jews are not unique, many nations and states did the same. However, there is remarkably little remorse among Jews for the transfers and massacres. The strange behaviour of Benny Morris, the Israeli ‘New Historian’, bewildered many friends. How could the historian of al-Nakbah become a spokesman of the Israeli right-wing? A few days ago Israeli TV carried out a lively discussion on the advantages of transfer. Not everybody supported the notion, but the transfer-supporters were not ostracised. They sat with smug smiles and called for mass murder and expulsion, citing the previous transfers as proof of legitimacy. On Israeli TV news the leading item announced the death of an Israeli sergeant, and followed with a casual reference to the fifty Palestinians killed. 
This ruthless and shameless behaviour is born of the chasm artificially cleft in the Jewish mind, between Jew and non-Jew. In the chain of ‘Jew – Gentile – Animal’ the difference between the first two items is much bigger than the difference between the second and third, postulated the Taniya, a compendium of Cabalistic teaching. This notion sits in the subconscious of many Jews, religious or not. 
While the evil supporters of Sharon slaughter Gentiles without the slightest remorse, many good Jews object to Sharon’s actio ns as they would object to the cruel treatment of animals. Actually, on the walls of Tel Aviv houses there are more posters protesting the inhumane feeding of geese than deploring the mass murder of Palestinians. 
The Talmud preaches compassion for animals, as we learn from the following fable. A sheep on the way to the butcher tried to find refuge with Rabbi Judah the Prince, who pushed the animal away and said that it is normal for a sheep to be slaughtered. As he had shown no mercy to sheep, God withdrew His mercy from him, and the holy Rabbi suffered for many years of 
 	102
kidney disease. Years later he prevented the killing of wasps, and this sign of compassion made 
God reverse His judgment.
But there is a profound lack of compassion towards non-Jews. They re frequentlya compared to animals, but while there is a duty to save an endangered animal, there is no obligation to save a Goy. This paradox of compassion for animals and lack of feeling towards Gentiles causes many abnormalities in the Jewish outlook. 
Despite good feeling towards animals, people do not hesitate to sell them, slaughter them, separate them and move them whenever it is deemed necessary. We do not consider it a sin or an objectionable behaviour. Lady Macbeth lost sleep because of bloodshed, but a person with a traditional Jewish outlook would not have felt badly at all. He would remain his cheerful self after killing Palestinian peasants in Kafr Kassem in 1956, or Egyptian POWs in 1967, and indeed, Russian and Hungarian gentry in 1920, Germans and Poles in 1945, Iraqis and Afghanis in 2002. 
Such a person would not be marked by an impression of homicidal mania because he would consider himself a perfectly sound man. I have met many professional killers and torturers in Israel, and none of them have experienced pangs of conscience. An old judge of the High Court, Moshe Landoi, permitted ‘moderate’ torture of detained Goyim, but their cries did not disturb his sleep. He is still honoured by his colleagues and the media. In an interview, a Shabak official Ehud Yatom boasted that he had smashed a Palestinian prisoner’s head with a stone 79. He could not comprehend why anybody would find that objectionable. When his career suffered a minor setback, he was supported by many MPs and by the Israeli public. Eventually he became an MP. 
This deep conviction in our own righteousness makes us Jews so unusual. It also makes the job of good Jews more difficult. We do not cause enough annoyance. Jewish Nazis are quite tolerant towards Jewish liberals: the parties ha ve a strained but comfortable relationship of hunter and vegetarian, not of hunter and the hunted. Rare Jewish radicals of al- Awdah and suchlike groups break the complacent mould when they reject the very idea of a Jewish state and of the eternal People of Israel. 
The peculiar feeling towards a non-Jew is manifest in the Jewish endogamy, the tradition of marriage within the creed. In the Talmud, copulation with a Gentile equals bestiality. Even in Twentieth Century, the Jewish writer Sholom Aleichem describes his good Jew, Tevie the Milkman (the Fiddler on the Roof), doing full mourning rites for his daughter who had been married a Gentile. Just last year, Mortimer Zuckerman, the owner of many American newspapers, divorced his Gentile wife in order to be elevated to the top of the US Jewish community, reported Haaretz. 
 	103
Furthermore, marriage outside the creed is considered a rejection of Jewry. A good man, the late Professor Yeshayahu Leibovich, an avowed enemy of Israeli occupation, nevertheless considered such a marriage a ‘betrayal of the Jews’ and the Jews married outside the flock as ‘deserters’. 
Children of mixed marriages are often misled as to their status vis-à-vis the Jewish community. Whatever they are being told by their well- meaning parents, they are often	 considered as impure bastards and unfit for important positions in the community. The community will use them, abuse them and discard them. This pattern is seen in Israel, where the children of mixed marriages serve in the army but are buried outside the fence if they die for the Jewish state. It would be better for them, while having a moderate interest in their origin, to throw their lot with the folk who accept them fully. 
The present rise of the Jewish idea is not the first one. It is similar to Freddy of the Elm Street Horror movie: whenever this concept materializes, it causes genocide. The Biblical story of Joshua’s total genocide served as a model for genocidal Hasmoneans; the mass murders of Bar Kochba led to the slaughter of gentiles in Yemen and Palestine, Cyprus and Alexandria. They were exceeded by the large scale genocide practiced by the Jewish rulers of Khazaria. The genocide of Palestinians will not be forgotten, either That is why I believe the bloodthirsty spectre of a Jewish state should be laid to rest. 
We can offer a different idea, that of equality. After all, the real chasm is not between Arab and Jew; it is between enemies of equality and the rest of us. Long time ago, St Paul said that Christ brought peace between Jews and Gentiles. His words are valid, despite attempts of Goldhagen and Judeo-Christian apologists to rewrite history. The present Israeli leaders committed horrible war crimes and lost the last vestige of their legitimacy. There is an urgent need to establish a new legitimate leadership for the whole of Palestine, following the example of the South African ANC, a leadership that represents all the religious and ethnic communities of Palestine. 
The Bloodcurdling Libel
(a Summer Story) 
I 
Summer heat presents a great challenge to the non-air-conditioned world. When thermometers soar into the roaring forties (or into triple digits for Fahrenheit adepts), mankind slows down and seeks salvation in watery and shady places. Families with children depart for seashore, and elegant couples perambulate to the mountains. But the most sophisticated defence against sticky sweat and discomfort was discovered by the inventive Japanese. On the hottest summer nights, they gather around and tell bloodcurdling horror stories, chilling spines and 
 	104
sending goose pimples to their silky smooth skin. In July, all Tokyo cinemas screen favourite horror movies, from Kwaidan with its host of ghosts to Godzilla meting out vengeance on New York. After such films, the Japanese bravely face the suffo cating heat. 
This summer, the Japanese example was emulated by David Aaronovitch in the British weekly, The Observer. In order to chill blood of his English readers, he turned to “Blood Libel”, recurring story of Jews kidnapping Christian children, killing them and “using their blood in arcane rituals. We had a spate of these tales in England in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, and many Jews lost their lives as a result”, he wrote. “So what on earth is the blood libel doing in a column in the respected Egyptian mass daily paper Al-Ahram, in a book by the Syrian defence minister and in broadcast sermons from various Palestinian mosques?” asks Aaronovitch. He explains that “the libel in question is the 1840 Damascus case, in which several Jews (including a David Harari) 'confessed' to the Ottoman authorities- under torture - to kidnapping a priest and stealing his blood.” 
The priest murdered in Damascus was hardly a child, but it does not stop Aaronovitch. He knows nothing of the case, but it does not stop him either. He just KNOWS a Jew has to be innocent. Aaronovitch is not alone. Jackie Yakubowsky in Sweden and a plethora of his brethren from New York to Moscow remind their readers the sins of Damascus. If you ran an internet search, you would find this expression used extensively whenever a Jewish scribe is unhappy with an accusation levelled at a Jew: be it Marc Rich escaping with his billions from the tax authorities, George Soros impoverishing Malaysia, Ariel Sharon accused of mass murder before a Belgian court, or Muhammad ad-Durra shot in the eyesight of millions of TV spectators, it is always a case of Blood Libel. It does not have to be connected to children and blood anymore. Whatever Jews do not like is ‘antisemitism’. But if a truly unpleasant accusation is aired, the best defence is to roll your eyes to heaven and proclaim, ‘It is Blood Libel’. 
‘Blood Libel’ is the Jewish battle cry, on a par with the ‘Montjoie St Denis’ of the French chevaliers and ‘St. George for merry England’, of the Engl ish knights. And whenever it is used, Jews are mobilised into action, and Gentiles are horrified by the accusation and silenced. 
 	105
When the toll of murdered Palestinian children rose into the hundreds and began to attract attention of international organisations, the spirit of the blood libel was promptly ushered forth as the ultimate defence for the killers. It helped, even though the head of Shabak, the Israeli Secret Service, wondered in a prime-time TV interview why so many children were being gratuitously murdered by Israeli soldiers. 
The scaring expression can be used against disobedient Jews as well. When Edward Herman, the author of Manufacturing Consent80, wrote of “the powerful pro -Israel lobby in the United States, which advances Israeli interests by pushing for U.S. aid and protection to Israel, and, currently, by pressing for a war against Iraq, which again will serve Israeli interests. This lobby has not only helped control media debate and made congress into `Israeli occupied territory’, it has se en to it that numerous officials with ‘dual loyalties’ occupy strategic decision-making positions in the Bush administration…”, a Jewish American filmmaker David Rubinson wrote to me and called Herman’s words ‘the ultimate blood libel’. My own reference to murdered Palestinian children was described as ‘blood libel’ by The Jerusalem Post, the far -right daily published by Conrad Black. 
The frequent and tendentious use of the horrifying label (together with ‘antisemitism’ and ‘protocols of the Elders of Zion’ ) brought a certain depreciation of its value, but it is still going strong. You can’t ever -ever consider that there might be some truth to the Blood Libel, the accusation of ritual murder of children. Or can you? The Blood Libel was recently aired by the Observer, the weekly that published Aaronovitch, and nothing happened. Here is the press clipping: 
(Insert clipping) 
‘Torso boy’ was sacrificed 
by Martin Bright and Paul Harris 
A boy whose mutilated torso was discovered floating in the Thames in London was brought to Britain as a slave and sacrificed in an African ‘religious’ ritual intended to bring good luck to his killers. 
Genetic tests on the boy – found last September with his head and limbs removed 
and wearing orange shorts – point to West African origin. 
Further analysis of stomach contents and bone chemistry show the child, aged between four and seven, whom police have named Adam, could not have been brought up in London. Detectives are now working on the theory that he was bought as a slave in West Africa and smuggled to Britain solely to be killed. 
Experts of African religion consulted by police believe Adam may have been 
sacrificed to one of 400 “Orisha” or ancestor gods of the Yoruba people, Nigeria’s 
 	106
second largest ethnic group. Oshun, a Yoruba river goddess, is associated with orange, the colour of the shorts that were put on Adam’s body 24 hours after he was killed in a bizarre addition to the ritual. 
From analysis of his clothing police believe Adam may have arrived in London from Germany. His fate shocked the West African community in Britain. The vice-chairman of the African Caribbean Development association, Temi Olusanya, said: “This crime cannot be tolerated in African religions. Murder is murder”. The Observer. Now you have recovered your breath. Now you are relaxed. It’s Blacks who commit ritual murders, not Jews. Who cares? In Raymond Chandler’s Farewell, My Lovely, a news-hawk enters the scene of a crime literally awash in blood, learns from a policeman that the carve-up was done by Harlem dwellers, exclaims: ‘aw, hell, shines’, and drives away. For some reason an accusation of ritual murder by Blacks is not called ‘Blood Libel’, just as genocide of Blacks or Armenians is no ‘Holocaust’. 
"If Palestinians were black, Israel would be a pariah state subject to economic sanctions led by the United States," The Observer editorialized after the outbreak of the Second Intifada. Oh no, if Palestinians were black (and only some are), slavery would be re-established in the United States, and the great Jewish sage Maimonides’ maxim ‘Blacks are less than human’ 81 would be embossed in gold on the US dollar. Indeed, Afro-American ‘Israel’, Liberia, for 160 years of its existence received less US aid than the Jewish ‘Liberia’, Israel, in a month. 
Why accusation of Blacks in ritual murder is taken so easily, while accusation of a Jew creates waves in the conscience? Can we deal with the accusation of Jews in the same straightforward, unattached and businesslike manner The Observer and the Scotland Yard dealt with similar accusation of Blacks? For if not, our self-declared anti-racism is not worth a penny.  Jews do not mind some blood- libelling. Palestinian parents are habitually blamed by Jewish scribes of ritually sacrificing their own children by exposing them to the justifiable fury of Israeli soldiers. In an article called Child Sacrifice, Palestinian Style a Reuven Koret (Capitalism Magazine, November 13, 2002) marks: “the Palestinians started sacrificing their own sons and daughters as a matter of policy, as a sacred ritual” 82 The Jerusalem Post wrote of Palestinian “parents and leaders who proudly send children to die in attacks against Israel and resort to targeting Israeli children as well” 83, while the singularly malicious Cynthia Ozick wrote: ‘But the most ingeniously barbarous Palestinian societal invention, surpassing any other in imaginative novelty, is the recruiting of children to blow themselves up with the aim of destroying as many Jews as possible in the most crowded sites accessible’. 
 	107
For some reasons, practically none of the Jewish readers84 wrote to these publications and protested ‘blood libel’ or ‘wholesale accusation of the entire community nefariously used to spread hatred and inflame racial animosity to the point of murder and massacre’, as David Rubinson protested both Herman’s essays and mine. Apparently it is OK to accuse a whole community as long as it is not a Jewish community. Blood Libel is also OK as long as Jews are the accusers, not the accused. 
However, it is the belief in Jewish (not Palestinian) ritual child murders that was widespread and persistent. The old Jewish Encyclopaedia, Vol. III, 266, lists the following cases, beginning with William of Norwich: 5 other cases given for the twelfth century, 15 for the thirteenth, 10 for the fourteenth, 16 for the fifteenth, 13 for the sixteenth, 8 for the seventeenth, 15 for the eighteenth, and 39 for the nineteenth, going right up to the year 1900 (total 113). There have been more cases in the 20th century85. What is the reason for this belief? Was there a world-wide and centuries-spanning conspiracy to implicate innocent Jews in heinous crime or is there a crime behind accusations?  
II 
This question was tackled by fearless Professor Israel Yuval of Hebrew University in Jerusalem in his seminal book86, available in Hebrew. Its English translation was supposed to appear a few years ago in California University Press, but for variety of reasons this has not happened yet. It is certainly sheer coincidence that some American Jewish scholars objected to this book being published and called to ‘erase it from public conscience’. 
Yuval discovered actual irrefutable child murder beyond the Blood Libel. During the First Crusade, impatient folk tried to forcibly baptise Jews of Rein Valley in order to save their souls from the satanic cult of hate, as they saw it. Their refusal to be baptised was seen as stubborn adherence to Satan: for the pre-modern people, our present religious indifference was unacceptable. They saw a direct connection between faith and behaviour, and felt the need for communal worship, for unifying communion. A Jew permanently residing in a Christian land created a complicated situation: he was free from duty of brotherly love and could (and often did) act in anti-social way, for instance he practiced usury and sorcery. The Christians were particularly worried by the well-attended Jewish custom of cursing Gentiles. Every day Jews asked God to kill, destroy, humiliate, exterminate, defame, starve, impale Christians, to usher in Divine Vengeance and to cover God’s mantle with blood of goyim. Israel Yuval’s book offers its reader a good selection of bloodcurdling curses. 
The Crusaders were non-racists. They did not think the Jews were irredeemably evil, but they rejected the ideology of hate and vengeance expressed in the curses. They also feared the curses, as much as Jews did. (In modern Israel, cursing is a criminal offence punishable by 
 	108
prison). Indeed, for Jews and for Christians of that time the curses were not just silly offensive words, but potent magic weapon. They offered Jews expulsion or conversion, this old-style equivalent of our modern psychological treatment meted out to adepts of totalitarian sects. At that time, the Slavs and the Scandinavians were also forcibly baptised, and it made eminent sense to baptise the Jews living in the Christian lands as well. 
However, the Jews did not take the attempt to bring them into New Israel lightly. Whenever the ‘danger’ of baptism became imminent, many of them murdered their own child ren and committed suicide. It is not deniable: Jewish and Christian chroniclers of the period describe these events at length, with Jews glorifying this Waco- like behaviour, and Christians condemning it. Did they murder the children in order to save them from Christ? Well, not exactly. That would be bad, but the reality was worse. The murder was performed as ritual slaughter followed by victim’s blood libation, for the Ashkenazi Jews believed that spilled Jewish blood has a magic effect of calling down Divine Vengeance on the heads of the Gentiles. Others used the victim’s blood for atonement. In Mainz, Yitzhak b. David, the community leader, brought his small children into the synagogue, slaughtered them and poured their blood on the Arc, proclaiming ‘Let this blood of innocent lamb be my atonement for my sins’. It happened two days after the confrontation with Christians, when the danger passed by.067879436 
The picture of Jews slaughtering children for cultic reasons exerted huge impact on the Christian peoples of Europe. This behaviour was not comparable to Christian martyrdom. While Christian martyrs allowed others to kill them for their faith, they never committed suicide, and certainly never murdered their (or anybody else’s) children for such purpose. It enforced an image of Jewish cruelty and ruthlessness. Over the years, the actual circumstances of the child murders were forgotten, but the picture of a Jew slaughtering children remained imprinted in the European matrix. (Yuval uses the thesis of Robert Graves, who explained many traditions of the Church by its misreading of old images.) This was the source of the idea that Jews murder Christian children, while in fact, Jews murdered their own children, writes Professor Yuval. 
Indeed, Blood Libel accusations appeared soon after the murder of children in Germany. 
Yuval speaks with horror about these accusations, completely missing the point: a ritual murder of a child is a ritual murder of a child. If some Jews committed this heinous crime in Mainz and Worms, and other Jews exalted this crime as exemplary behaviour even in Israeli historical books written in 1950s, is there any place left for indignation and horror concerning similar accusations in Norwich or Blois, or indeed in Damascus or Kiev? If Yuval thinks that a Jew can use only Jewish blood for libation to wake up af Adonai (the fury of Yahweh), in some 
 	109
cases, the kidnapped child was circumcised before being murdered, i.e. ‘made a Jewish child’. 
And for atonement, even lamb’s blood will do. 
Numerous medieval stories about Jews killing their children for visiting a church or for considering baptism do not surprise. Parents and relatives of converts went into full mourning for converts. Even in the 20th century, gentle Tevye the Milkman, an ideal hero f Sholem	 Aleichem’s Fiddler on the Roof, mourned his baptised daughter. The mourning rite for a person alive is a traditional magic means to kill the person. Greater believers in the power of magic probably died of it, as Frazer tells us in his enormous collection of lore. If you try to kill somebody by magic means why restrain yourself from more mundane killing? 
Over a period of eight hundred years Jews were convicted in more than hundred cases of ritual murder and blood sacrifice Jews were found guilty of. It is a reasonable amount if we think in terms of religious maniacs. Probably any religious community of similar size would produce similar amount of deviants like [the 15th-century marshal of France] Gilles de Rais or Comorre the Cursed [a 6th-century Breton chief]. It would be strange if all the cases were ‘libel’. The concept of the magic powers of blood was embedded in the Jewish thinking. Blood was used for atonement libation. Yes, it was lamb’s blood, but in the Mainz case, it was children’s blood t hat served in its place. In the Christian world, there were people who practiced black magic and human sacrifices in a perverted ‘Christian’ ritual. They would substitute human blood for wine of communion that is the blood of Christ that is the blood of Paschal Lamb. Is it reasonable to think that the Jews never ever produced magicians and sorcerers who would use human blood to wash off sins or to hasten Salvation? 
III 
On the other hand, it is possible that the connection of blood sacrifices and matzo of Passover or homentash of Purim is but a popular belief. The mystic idea of libation could be misunderstood by simple people. Yuval explains it by a combination of different traditions and their misinterpretation.
Jews hated Christianity with all their hearts and had many magic ceremonies at the time of Easter, Purim and Passover, directed against Christ and Christianity. They made dolls attached to a cross and burned them or defamed them in various ways; they desecrated host and parodied communion. The custom of ‘leaven eradication’ on the Passover morning was also meant to symbolise and to lead magically to the eradication of goyim, writes Yuval. Occasionally they killed priests and nuns. Prayers of Passover were full of anti-Christian references, some of which have survived to the present day, namely Shepoch Hamatha, a prayer demanding God’s  vengeance upon goyim, and Aleinu Leshabeyach, a prayer describing Christ and His Mother in most blasphemous terms. 
 	110
The Christians mentally bridged these phenomena, writes Yuval. If Jews hate Christ and Christians, desecrate host and were seen murdering their own children in a ritual way, probably they murder others’ children in connection with Easter or Passover, as well, thought the Christians according to Yuval. But in his opinion, though the basic facts were right, the conclusion was not. Jews did not use blood for matzo, he writes.
However, the belief of Jewish usage of blood for matzo can be explained better than by general hatred to Christians. In Jewish Passover rites, a small piece of unleavened bread, called afikoman was the symbol of the Paschal Lamb. It was hidden at the beginning of the Passover Seder. One can imagine a mystic who would give a direct literal meaning to the metaphor of Afikoman as the Paschal La mb. It was claimed by many Jews who left the fold and joined the Church, and they also noted that afikoman was baked secretly and separately. Some of them explained that blood was not added directly into dough, but burned and its ashes are used in a ritual reminiscent of the Red Heifer purification. 
For Israel Yuval, a believing Jew, any evidence given by a convert is ‘suspicious’ and ‘doubtful’, but it is part of longstanding Jewish tradition to discredit non-Jewish evidence. Likewise, the Israeli ‘New His torians’ have just confirmed the data obtained by their Palestinian colleagues, but their confirmation of 1948’ horrors made a big impact in the West, as non-Jewish research was considered ‘suspicious’ and ‘doubtful’ in the Jewish -dominated discourse. For non-racists, there is no reason to doubt evidence given by non-Jews or ex-Jews. For if the objection to converts is based on rejection of renegades per se, one should object to evidence of the authors of Darkness at Noon (Arthur Koestler) and Homage to Catalonia (George Orwell), or even David Aaronovitch, for they gave up their communist faith for another one.
The converts knew what they said, and Yuval confirms it. For instance, a convert in Norwich explained that ‘Jews believe that without human blood shed they can’t regain their land and their freedom’. It is, according to Yuval, a correct interpretation of the Ashkenazi idea of Vengeance as the path to Salvation. “Jews actually believed that their Salvation depends on Extermination of Gentiles”, he writ es. Yes, they hoped God and/or their Messiah will do the work, but does this caveat amounts to an alibi? 
If I hope and pray that John will kill my enemy Harry, and Harry is indeed found dead, don’t my hopes and prayers serve as a strong reason for suspicio n against me, rather than a full alibi? ‘Oh no, he hoped John would do it, so surely he could not have done it himself?’ 
This recalls an immortal line by Raymond Chandler87. His private eye Marlowe discovers a handkerchief with fitting initials on the scene of murder. The suspect, a well-bred young lady on intimate terms with the victim, indignantly rejects his suspicion. Marlowe ironically calls out: “This hanky bears your initials, and it was found under victim’s pillow, but this rag stinks of 
 	111
cheap synthetic sandalwood, and you wouldn’t use a cheap scent. And you just never keep your 
hankies under a man’s pillow. Therefore this has nothing to do with you! Isn’t it too elaborate?” 
IV 
The last public discussion of blood sacrifice took place less than a hundred years ago. In 1911, in Kiev (now the capital of Ukraine, then a major city of the Russian Empire) Andrew, a 12-year old student of a church school was brutally and unusually murdered. There were 47 wounds on his body; his blood was drained off while his mouth was gagged. It appears the murder had a ritual character, as did the murder of the Torso boy in England of our days. It could have been done by a Satanist, by a fanatic, or another obsessed person. Could such a person be of Jewish origin? Yes. Could the murderer have been driven by some peculiar misconceptions of the Jewish faith? We have seen that the answer is ‘yes’. 
However, 400 Rabbis wrote a letter to the authorities and to the court denying the very possibility of such a miscreant. In a mass paroxysm of hysteria, Russia was divided between believers and disbelievers in the ritual murders. The Liberal media accepted philosemitic thesis: Jews can’t kill. Certainly not in a ritual way. The Tsar wisely enquired how somebody can be as sure as the 400 Rabbis. He touched the most important point. 
There is no crime that Russians, English, Americans, French or Chinese, or alternatively, Christians, Muslims, or Buddhists would say that their fellow countrymen or co-religionists were unable to commit. We know that humans are capable of both to highest inspiration and to basest cruelty. Human sacrifices were known to all nations, even to the Greeks (Iphigenia) and Hebrews (Jephtah). However, the Jews, whose religion contains the religious duty of genocide (Amalek), the religious duty to curse Gentiles, who actually practiced ritual murder of children (albeit their own), were ready to vouch for co-members of Israel: Jews could not do it. This extraordinary degree of tribal solidarity positioned Jews in a separate category. Not a nation, not a religion, but a mutual protection syndicate. 
‘It is an accusation of the entire Jewish people’, the Rabbis wrote. It was a lie: only one man was accused, and later found innocent. But their approach was tactically useful: masses of Jews from New York to Moscow were mobilised to defend Beyliss. Liberal public opinion in Russia, Europe and America supported them. 
Only one man of note, Vasili Rosanov88, a brilliant maverick, poet, writer and religious thinker, once forgotten but now rather popular in post-Soviet Russia, was convinced that Andrew was martyred by Jews, though not necessarily by Beyliss. (The Russian intelligentsia ostracised him) Previously an extreme philosemite (he had planned to convert into Judaism) he was touched by dreadful fate of young Andrew and upset that none of Beyliss defenders cared about 
 	112
the cruelly murdered child. He wrote an interesting memoir 89, trying to prove that Jews actually 
practiced human sacrifices. 
He dabbed with Cabbala, drew diagrams of ndrew’s wounds worthy of his contemporary Alistair Crawley, and quoted many verses from the Old Testament, Talmud and even New Testament dealing with blood. In his conclusions he referred to the Jewish custom of sucking the blood of a circumcised member, and to rather cruel Jewish [animal] slaughter rules (now banned in some European countries). His most interesting insight was quite surprising even for a lapsed Christian he was: he considered that Old Biblical Judaism, the forerunner of Christianity, knew and practiced human sacrifices; as otherwise, (he reasoned) Christ would not offer Himself as a supreme sacrifice. Rosanov saw in Isaiah, 53 (he was pierced for our transgressions etc) – not a prophecy of Christ’s Passion, but description of actual human s acrifice at the Jerusalem Temple. The worship in the Jerusalem temple of Yahweh was extremely bloody indeed, and Mishna tells of rivers of blood pouring forth from under its altar. It was condemned by prophets and made the Temple a living anachronism by the time of its destruction. It was probably a reason why the temple was not rebuilt, but Rosanov’s insights, whether true or false, have no direct bearing on the question of human sacrifices in 20th century. 
Have no doubt: one can find many quotes in the Bible, Talmud and later Cabbalistic books in support of human sacrifices. Dahl, the 19th century Danish author of a short treatise on the murders, referred to Numbers 23:24 (‘drinks the blood of his victims’) and to many other verses. We are better equipped for such research than the contemporaries of William of Norwich or Andrew of Kiev, for we have better texts. For instance, in 1913 the experts would not have been able to find such a quote from Talmud90: “It is good to pierce a goy even on Yom Kippur if it falls on Sabbath day. Why ‘pierce’, instead of 'slaughter'? Because slaughter demands blessing, while one can pierce without blessing.” Now we have it in print in new editions published in Israel. It is usual to view such quotes as a sign of the exaggerated hatred of Talmudic sages towards ordinary people. But there could appear a mystic, a black magician, who would see it as the instruction for Yom Kippur sacrifice, kapparoth.
However this is not a proof that such cases were numerous, or that this tradition was widely spread. Moreover, the scholars who have studied the phenomenon and came to accept it for a fact, concluded that such cases were rare, and remained unknown to vast majority of Jews.
Rosanov was as wrong as the Rabbis. They had no business to deny a priori a possibility of the crime being committed by a Jew. They were wrong in claiming that ‘all Jews’ were accused. Rosanov could not be as sure as they were, either. He did not have to turn blood sacrifices into the cornerstone of Judaism. However, while facing the united philosemitic front, he allowed his pugilist nature to take over his better self. We shall reject his attitude as unfair 
 	113
and prejudiced. Indeed, the idea of human sacrifice and of blood as atonement is well known to Christians and Jews; thus the ritual murder of Andrew could have been done by persons of Jewish or non-Jewish background. At best, Rosanov’s book might convince a Jewish mystic to try his hand at ritual murder and blood libation. 
But the Jews took up the case as the case against all Jews. The Beyliss defence team tried to frame one of the key trial witnesses, Vera Cheberiak. She was offered a huge bribe by an advocate who admitted that he had met her at his initiative in dubious circumstances. Her own children were killed ‘by persons unknown’. In 1919, after the Bolshevik victory, she was arrested and roughly mistreated by the Jewish commissars of Kiev Cheka. She refused to retract her statements, insisted that she had spoken the truth and was executed after a 40- minute ‘trial’ 91 
In the same year 1919, the Soviet Department of Education convened a commission to find the final truth about the blood sacrifices. It consisted of four Jews and four Christians. Simon Dubnov, a Jewish historian, participated in the commission, and in his memoirs he wrote: ‘the Russian members did not exclude possibility that there could be a secret Jewish sect practising ritual violence. The Jewish members of the commission were certain it could not happen at all.’ 
Alexander Etkind, our contemporary, a Russian Jewish scholar of religions, and an author of authoritative book on Russian sects, wrote in his review92: “We can be more open nowadays. I do not consider it is impossible that among Jews there were a cruel and secretive sect. I studied the Russian sects, some of them can be described as bloody, vicious, murderous. I am not aware of similar Jewish sects, but I can not exclude their existence a priori. Apparently, my feelings are more close to that of the Russian members of the commission than to the Jewish ones’. 
In the long history of Blood Libel studies, this was the wisest remark ever made. Alexander Etkind was right, while David Aaronovitch was wrong. A well known Jewish cabbalist and mystic Yitzhak Ginzburg, the head of an Israeli Yeshiva Od Yosef Hai, actually confirmed it when he recently told the American newspapers, ‘a Jew is entitled to extract liver from a goy if he needs it, for life of a Jew is more valuable than the life of a goy, likewise life of a goy is more valuable than the life of an animal’. Such people won’t see a difference between animal and human sacrifice. 
V 
The question of ritual murders divides mankind, but it is not a division of Jews versus Gentiles. The real division is equally sharp: on one side, philosemites, Jews and Gentiles who a priori exclude a possibility of a Jewish guilt. If they find a dead body and a Jew with knife next to it, they would exclaim, ‘Not another blood libel!’ On the other hand, normal people, Jews and Gentiles who are ready to consider all circumstances of each case, without prejudice, as 
 	114
proposed by Alexander Etkind. A philosemite a priori excludes a possibility that a cruel or ritual murder was committed by a Jew; he is a naïve racist, at best. Mr Aaronovitch has no knowledge of the Damascus case. The murder occurred in 1840, a long time ago. He just presumes a Jew can’t be guilty, full stop. 
The Damascus suspects were tortured, and therefore their confession is invalid, writes Aaronovitch. Torture is evil, but in Israel, suspects of ‘terrorist crimes’ are invariably tortured. According to Amnesty International and other Human Rights Watch bodies, tens of thousands of Palestinians, including children, have been tortured in the cellars of Shabak. However, Aaronovitch never tried to doubt any Israeli conclusions achieved by torture. 
The murder victim was a priest, and it pushes Aaronovitch to classify the case as ‘antisemitic blood libel’. But priests, nuns and monks were killed by Jews. Hundreds were slaughtered in Antioch in 610, and thousands in Jerusalem in 614. Monks and priests are being killed even now in Israel. For instance, a few years ago, a settler Asher Rabo killed a few monks with an axe and splashed their blood on the walls. He was apprehended by a monk from the Jacob’s Well monaster y, and was found insane by an Israeli court. Later, two Russian nuns were murdered with an axe in the St John the Baptist monastery. Practically all murderers of priests and desecrators of churches and mosques were found insane by Israeli judges, but there was a system to their insanity. 
Aaronovitch presents the Damascus case as ‘libel against all Jews’. But it was just one person who was accused of the murder. At the same time, Farhi, a Jew of Damascus, had ‘more money than the Bank of England’, (wrote a travelling Englishman) and managed the treasury of St Jean d’Acre. If an accusation against one Jew is an accusation against all Jews, there is no way to correct small errors by small measures.
Indeed, the philosemites of Aaronovitch ilk brought incredible calamities to mankind and to Jews. They excluded a priori the possible guilt of Captain Dreyfus or Beyliss. Instead of standing aside and allowing the justice to take its due course, they created mass hysteria in France and Russia, thus obtaining acquittals but also undermining popular belief in the judicial system. After Dreyfus and Beyliss trials, Jews rose above the law. This caused the backlash of the 1930s, and the back-backlash of our days, and will probably cause a back-back-backlash of tomorrow.
In a better world, Dreyfusards and Beylissists would be sentenced for contempt of court; for their unspoken axiom was ‘a Gentile may not judge a Jew’. One should not believe or disbelieve ritual murders. The ability of men to commit crimes is well known, and there can be monsters like Dr Hannibal Lector of The Silence of the Lambs. Some of them are led by their peculiar interpretation of the Holy Bible. In our days the president of a superpower sent his 
 	115
shock troops to attack a small and weak country and killed thousands of men, women and children for he believed God wants it. (Yes, this God was Mammon, as the witty Polish philosopher93 noted.) He would have done better to quietly sip the blood of babies. 
Jews of our days rarely know they are supposed to eat matzo on Passover, let alone afikoman. They are blissfully unaware of the troublesome legacy of medieval Jewry. But a few things have survived from those times. 
The thought to write this essay came to me as I watched the body count of massacred Palestinian children grow daily. Since the start of the Second Intifada on September 29, 2000, 2,237 Palestinians have lost their lives. This total includes 430 children who were killed; 228 kids were under age 15, and 202 others between 15 and 17 years old. This is more than all the children that Jews were accused of murdering since William of Norwich. Why should one think of the old accusations, when there is a fresh new and incontrovertible crime? 
Because the new murderers enjoyed the traditional cover-up. The system of cover- up was not created yesterday, it was inherited from the Middle Ages, when the Jewish communities were ruled by the omerta code of loyalty. A criminal is not supposed ever to surrender a fellow criminal to justice. This approach was integrated into the inner life of Jewish communities. They even adopted a criminal label ‘moser’ (an informer), one who informs non-Jewish authorities of crimes perpetuated by Jews against non-Jews. Such a moser is ‘ben mavet’: he may be and should be killed by any Jew94, preferably on Purim or Passover, but Yom Kippur is also a suitable day. For instance, a Jew who learnt of a raving fanatic who committed ritual murders was not allowed under pain of death to inform the Gentile authorities of the crime. This medieval attitude is still with us, as it found its new life in the philosemitic concept of a priori innocence of Jews. 
In other words, a philosemite who rejects the very idea of a crime committed by a Jew is a potential accessory to murder. Let us look again at the cutting from the Observer. Why did it cause no spurts of indignation? Does it mean 'we can't compare Jews and Schwartzes'? Or does it  	116
mean the Blacks have no sick and depraved need to stand up for every other Black95 regardless 
of the gravity of the crime? 
And now it is the time to disclose the real crime behind the allegations, for this crime is still with us. Hundreds of Jews knew of the satanic plan by the ‘Avengers’ led by Abba Kovner to poison millions of innocent German civilians, men, women and children – and not even one reported it to the police, let alone tried to stop it. On a minor note, just today the leader of the German Jewish community expressed his ‘wholehearted support’ for repulsive Michael Friedman, ‘the man who turned his Jewishness into useful tool’, in the words of Haaretz’ Benny Zipper96 and was found sniffing coke in the company of Ukrainian whores. This inner quasi-criminal solidarity of Jews - standing up for Sharon, standing up for Mark Rich, standing up for Michael Friedman, and harbouring every evildoer if he happens to be a Jew or to be good for Jews, - that is the real crime behind the Blood Libel, for it has caused the murder of hundreds of Palestinian children, with the silent approval of philosemites. 
VI 
Paradoxically, Jews tend to harbour criminals because their world view is so different from the Christian one. The deepest chasm between Christianity and Judaism is not located in the murky area of sacrifices. Jews believe in collective salvation, guilt and innocence, Christians – in individual salvation, guilt and innocence. That is why a sin committed by a Christian has no bearing for the rest of Christians. A Christian is free of guilt by virtue of Christ’s incarnation, death and resurrection, by virtue of his own baptism and communion. But Jews also bear no collective guilt in Christian eyes. 
For a Jew, the admitted guilt of one Jew would turn all Jews into guilty ones. That is why for Jews, all Christians (or all Germans, all Palestinians etc) are guilty for an offence committed by some of them. That is why non-Jews are always guilty in Jewish eyes. Americans are guilty because their fathers did not collect all the Jews to their bosom in 1930s. Christians are guilty because their ancestors did not like to be cursed and occasionally mistreated the cursers. Germans and Palestinians, Russians and French – everybody is guilty towards Jews in Jewish eyes. 
This Jewish idea of collective responsibility spreads nowadays into Christendom. The Germans are obsessed by their feeling of guilt, and in masochistic apotheosis buy the Goldhagen’s spew. The Catholic Church even asked forgiveness of the Jews. It is good for a wrongdoer to ask forgiveness from a wronged person. But acceptance of the Jewish paradigm of collective guilt is an error of judgement, as well as a theological error. We are free from guilt. The Church is free from guilt. And Jews – modern Jews – are free from guilt for whatever their 
 	117
ancestors did. Even if medieval Jews harboured a murderous child-killing sect, Jews - our 
contemporaries – are free of guilt. 
Now, when the talk of the Blood Libel is used to induce guilt feelings in modern Europeans, one has to admit: the Christians were rather wonderful to this hateful group of my ancestors: they were always ready to receive them as equals, as beloved brothers and sisters. Just think of it: the Jews daily wished the Christians to drop dead, while the Christians wanted the Jews to join them and be saved. The generosity of the Church was fabulous - even Jews who committed cruel murder could save themselves through baptism. 
I think of it when I read Goldhagen’s attacks on the Church, or other Jewish writing condemning the Church for its ‘antisemitism leading to the holocaust’. Gratitude is not a strong point within the system of Jewish moral values. In 1916 Weitzman promised to the British the eternal gratitude of the Jews, and they sent their soldiers to die in Gaza, Beersheba, Jerusalem and Megiddo for the Jewish national home. By 1940 the eternity was over, and Jews began to hunt and kill British soldiers. In the World War Two, the Russians took in all Jewish refugees, lost millions of their soldiers and saved the Jews. Instead of gratitude, they compared Stalin to Hitler, spoke of Russian pogroms, and demanded (successfully) to introduce sanctions against Russia. Lebanese Maronites allied themselves with Israel, only to be dropped like a hot brick at the time of withdrawal. But ingratitude to the Church was the most extreme case. 
Christians perceived the Jews as people possessed by a demon, and they were indeed possessed by a demon of hate. It was not racial, but an ideological and theological group, and by giving up the ideas of hate a Jew could join mankind. The Jews were treated like Neo-Nazis in modern society: repulsive and hateful creatures to be kept at arm’s length but to be fully forgiven if they forsook their errors. Many Jews were received in the Church, and some became saints, like St Teresa, and some became bishops, and some became nobles, and some became teachers and scholars. But the most important thing they received from the Church was full release from the spirit of hate. They were released from doubt that people love them and they went on to love people – not only the chosen ones, but everybody.
VII 
However, we can offer another and more important reading of the ‘blood libel’. The pre -modern people were naturally Jungian: they used myth in order to convey their thoughts. Medieval Jews were harbingers of capitalism and globalisation, the tendencies that were to prove perilous for children and for the future of ordinary men. They were usurers, and usurers ‘suck the lifeblood’ of their debtors even in modern usage. Thus, an accusation of blood sacrifice was a powerful ‘scarecrow’, a metaphoric warning to potential borrowers to stay away from the usurers, and to be suspicious of burgeoning capitalism. 
 	118
We use metaphoric scarecrows now, too. The government could say ‘do not use marijuana, for we are heavily invested in wine and liquors, and besides, we want you to relax by shopping and not by smoking pot’. But they scare the public with pictures of heroin addiction: destitute families, health hazards and social consequences. Marijuana is not heroin, but without frighteners people won’t heed the warning, the campaigners thin k. 
Poor people of the pre- modern days had no teachings of Marx, and they used the language of myth. Indeed, all victims of ritual murder belonged to the working classes, and belief in the Jewish ritual murder was widespread among the poor who were the first to suffer from the advent of capitalism. On the other hand, the royalty and upper classes were usually supportive of Jews and punished those who complained of ritual murders. In some countries, the complainers were punished by death, while in Russia, the Tsar forbade even considering the possibility of ritual murder by a Statute of 181797. Indeed, the ruling classes were not afraid of capitalism and usury. 
However, this warning scheme worked until Christians succumbed to the temptation of usury in the age of religious tolerance and ‘blood-sucking’ stopped being an exclusively Jewish occupation. Mme Bovary, this charming and all- too-human character of Flaubert, was ruined by a French usurer who trapped her by allaying her fears with soothing ‘I am not a Jew’ . Then, the old frightening myth was put in abeyance for it ceased to be relevant. 
The world became civilised, whole communities and countries became indebted, while citizens have gotten trapped into mortgage repayments and consumer credit. With the victory of capitalism and spread of globalisation, the chances for ordinary children of growing up, finding good satisfying work and living peacefully in their own home and community as their parents did, took a nosedive. The great danger to our children is not a marginal Jew on the fringes of society, but the very structure of society; and it calls for an altogether different cautioning myth.
Part Three. Messiah
The Origin of modern Jews 
Many modern scholars reject the idea of biological continuity between the Jews of Talmud and Jews of our days. Arthur Koestler in The Thirteen Tribe, using theory of Prof. Pollak, came to conclusion that the European Jews are descendents of Khazars. Prof. Paul Wexler of Tel Aviv University corrected his theory in his groundbreaking book, Ashkenazi Jews, and demonstrated that we are mainly descendants of various Slav and Turkish tribes, converted into Judaism a thousand years ago. He based his findings on study of Yiddish, the Jewish language of Eastern Europe. 
 	119
Another concept of modern Jewry’s genesis was offered by a bright Jewish young man from Warsaw, Abram Leon, who died in 1944 in Auschwitz. Just before his capture by Gestapo, this ex-Zionist-turned-Trotskyite completed his only book, the short and brilliant Jewish Question: A Marxist Interpretation. This book defines Jews as a ‘people-class’, as a social strata with some quasi- national qualities. According to Leon, the medieval Jewry was a motley collection of outlaws who wished to deal with usury and similar occupations. 
A descendent of Jews who would rather work the land, would leave the Jewry. A Christian who desired to become a usurer or tax farmer, would become a Jew, wrote Leon. He quotes in his book some documented examples of Polish nobles who decided to become Jews in order to engage in banking. Poor Jews gave up their Jewish-ness, as the Jews of Sicily; rich and proper Jews who wished to join the civil society of their lands, embraced Christianity and were ennobled. The remainder were those who choose anti-social occupations: usury, smuggling, sales of alcohol and drugs, slave trade and white slave trade. In other words, it was a semi-criminal group, akin to Guild of Thieves and to Gypsies – another ‘people-class’ of the Middle Ages. 
In G. K. Chesterton’s short stor y, Purple Wig, there is a Duke of Exmoor, who hides his ear under an unusual purple wig. Folks tell of his deformed ear he inherited from his accursed ancestors, like a sign of devil, and they pity him. Whoever will see the horrible ear, will certainly lose his mind, goes the legend. Only modest catholic priest Fr Brown was not afraid. He took the wig off the Duke, and everybody saw his ordinary ears. The Duke turned up to be a rich Jewish financier, a Mark Rich or Conrad Black of his days, who bought the title of Exmoor complete with the legend of the Curse.
Whether you accept the reading of Leon or Koestler, of Boaz Evron or Paul Wexler, there is no ‘guilt of deicide’ , no ‘racial qualities’, no ‘predestination’ . But also, there is no great antiquity, so pleasing to our vanity, no basis for the claim to the land of Palestine. Position of Leon became the accepted line of American Trotskyite groups. 
However, it is not the only possible reading of history. Lev Gumilev denied the theory of mass conversion of Khazars. This expert on Khazars thought that the Jews ruled in Khazaria, like their brethren ruled in post-Revolutionary Russia and in the modern US, over non-converted Gentiles. Then there were no great masses of converts. 
Perhaps modern science will be able to answer this question. Genetic labs of Tel Aviv University try to prove that the Jews are of one stock. Meanwhile they publish few inconclusive results, which do not exclude some Mediterranean origin of modern Jews. Apparently, some Jews are of Palestinian origin, while some are descendents of converts. Similarity of some Jewish genes and that of Palestinians could become a bridge for racially minded people into 
 	120
happy future of integration. But this integration needs a religious component in order to
transform Jewish immigrants in Palestine into another Palestinian tribe. How can it be done?
Messiah Now! 
The rise of anti-Christian Jewry is a symptom of the despotic world of right-wing fantasies. Christ stands for the great idea of fellowship of Man, of our communality, of us being joined in spirit. Noam Chomsky expressed it in his way: “the US carries war against the Catholic church, as the church chose to stand by the poor and oppressed people in Latin America”. Looking deeper we understand that this choice was not a question of chance, but it was caused by the communal idea of Christ. It is difficult to rob and skin people you share communion with. 
The spirit of communality found a response to removal of Christ, by bringing forth Communism, a new messia nic faith, a new incarnation of Christianity. The Left’s purpose was a daring attempt to regain the Kingdom of Heaven upon Earth, to bring Christ back. It was not only about food and housing, but a great human desire for the single communion, for uniting spirit that moved Communists. Prominence of Jews within the Left made the Jewish rejection of Christ its vulnerable spot, caused severe distortion in the history and ideology of the Left. Russian Revolution would pass without bloody excesses if the revolutionaries would not fight church and faith. This fight broke the spine of Russian history, it created a schism between Russian people and Communist ideas, it was unnecessary and hurtful. Socialist revolution is not a picnic, but in China and Vietnam it passed with much less bloodshed, as there were no elements dedicated to demolish faith. 
Jewish revolutionaries of Russia gave up their dead Jewish faith and induced the Russians in return to give up their living one. It was not a fair deal: Jews retained their particularity, while churchless Russians were de-ethnicised. There were attempts of Obnovlentsy, a Russian church movement, to reconcile Christ and communism. On the level of art, it was expressed by Alexander Block in his glorious poem, The Twelve, this crown of revolutionary subconscious. Through darkness and snowstorm, Block’s Twelve Russian revolutionary soldiers, unruly and godless, follow the unseen figure of Jesus Christ. If this move would be met by communists, if Trotsky and Zinoviev, Kaganovitch and Sverdlov would dare to enter the communion of the Russian church, the messianic communist upheaval would sweep Russia and we would live today in a different world. They did not dare, and Communism failed. 
Similar processes took place in the West. Though the Jewish revolutionaries were sincere men and women, they failed to rid themselves of supremacy tradition, and their achievements were used to full extent by their less scrupulous brethren. The latter saw in the Left movement just a means of group advancement, and eventually turned their back to socialism when it 
 	121
fulfilled its role and removed the old elites. That is why the Jews en masse deserted the Left after 
1968 revolution, and the cause of the Left had failed. 
In a similar way, Zionism failed, as it was another Jewish attempt to bring Messiah forth. Father of Zionism, Theodor Herzl tried to save Israel by taking them to Palestine, but a few years before that, he dreamed to lead his people into the faith of Messiah with the bells a-tolling and folks calling Halleluiah. But then he saw the harshness of their hearts and preferred an easy way of conquering Palestine, getting rid of native population, terrorising the Middle East and building a Jewish state. He thought it was easier than to deliver the Jews. It was easier, but quite useless: the lofty ideals of messianic Zionism could not be achieved without recognising Messiah. 
Why, actually? Consider a small band of chosen soldiers sent to deliver a secret message to a remote city. They had to cross unknown and hostile territories, encounter unexpected dangers and deliver the secret. It stands to reason that they would be instructed to trust nothing and nobody, to remain aloof, to use and misuse strangers in order to fulfil their all- important mission. It is a long way, and the soldiers get used to the idea. The right to use and misuse is quite a convenient right, and they manage not too bad. By the time they get to their goal, they remain a close-knit group, utterly hostile to the surroundings, devoted to keep their message in secret and are unable to deliver it. Eventually the message gets to the city by other means, it became a part of daily life for everybody, but this group of old soldiers still feels besieged in the hostile territory, still preserves its message, long time known to the world. It is time to tell them: you were fine, you made your best, and you delivered the message, now you are free men in the city of free. Disband, mix freely, and enjoy the world saved thanks to your message. 
Those who refuse to join mankind should be treated as Japanese soldiers in the jungle of New Guinea still fighting and hiding fifty years after the war was over – with strict compassion and psychological help. From this point of view, the present philosemitic wave can provide a good support to these misled persons. 
Zionism became poison without Messiah: not in vain, the religious Jewish scriptures (“the instructions to the soldiers”) forbade gathering of Jews in the Holy Land before the days of Messiah. The “instruct ors” knew what we have forgotten: such a gathering, unless by accepting Messiah, would be used by Antichrist and will poison the earth.
Indeed, we came into this sweet Land and devoured it like locust. We uprooted olive trees. We caused the springs to dry and a tree to wither. We expelled and imprisoned its people. We wasted the limpid waters of the underground caverns. We sliced strategic roads through the mountain meadows. Now we are locking ourselves in a high-rise ghetto surrounded by the double ring of barbed wire and endless hostility. Inevitably we re-create the way of life of our 
 	122
much-hated ancestors in a Polish schtetl. One can not escape oneself. We carry Exile in our 
hearts and that is why we create Exile. 
 Why Messiah would change Zionism into a marvellous thing? In the days of Messiah, all restrictions will be lifted, teaches Talmud. Commandments and prohibitions will be cancelled. By accepting Messiah, the Jews become free from tenets of the Law, and join mankind. It was known to Sabbatai Zevi, a 17th century Messiah: in Jerusalem, he blessed the Lord Who releases from Prohibitions, over prohibited food. (He went a long way, became a Muslim while keeping a crypto-Jewish identity, but did not dare to do the full Monty.) It was known to Rabbi Nachman of Bratzlav, a 19th century Messiah, who “fulfilled the Law”, much like Jesus, in the course of one night spent in the Holy Land, and became free from prohibitions and commandments. It was hinted by Nachmanides saying that a touch of Holy Land is more important than the prohibitions and commandments. 
It is felt by the Zionist settlers, and Rabbi Ariel, one of the more radical settler Rabbis lamented, “we believed that by encountering the Holy Land, the Jewish hearts will be united with the heart of the land. But for majority of Jews our settlements failed to restore that sacred linkage”. Rabbi Ariel did not understand why the scriptures connected the miracle of ‘sacred linkage’ with the miracle of Messiah. That is why he did not understand the reason of failure. There is no way around it: the only way leads via accepting the faith of Palestine, and via total integration with the main mass of the descendents of the holy people of Israel, the Palestinians. 
Mystics would say that those who can accept Messiah and join the Palestinians, are true sons of Israel coming back after long exile; while those that fail to accept their Palestinian brothers are descendents of Leon’s profit seekers attracted by privileges of the chosen people. That is why Israeli Jews’ turn to Messiah and to their Palestinian brothers, an acceptance of one communion would separate grain from waste, and complete the redemption. 
A Jewish joke tells of an American Jew who complained to God: ‘I have sent my son to Jerusalem, and he became a Christian!’ – ‘It happened to me as well’, replied God. This joke still can become true, as the ‘Jews’ of Israel are looking for their spiritual meaning. They can’t find it without Messiah. 
The long history of the Jews is a proof of unavoidability: the Jews had become rich and powerful, and had got the Holy Land, but instead of reuniting with it, only ruined it. A folk tale tells of a thief who was caught stealing cucumbers. The judge offered him a choice of three punishments: to have the cucumbers pushed up his arse, to be flogged, or to pay triple. The thief chose the first punishment, but by the third cucumber regretted it and asked to be flogged instead. By the twentieth lash he regretted it as well, and agreed to pay triple. Thus, for his stubbornness he got all three punishments instead of one, and was forced to do the thing he tried 
 	123
to avoid, namely, to pay for cucumbers. Such a thing happened to us, Jews: despite all the 
trouble we went through, we still have to do the thing we did not want to do in the beginning.
Now, for Jews denial of Christ has had the same dire consequences as for others, namely it arrested their spiritual development. There were hundreds of minor Jewish poets and writers, but none of them reached spiritual or creative heights. Wealthy Jewish men and organizations spend huge sums on promoting their meagre achievements, and some became widely known and read, but none could be described ‘a great artist’. Many Jews oversee the arts, support artists, own galleries, write art reviews, and it creates the illusion of artistic involvement and of ‘immense Jewish contribution’. Although in fact, position of Jews in arts is similar to that of eunuchs in the seraglio: much activity but little result. 
It was well expressed by a brilliant thinker of Viennese fin-de-siècle, Otto Weininger. Man of Jewish origin, he was a harsh critic of Jewishness and committed suicide at 22, leaving behind his compelling if dated bestseller, Sex and Character. He wrote: “The Jew rejects transcendent, he wishes to make the world as ordinary and insipid as possible. The Jew prefers such understanding of the human history that eliminates Spirit from it. The Jew is unable to reach religious or spiritual ecstasy”. These qualities are necessary for a poet or painter of genius, and as they are absent, the Jewish art remains imitative at best.
It is not a question of race or inherited abilities. There were brilliant poets of Jewish origin – Brodsky, Pasternak, Mandelstam, Tuwim, Heine – but all of them accepted Christ. The Nobel laureate SY Agnon also wrote a short story full of love to Christ, and Rabbis demanded this story to be destroyed. In Middle Ages, the only important spiritual figures of Jewish origin were those who rejected Judaism and accepted Christ, like St Teresa of Avila and St John of God. 
The second row is formed by those who did not quite made it, they rejected Jewishness but did not found Christ. Isaac Deutscher calls them ‘non-Jewish Jews’, those who “transcended Judaism, as they found Jewry too narrow, too archaic, and too constricting”: Spinoza, Trotsky, Freud. 
This lack of real Jewish creativity is based in the Jewish tradition, which encouraged learning and discouraged originality. On a deeper level, Judaism proclaimed the principle of Divine Non-interference, which is denial of spirit. Talmud contains an archetypical story of an argument between an inspired man Rabbi Eliezer b. Horkenos the Great, known as the author of Pirkei Rabbi Eliezer, and the collegium of Rabbis. R. Eliezer asked God for sign to prove he is right: ‘if my interpretation is right, let the walls of the House of study prove it’ and the walls began to cave in. ‘The walls have nothing to do with it’, Rabbis replied. ‘Let God be my witness’, he said, and the Divine Voice witnessed that Ra bbi Eliezer was right. But the Rabbis 
 	124
said: ‘the keys are given to us, and the Torah is with us, not on Heaven’. They rejected God’s mercy and involvement, closed the doors and remained in this world, supplanting the Lord Most High with the Prince of the World. Such rejection of Divine intervention is good for study, but deadly for spirit. This dispute was followed by two thousand barren years in Jewish spiritual life. 
The spiritual reason of this bareness was well expressed by Rabbi Isaac Mayer Wise, a champion of liberal Reform Judaism and "the most active and renowned rabbi in the United States" in the nineteenth century. His words were engraved on a memorial tablet in the Memorial Hall of Temple Emanu-El, the great Reform Judaism synagogue in New York City: "American Judaism. A religion without mystics or miracles. Rational and self-evident, eminently human, universal, liberal and progressive. In perfect harmony with modern science, criticism, and philosophy and in full sympathy with universal liberty, justice and charity. 98" But a rational religion without mystics or miracles is not a faith of God; as it slams the doors of Creation in the face of Creator. In other words, it is worship of the Prince of the World. 
III 
There are two ways of solving the ideological confrontation in Palestine from theological point of view. One of them, preferred by liberal forces, leads through separation of Synagogue and State, creation of a secular state and a "normal" Western development. It would be possible in a separate Jewish state if it would be created on a lone island in the ocean, or less likely, if the Jewish settlers in 1948 would stay on the seaboard of Palestine. But as they annexed Jerusalem and brought in masses of semi-religious Jews from North Africa, this possibility became nonexistent.
There is a second, incredible but more plausible solution, by going through darkest levels of Jewish subconscious, to arrive into the Messianic age. It is eagerly expected by thousands of Jews. This expectation is so strong hat Messiahs appear galore, the latest beingt the late Lubavitcher Rebbe. His portraits bearing the legend "Messiah" cover the walls of Israeli homes. These Messianic movements are xenophobic and violent, supremacist and destructive. They are also not sufficiently antinomistic. As opposed to Messiahs of old, the present Messiahs do not promise release from restrictions and commandments. It could be changed, by embracing Jesus the Messiah. There is no need for a new Messiah appearing on a white donkey. There is no need for a man to deliver us, as it was done by God Himself. It is enough to say, Messiah is God. God is Messiah, and we live in the days of Messiah. 
Then, the restrictions will be gone, and nothing would stop the Jews to join the
Palestinians, or indeed any other nation. The long mission of Jews will be over. 
Yom Kippur Blessings to My Brothers in Zion 
 	125
Our teachers of blessed memory forbade us to enter the Land of Israel until we shall see the light of Messiah. We thought we were wiser and rejected this commandment with contempt. But they knew what they meant and they knew harshness of our hearts. We came into this sweet Land and we are locking ourselves in a high-rise ghetto surrounded by the double ring of barbed wire and endless hostility. Inevitably we re-create the way of life of our ancestors in a Polish schtetl. One can not escape oneself. We carry Exile in our hearts and that is why we create Exile. 
But do not despair! This curse confirms validity of the divine plan of our exile from the Holy Land. Not a blind chance, not the might of Rome, but the sins of our fathers brought the curse of Exile. We were cursed to cause pain to the nations and to suffer in their hands, to be a stranger to Mother Earth, to wander from land to land. We can’t escap e this curse until we see the Messiah. Whoever does not believe in the divine plan of Exile rejects Divine providence and teachings of our masters. 
Here is salvation, for it is said, “until we SEE the Messiah”, not “until the Messiah cometh”! Why, we can see Him now! Messiah is here! Whoever sees and recognises Him is saved from the curse of exile and he can remain forever in the sweet land he lives. Whoever sees Him will become like loving brother to his neighbours, and they will bless him, and be blessed by him. Whoever sees Him will become a bountiful spring in the dry land. See Him, my brothers, witness the Messiah! The secret is that Messiah is not a man anymore but the Glory of God. His soul is with us, and when we turn to Him, we shall recognise Him. It is within our reach, to escape the curse and turn it into grace. 
The power of Israel is great, but it goes into destruction and hatred. But the moment Israel will see the Messiah, this great force will become the force for good. We shall turn our land into paradise, slay the terrible twins of need and greed, and, every day and every hour, we shall witness Glory and Shechina, together with our Palestinian brothers who call them Christ and the Virgin, or Mesih and Sitt. 
This is our faith of the Holy Land, love of the Spirit and of the Mother Earth, embodied in the boy from Nazareth and the girl from nearby Saffurie, love to the green hills of our beloved Land of Israel, Land of Palestine. We came to this land and we did not recognise it; we met our long forgotten Palestinian brothers and sisters and we did not recognise them. Like soldiers in the dark, we fought against our own brothers. But as the Sun of Messiah is rising, we recognise their familiar faces and lower our weapons. 
Zionism became a poison without the Messiah, as unless we gather in the name of God, we gather in the name of his adversary. Why Messiah would change Zionism into a marvellous thing? In the days of Messiah, all restrictions will be lifted, teaches Talmud. The separating 
 	126
commandments and prohibitions will be cancelled. By receiving the spirit of God, the Israelites 
will become free from tenets of the Law, and join mankind. 
It is felt by the settlers, and Rabbi Ariel, one of the more radical settler Rabbis lamented, “we believed that by encountering the Holy Land, the Jewish hearts will be united with the heart of the land. But for majority of Jews our settlements failed to restore that sacred linkage”. Rabbi Ariel did not understand why the scriptures connected the miracle of ‘sacred linkage’ with the miracle of Messiah. That is why he did not understand the reason of failure. There is no way around it: the only way to God leads by union of our hearts with the hearts of the people of the Holy Land. 
This is the sieve: those who feel the spirit of Messiah and join the Palestinians, are the true remainder of Israel coming back home after long exile; while those who reject it are the sons of multitude who joined us attracted by privileges of the chosen people. Our turn to Messiah and to our Palestinian brothers and sisters in one communion would separate grain from waste, and complete the redemption. 
Do not fast this Day of Atonement, my brothers. Instead, share bread and wine with your Palestinian brothers and sisters. Do not observe the strict rules of Sabbath but go out and remove the fences. Seek the Spirit of God in your souls and you will find it. Messiah is here. It is not a man you should look to for deliverance, but God. 
If Messiah is here, the Third Temple is here, as well; it is the temple of all people of the Holy Land. The Third Temple is the people of the Holy Land praying together to one God in the Divine Presence of Shechina. Wish of Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, will become true: the Jews shall worship Allah together with Muslims. Wish of Jews will become true - all the nations will worship God in Jerusalem. The prophecy of St Paul will become true – the remainder of Israel shall come to Christ. The first commandment of Torah will be fulfilled: instead of waiting for man, Israel will turn to God. 
Then, the sons of Abraham shall pray together on the Temple Mount, eat at one table, drink together wine of al- Halil and celebrate Easter, Passover and Adha in one day. Jews call themselves by referring to their father: Isaac son of Abraham; Palestinians refer to their sons: Isaac, father of Jacob. Then, we shall refer to ourselves as grandfathers of our grandchildren, sons of the covenant of the free communes of Palestine. The wars will be over, exiles of Suba and Vilna, Kakun and Cordoba will return home, and in the feast of pilgrims the people of the Holy Land will gather at the foot of Kubbat as-Sahra to listen to the New Covenant of the Divine Presence and the Spirit of God. 
 	127
Part Four. Discussion of anti-Semitism 
The Good Men’s Crime 
At the height of the Great Cultural Revolution, the Chinese had the temerity to embark upon a monumental, nature-changing enterprise: they decided to exterminate ALL flies. The spirit of their solidarity was so powerful that they succeeded. For a while, they enjoyed peaceful summer evenings without this great annoyance. No buzz, no fuss: life was great without flies!
But soon they discovered that mighty eagles weren’t seen anymore in the welkin. Big noble salmon much favoured by connoisseurs died out in their rivers. And soon the opulent palace of Chinese nature began to collapse as a house of cards, for it had thrived on flies as much as on eagles. Every species is a precious cornerstone of the world. Remove it, and the consequences are unpredictable. The Chinese understood this, laid off the remaining flies, and soon they had salmon again for dinner and eagles to compare their helmsmen with. 
This story comes to my mind when I note the vehemence of good and progressive folk confronted by ethically doubtful tendencies. One may doubt the inherent goodness of Traditionalists and Nationalists. But should one exclude them from discourse? People often react to any reference to David Duke or Roger Garaudy or Abbe Pierre as our grandmothers to obscenity. This appears to be the good and correct approach to avoid causing undeserved distress to Jews. However, the equally extreme opinions of Jewish supremacists are being spread freely by the mainstream media. Thus, slanted discourse comes into being. 
The problem is not only (not even mainly) in deflating the sacred freedom of speech. There are worse consequences. Joe Public, a silent participant in the discourse, is a sane, normal and good person. He does not choose one of the proposed extremes but seeks the middle ground on their spectrum. We all do it instinctively: when presented with differing tendencies, we try to capture the middle ground between the extremes. Good people slant discourse and pervert our judgment. 
For instance, the media debates whether Iraq sho uld be bombed right away, frisked first or left in peace. A good sane man, Joe Public, takes the middle ground and opts for the frisking. Our position – ‘stay out of Iraq for good and even forget its name – loses, for it is an extreme opinion, much like the `bombing’ one, and not the middle ground. In order for us to occupy the middle ground, discourse should include opinions as extreme as those of Muraviec and Perle, but together with their polar opposites. 
It is very possible that these opinions will be as unpleasant to us as those of the Jewish chicken-hawks in the Pentagon. As an Israeli citizen, I wouldn’t enjoy an appeal to nuke Israel or to remove all Jews from positions of influence in the US. However, these unpleasant opinions would provide a much needed balance to the present assault of philo-Semitism. Joe Public, while 
 	128
exposed to these opinions, will take his middle ground. This good man will say: ‘Oh no, we should not nuke Israel! Maybe trade embargo and naval blockade will be sufficient’. Or: ‘Oh no, not our wonderful Jewish mayor, but Perle and Wolfovitz can go’. 
An extreme position will usually lose. The adversary knows it and ensures the presence of his own extreme voices in discourse. David Duke is forever barred from participation in discourse for he was a KKK leader, but Yossi Halevy, an ex- member of the Kahane Band (surely racist) writes for the New Republic, and torture-promoting Dershowitz writes for the NY Times. In order to ensure they are not extremists, they bring in Nathan Lewin and mitai Etzioni. Etzioni is a tenured professor at George Washington University and a friend of Elie Wiesel, Simon Wiesenthal and Abe Foxman. Lewin is a candidate for a federal judgeship. They call for the execution of the family members of suicide bombers99. After their prime appearance, Dershowitz comes in as a moderate and says, ‘the same level of deterrence could be achieved by levelling the villages of suicide bombers after the residents are given a chance to evacuate’, and the extremist Lewin disparagingly likens this to "using aspirin to treat brain cancer"). David Duke never reached this level of bestiality, but he is excluded from discourse while they are not. 
Consider Israel. The full spectre of opinions in our country stretches from Jihad extremists who would like to expel all Jews to Marzel extremists who would like to expel and kill all Gentiles. In this spectre, my own position is but the middle ground: no expulsions, no killings, but peaceful life together for all the communities. In normal discourse, my position would win, and united free Palestine would come into being. But the discourse is slanted: at first, extreme Arab opinions are blocked. Then, moderate Arabs find themselves ‘extremists’ and are effectively blocked. Eventually the softest no n-Jews – Ahmad Tibi and Azmi Bashara – take the place of extremists and are excluded from discourse. 
The exclusion of one extreme causes the drift of the middle ground when the other extreme is not in place to plug it. Thus, instead of being in the dead middle, the supporters of equality for Jews and Palestinians find themselves at an extreme end. As extremists they are excluded from discourse. Though 30% of Israelis and Palestinians support the idea of one state with equal rights for all, according to a pre-Intifada survey by Haaretz, their opinion gets zero representation in discourse. 
On the other hand, leaders of Jewish terrorist organisations regularly write for Haaretz. Haggai Segal, who was sentenced (and later pardoned by the President) for the murder of Palestinians, is a frequent writer on its liberal pages. But the opposite opinion, that of Hamas and Jihad, is carefully excluded even from the Palestinian mainstream. Thus, the drift of the middle ground continues unchecked. Likud politicians are not extremists: they ensure they are not by including extremists of their kind in discourse. Ariel Sharon is not an extremist, for he promotes 
 	129
his right-wing opposition of Liberman and Landau. Now, these thugs do not want to be extremists either, and they promote a new voice, Baruch Marzel, a man-eating ogre from the Jewish settlement of Hebron. Next to Marzel, Jack the Ripper is a soft guy. Marzel’s people have a tribune in the liberal Haaretz; they are included in discourse. 
Their Western counterparts, the Jewish chauvinists Conrad Black and Mort Zuckerman, are active participants in discourse by virtue of their ownership of a large chunk of media. But their mirror opposites, Horst Mahler or Nick Griffin, are excluded. Without these extremists, the moderate voices of the anti- globalisation and anti- Zionism are excluded as well, for they find themselves on the extreme. The founding fathers of American democracy were ready to die for the right of their opponents to express their opinion publicly, for they intuited that in order to promote one’s ideas one should ensure the presence of more radical voices on the spectrum. 
In balanced Palestinian discourse, the opinions of Hammas and Jihad should be presented. We can productively argue against suicide bombings only if the voices of their fervent supporters are included and considered. Otherwise, a dynamite- loaded belt is their only way to express their opinion. What is worse, without them Edward Said is glossed as an extremist. 
Germany is a classic case of the ‘no flies, no eagles’ policy. After its defeat in WWII, Nationalist opinion was excluded from discourse. Now, the meek spirit of Germany is crushed. Germany spends every extra pfennig it has on paying Zionists and arming the Jewish state. It imports every willing descendent of Jews from the former Soviet Union and allows the local Jewish leaders to brainwash these disoriented refugees into hatred of Germany and separatism. I have met these unfortunate people who arrived in Germany with a very weak Jewish identity, if any at all. Their children are pushed into separate Jewish schools protected by hard men with machineguns and paid for by the German taxpayer; they are taught that Israel is their home, while Germany is a hated place they should keep a wary eye on. It creates many psychological problems for the children who seek solidarity and identification with the country they live in but are brainwashed into rejecting it. 
I wrote about the recent visit of Israeli President Katzav to Berlin: “the German Left betrayed its duty to demonstrate against the supplying of the apartheid state with nuclear-bearing submarines”. My friend Ingrid K wrote from Berlin: 
I did not want to stand with very few others, lost between the police-protected Neo-Nazis and the stupid fractio n of anti-anti-Semites feeling eternal warm-solidarity-with-Israel even as a third and more desperate party a half-mile away chanted “weapons -for-Israel”. In Germany, the Left has come to a sad level of powerlessness and disorientation. Its disorientation culminates in the 
growing praise of a group of ‘Left’ political writers (part of them connected with New Kach!) fighting the upcoming ‘new anti-Semitism’ in Germany. Young people who are engaged in anti-
 	130
racism or against neo-Nazism are feverishly obsessed with discovering the hidden anti-Semitism in the Left and in their own souls. (It’s like we Germans stop thinking when it comes to antiSemitism.) 
Haaretz published100 an extensive interview with a German ‘left-wing journalist, human rights activist and intellectual’, Thomas von der Osten-Sacken, ‘one of Germany's leading authorities on human rights in Iraq’. This ‘left -winger’ calls for war on Iraq, pledges his support for the Jewish state, for Globalisation, for America and for banks, while describing himself ‘a Marxist’. Such freaks are a direct result of the slanted discourse that excludes the German nationalist tradition. If this tradition were included, Hans Publik would find his middle ground between calls to expel Jewish immigrants and calls to give them their present exalted status; he would integrate them into society and firmly stop the attempts of Jewish leaders to promote their alienation and create a fifth column inside Germany. Ingrid K concludes her report from the German scene: 
 To stand up for Palestinians is a kind of courage test and risks one’s being cited an anti-Semite. Sad but true, the little political group I’m working with feared to post the ingenious essay of Michael Neumann `What is Anti-Semitism’ (that I translated into German) on our Homepage. No 
courage. But one must not give up. 
Ingrid still does not understand the reason for German meekness. Otherwise she would call for true freedom of speech and full participation in discourse for the people she hates, the German extreme anti- Globalist right. The sheer presence of Horst Mahler in discourse would make the publication of my friend Michael Neumann’s well-thought piece the non-controversial intellectual exercise it was meant to be.  In France, Roger Garaudy is excluded and ostracised. The French sainted Abbe Pierre, who dared to express some modicum of support for the old ex-Communist, found himself excluded as well. For sure, the opinions of Garaudy are not to everybody’s liking; but his absence from discourse has turned very moderate people and friends of Palestine into extremists. 
The post-WWII exclusion of the Nationalist Right was done for the best of reasons. But that was the case with the flies in China. The Jews always had strong influence in Europe, and in my opinion, not always a beneficial one. Still, before the war their influence was counteracted by the Church, by the non-elitist Left, by the Nationalist Right. The ‘no flies’ policy turned this strong Jewish influence into a decisive one, and the edifice of European and North American civilisation began to crumble like a house of cards. Globalisation, neo- liberalism and the withering of European culture are the results of lack of balance.
 	131
Christianity is one of the victims of bias, and it is the cornerstone of European art. A recent French film, The Brotherhood of the Wolf, demonises the Christian Church without much subtlety: a half- human monster wears a cross that flashes at us relentlessly, the gang of murderers is led by a priest, its lair is full of crosses and crucifixes, church devotees perpetrate a long chain of ritual murders of innocent women and children in order to bring France back to the faith. 
A mirror image of the movie would substitute a Rabbi for the Priest, make the monster brandish the Star of David and have a bunch of observant Jews commit ritual murder for their nefarious needs. For sure, such a movie would never be screened in France after 1945. (Although this sounds similar to the book on ritual murders published in Syria to a chorus of universal condemnation.) But the French movie producer Samuel Hadad was not condemned or criticised. The French audience is so used to attacks on Church and Christianity that they did not even consciously notice its not-so-subliminal message; it sank directly into their unconscious. 
This film did not horrify the French, as at the same time they were treated to The Body,
produced by Rudy Cohen. My reader and friend Francois B. describes it: 
The Israeli soldiers are like the cowboys, brave and immortal, and the Palestinian terrorists like the Indians, stupid and cowardly. The villain of the movie is a Catholic very high up in the Vatican hierarchy, like No2 or No3 after the Pope, and the very honest, pretty and unreligious Israeli archaeologist calls the Holy Shroud from Torino ‘a vulgar fake’.  
This film did not horrify the French either, as they are used to films like Amen, which attacked the late Pope Pius XXII. Suggestively, the Cross on the movie’s posters turns into a Nazi swastika. 
`One evil thing does not justify another one’, good people usually say. `Jewish racists are bad, and anti-Christian films are perhaps unpleasant, but it does not mean we should welcome anti-Jewish racists and support anti-Jewish movies. We shall speak against them all.’ 
The problem is, good people are quite unable to stop the anti-Christian and pro-Jewish tendency, for the Jewish supremacists today control a major chunk of world media and wealth. Besides, the tendencies are unstoppable: they can only be counterbalanced. What good people can do is stop the opposite thought, and they do that very efficiently. In my essays I have frequently noted the advantages of Christian and Muslim universalism over Jewish particularism. The editor of La Fabrique, the good Jewish leftist Eric Hazan, refused to publish my essays, for “despite their literary qualities they include some ideas which are difficult to promote in France, namely, the superiority of Christianity”. I am sure Eric Hazan would not publish a treatise on the vast superiority of Judaism either, but it would be printed in millions of copies by the publishers of Goldhagen and Oriana Falacci. This has the look of job-sharing: Jewish supremacists promote 
 	132
Jewish supremacy, while the Leftists’ job is just to stop the balancing attempt by appealing to 
universal values. Thus good people participate in slanting discourse as much as bad ones. 
The attempts to find anti-Semitism in the gentle writings of the friends of Palestine are enabled by the lack of real and explicit enemies of the Jewish paradigm in all its aspects from Soros to Sharon, from Judas to Maimonides, from Freud to Popper, from Podhoretz to Gusinsky, from Lubawitscher Rebbe to Sulzberger. Such people exist but their voices are silenced. We do not have to love them, or agree with them, but we need them as active participants in our discourse, as otherwise the middle ground of the Western world will remain somewhere between Peres and Soros. 
For as long as Richard Perle sits in the Pentagon, Elie Wiesel brandishes his Nobel Prize, Mort Zuckerman owns the USA Today, Gusinsky bosses over Russian TV, Soros commands multi-billions of funds and Dershowitz teaches at Harvard, we need the voices of Duke, Sobran, Raimondo, Buchanan, Mahler, Griffin and of other anti-bourgeois nationalists. If we accept their exclusion from discourse, Jewish bigotry will be tolerated while anti-Jewish bigotry is removed. Then, the middle ground for Joe Public will be 'a little bit of Jewish bigotry', or 'Zionism lite', in the words of my dear friend Bob Green. 
Millennia before the Great Cultural Revolution, the Chinese knew the secret of harmony: the non-Manichean balance of opposing ideas, the principles of Ying and Yang. Properly balanced, Jewish ideas can be beneficial: anti-Christian zeal would limit Church excesses, just as materialism and egoism can keep the feet of Man on the ground while his head is in heaven, feminism can balance male chauvinism, and the sex obsession of Freud can balance the asceticism of spiritualists. Balanced, even Zionism will shrink to the humane proportions of Jewish love for Palestine. But balanced it should be. 
The Martial Arts of Discourse 
(Response to the article `In the Same Camp as Hamsun?’ by Haakon Kolmanskog 101 in the	 
Norwegian newspaper Klassekampen.).
Usually, newspaper polemic is akin to epee fencing: one tries to keep the opponent at arm’s length, avoid his thrusts and draw his blood. The thoughtful and friendly query of Haakon Kolmanskog deserves a quite different attitude and a most sincere reply. Haakon poses a question: 
We can’t be indifferent if friends of the Palestinians are branded anti-Semites. Who will benefit in allowing the Zionists to have a free go playing the anti-Semite card against anyone who criticise them?
 	133
The sad answer is that we have no means of stopping their playing it. For years, the 
friends of Palestine tried to evade the label by saying: 
Israel behaves horribly, but it has nothing to do with the fact that it is defining itself as `the 
Jewish state’. It has nothing to do with Jews elsewhere, and therefor e criticism of Israel is not related to anti-Semitism.
But this easy answer was rejected by the Masters of Discourse. Friends of Palestine were forced into daily confessions of their love of Jews, as the suspected heretics of Middle Ages had been of their orthodoxy. Their protestations are without avail, for our opponents can effectively decide what is and what is not anti-Semitism. They can decide because they hold commanding heights in discourse: by virtue of media ownership, economic power and international connections integrated into one armoured fist. 
And they use this power by stretching the definition of anti-Semitism as they find fit. Anti- Zionism is anti-Semitism, according to Professor Ruth Wisse of Harvard University and to a plethora of other Judeo-American pundits. Anti-Americanism is a new, virulent form of antiSemitism, wrote David Quinn in The Sunday Times. `Anti- Globalisation is anti-Semitism’, `the Green policies of Environmentalism’ is anti-Semitism now’ are frequent headlines in Israeli newspapers. `Christianity is anti-Semitism’ is the recent title of Goldhagen’s book. In 1990’s Russia, anti- market forces were described as ‘anti-Semites’. Recently, Christine Mohn in the Nationen described Russian Communists as ‘anti-Semites’. 
In no way can you, Haakon, nor your friends in this uniquely free newspaper, define `anti-Semitism’. Likewise, you cannot define `Communism’. Definitions of these terms are forced on us by the Masters of Discourse. We can work only with them, the existing and prevailing definitions, though we might regret their existence sometimes and offer our own understanding of the phenomena they classify. Alternatively, we can invent our own definitions, as did the Trotskyites: they called Communism ‘Stalinism’. But that was a se ctarian escape. 
What we can and should do is analyse the definitions forced upon us. If all the above is, indeed, anti-Semitism as decreed by the Masters of Discourse, what is this legendary ‘Semitism’? Surely it has nothing to do with the Semitic race? It is, by their definition, a fusion of Zionism, Americanism, Globalisation, Neo-Liberalism, anti-Communism, destruction of Nature and reduction of the Church. As the Masters of Discourse declared this ‘Semitism’, and their definition is the only one that matters, I can freely acknowledge my (and hopefully your) ‘anti-Semitism’. 
 	134
Accepting their definition is tactically much better than fighting it. In Oriental martial arts one lets the brute strength of the adversary work against him. That is exactly what I try to do in my essays that you printed. The adversary is strong: let it be his undoing. 
II 
Let us deal now with the second question of Haakon. How should we view the antiSemitism of Hamsun the Nazi? he asks. The answer is that we should place Hamsun in his historical context. 
ALL participants in WWII were homicidal racists, in modern terms. While the German Nazis killed a lot of Slavs, Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals and the mentally deranged, the democratic US deported thousands of American citizens of Japanese descent or locked them up for years in concentration camps; the Soviets deported ethnic Germans, Chechens and Crimean Tatars and destroyed their centuries-old villages and homes. Britain invented concentration camps in the Boer War when Hamsun was a child, and deported the ethnic Germans from British Palestine. The British Bomber Harris probably killed as many innocent civilians as any German war criminal. 
The great Knut Hamsun, whose beautiful books we cherish, was a man of his times. He was a contemporary of the Russian Jewish writer and publicist, Iliya Ehrenburg, whose brilliant early novel, Julio Jurenito, was rightly acclaimed by Lenin. Ehrenburg was a worldly communist and humanist, a great friend of Picasso and Matisse, of Aragon and Castro. He also pioneered the anti-Zionist genre with his sarcastic novel, Lazik Roitschwantz. However, during WWII, Ehrenburg wrote in the Pravda: Kill the German! Kill this sausage-and-sauerkraut-eating vermin!“
Exterminate his seed!” There is gruesome truth in accusations that he called to kill pregnant German women; or that was a possible reading of his inflammatory articles. 
Boris Pasternak, a Russian Christian poet of Jewish origin, was greatly upset by Ehrenburg’s writing and refused to shake his hand. Joseph Stalin was horrified by this call to genocide and ordered to disavow Ehrenburg in the Pravda article, “Comrade Ehrenburg exaggerates”: “We are not fighting the German people”, wrote the editor under direct instructions of Stalin, “but the Nazi regime”. Stalin was true to his words, and in 1945 he derailed the Henry Morgenthau plan to cripple Germany and starve millions of Germans to death. 
Was the anti-Semitism of Hamsun the Nazi ethically worse than the anti-Germanism of Iliya Ehrenburg the Jew? Yes: if you think that Jewish life is much more precious than the life of a non-Jew, in which case you find yourself in the nauseating company of Eli Landau and Ivett Lieberman, two Israeli MPs who called for the extermination of a thousand Palestinians for each murdered Jew, and of Madeleine Albright, who thought the killing of half-a- million Iraqi children for the protection of Israel “worth it”. No: if you share my belief in the equality of Man. 
 	135
That is why you have no reason to reject your great national treasure, Knut Hamsun; just view 
him in the context of his time. 
While the time of Hamsun and Ehrenburg is over, Elie Wiesel is still very much with us. In the Yiddish original version of his first book, The Night, he approves of his comrades ‘raping German shiksas’, but feels it is not enough for revenge. In his book, Legends of Our Time, he wrote: "Every Jew, somewhere in his being, should set apart a zone of hate - healthy, virile hate - for what the German personifies and for what persists in the German”. Not `theNazi’, but `the German’. For this sermon of hate he received the 1986 Nobel Peace Prize from the Norwegian Academy, in company with the Cambodia-destroyer Henry Kissinger and the Kana- murderer, Shimon Peres. Armed with this recognition of the Norwegians, Elie Wiesel called (at Christmas Eve!): War [with Iraq] is the only option” 102. If you need to feel guilt, feel guilt for this Nobel Peace Prize. 
This vast difference in the feelings of Norwegians towards their national genius Hamsun and towards Elie Wiesel the schmaltzy hate- monger leads us to a conclusion: in prevailing post-WWII mainstream discourse, the taboo on criticism of Jews has caused strong bias and undermined the humanist idea of the Equality of Man. Pre-war anti-Semitism has been superseded by ano ther extreme, philo-Semitism, a belief that Jews can do no wrong and should never be referred to except in the most complimentary terms. This equally racist attitude has created severe misbalance in politics and discourse. It has to be corrected in order to save our planet and mankind from the triumphant ‘Semitism’ of their definition. 
III 
The third question of Haakon was: 
Israel’s president Moshe Katsav recently visited Germany. He was last Monday confronted by 
German neo-Nazis carrying Palestinian flags and banners saying "Hands off Palestine – No German armaments to Israel”. It was a disaster! If the neo-Nazis hadn’t thought of it themselves, I guess Ariel Sharon would have phoned them to give them the idea. I’m wondering if Israel 
Shamir shares my concerns and if he agrees with me that at all means we have to avoid a situation where Nazis march in support of Palestine? Or if it means nothing since "Anti-Semitism" has become an empty and meaningless phrase and only a weapon in the hands of Israeli Zionists? Is this a question of no importance? 
In the Gospel, the Disciples of Christ acclaimed him as ‘the King who comes in the name of the Lord’. The Pharisees demanded: Rabbi, rebuke your disciples! But Jesus replied: If they keep silent the stones will cry out103. 
 	136
This prophecy was fulfilled in Germany. The German Left betrayed its duty to demonstrate against the supplying of the apartheid state with nuclear-bearing submarines, the most fearsome weapons of mass destruction of our age, for it to target the peaceful cities of man. The German Left accepted the thoroughly racist concept of ‘Jewish property’ and transferred billions of dollars to Sharon and his American Jewish partners104. ‘Fear of the Jews’ 105 befell them, and caused them to forget their ideals. The Left is the salt of the earth by virtue of upholding the values of equality, mercy, humanity. But if the salt has lost its taste, it is to be thrown out and walked on by the people106. The Left kept silent, therefore the stones cried out. Whoever demonstrated against the monstrous decision to arm Israel is surely blessed. 
Haakon describes these people as ‘neo-Nazis’. I greatly doubt this definition. German law is very strict, and the real Nazis are in jail or in exile. The neo-Nazis of our day usually support Israel: representatives of Israeli parties were welcome guests at their gathering in Belgium. They even marched together in Flanders under Israeli banners and with anti-Muslim slogans. 
The Masters of Discourse can call whomever they wish ‘neo-Nazi’. Nasser was ‘Hitler’, Arafat was ‘Hitler’, Saddam Hussein is ‘Hitler’. In Russia, they gave this name to everybody who objected to privatisation, Americanisation, globalisation. As the majority of these people were actually communists, the Masters of Discourse coined the term ‘Red-Brown’. They called the veterans of the Battle of Stalingrad `Nazis’. They wrote that for them there is no real difference between the Communists and the Nazis. The Russian people responded to it by forming a new Left-and-Right alliance aga inst these globalising, predatory forces.
They followed the great example of Mao Zedong, who allied with the Right Nationalists of the Kuomintang when the very existence of China was endangered. Recently, the exiled Russian tycoon Boris Berezovsky, billionaire and a media- lord and man of impeccable Jewish origin who embraced Christ, publicly joined this alliance in an earth-shaking interview with Zavtra, the leading newspaper of the Left-and-Right. He was warmly welcomed by the jailed leader of National Bo lshevik Party, writer Edward Limonov, who is often described as an ‘antiSemite and neo-Nazi’. Ze lo kol kah pashut, as we say in Hebrew: life is not as simple as comics and the Masters of Discourse present it. 
WWII is long over. Present-day Communists are not ‘Stalinists’, present -day Traditionalists are not ‘Nazis’, present -day ‘Semitists’ are not the Democrats of yesteryear. If we forever look back to the fields of Stalingrad and to the ravaged Finnmark, we are liable to overlook the new dangers mankind faces. The dreadful fate of Palestine calls us, the men of thought, to develop new paradigms for the new situation. 
 	137
Philo-Semitism is Racism 
(Norwegian daily newspaper Nationen (Oslo) on 28.11.02 published an op-ed attacking me107. Here is my reply. I used contributions of our comrades Dave Kersting and Michael Neumann. ). 
I do not like philo-Semites, i.e. people considering anti-Semitism the worst of all ills. In this world, so full of trouble and real suffering, there is something deeply pervert in persons preferring to protect and support – not the poor, not the refugees, not the oppressed, but the wealthy, influential and well- connected group actively engaged in ethnic cleansing of Palestine. 
The chief proponent of this well-endowed movement is an American Jew, the head of ADL, Abe Foxman. Good description of his personality was given by Monty Warner in a piece called ‘Abe Foxman: Disgrace to my Religion’ 108 in the Jewish FrontPageMagazine.com. Two years ago he was caught taking large sums of money from the super-thief Marc Rich, a crook who cheated American tax-payer and found refuge in Switzerland 109. This event was aptly described by Rabbi Lapin and his Toward Tradition Jewish movement. Citing Newsweek report, he said: "After the ADL received a $100,000 check from the Rich Foundation, Foxman wrote to Bill Clinton urging the pardon." In doing so, Foxman "joined other leading Jewish liberals who had benefited from the billionaire's largesse’. 110
For years Foxman and his organisation collected dossiers on people who objected to apartheid and sold them to Mossad and to South Africa of Forster. They broke into houses, stole documents, run professional surveillance of the left activists in California111. Last year, Foxman and ADL were found guilty in the US court of la w, and paid millions of dollars to people they intimidated and smeared112. Foxman’s best chum is Ariel Sharon, the mass murderer of Sabra, Shatila, Kibie and Jenin. A new book by Gordon Thomas and Martin Dillon, “The Assassination of Robert Maxwell: Israel's Super Spy” confirms 113 the professional philosemites have permanent ties with Mossad, the long arm of Israeli apartheid, memorable to you by Lillehammer murders. In brief, the philo-Semites are sleazy guys taking money from sleazy crooks in order to cover up the creeping genocide of Palestinians. 
It is not strange, as the very emphasis on "anti-Semitism" is disgustingly racist, as if it were worse than racism against anyone else. People who decry "antisemitism”, instead of "racism" or "ethnic-prejudice”, are actually saying that there is something really special - and particularly bad - about discrimination against this one particular group. In other words, they are racists. 
Your average Norwegian does not hesitate to say he dislikes Swedes. Sometimes he 
corrects himself and says he actually hates Swedes. Older Norwegians freely speak of their 
 	138
hatred to Germans. So do Jews: recent bestseller by a philo-Semite Goldhagen called all Germans ‘willing executioners of Hitler’. ‘Every Jew must maintain in his heart holy hatred to Germans’, quoth Elie Wiesel, another professional philo semite. Somehow nobody is worried about these racist statements; Wiesel even received Nobel peace prise from the Norwegian Academy. 
Germans are not exclusion. A Jewish scribe, Daniel Pipes, wrote a piece together with a Dane Lars Hedegaard in the Canadian daily National Post (August 27, 2002), published by the Jewish media lord, Israel Asper, a great friend of my country, saying: 
“Predominantly Muslim immigrants constitute 5% of the popula tion but consume upwards of 40% of the welfare spending… Muslims are only 4% of Denmark's 5.4 million people but make up a majority of the country's convicted rapists, an especially combustible issue given that practically all the female victims are non-Muslim”. I am not sure one can be more racist than that, even if one mobilises Der Sturmer. But somehow nobody is worried about it. Pipes was even promoted to head the prestigious Peace Institute. 
The racist talk of anti-Semitism is used to protect Israeli racism. It is amazing that some people still pay attention to it, and their crocodile tears drip into newspapers. I wonder why the Third Reich did not try to stop the Allied forces by claiming they are led by ‘anti-German prejudice’. One imagines Russian so ldiers at Stalingrad listen to such a broadcast and drop their weapons in shame. Or is it only anti-Jewish prejudice that is objectionable? Apparently, it is the case for philo-Semites: the Guardian wrote about assassinated Dutch racist leader that though he hated Muslims and Arabs, he was not a bad guy, as he liked Jews. Can one be more racist than that? 
The piece by Christine Mohn is true to its racist genre. She described me as ‘an ethnic Jew who defines himself as a Christian’. Like Adolf Hitler, she thinks ‘once a Jew, forever a Jew’, baptism notwithstanding, he can only ‘define himself as a Christian’. However, non -racists are of different opinion. A philo-Semite is a potential Jew, as he considers Jews being more equal than other people. A Jew by birth can leave Jewry if he believes in equality of Man as did St Paul, Marx and Trotsky. Here the opinions of the Church and of the Communist party coincide. 
Indeed, that was the vision of Abram Leon, a young follower of Trotsky, who perished in Auschwitz in 1944. In his important book, The Jewish Question: Marxist Interpretation (I am grateful to Noam Chomsky who introduced me to this author), this communist of Jewish origin described the Jews, “people -class”, historically attuned to exploitation of others.  man of Jewish origin always could leave ‘the Jews’ and join mankind, wrote Leon. 
 	139
But Ms Mohn is totally ignorant of Judaism. She writes: “The phenomenon of “Chosen -ness”, as understood in Jewish tradition, has nothing to do with closeness to God or superiority versus non-Jews”. We can believe her, or we can believe the late Chief Rabbi of Israel, the greatest modern proponent of Judaism, Rabbi Kook, who wrote: “The difference between a Jewish soul and souls of non-Jews is greater and deeper than the difference between a human soul and the souls of cattle”114
Philo-Semites would like us to speak ‘good, or nothing’ about Jewishness. But this is the prerogative of dead. In the modern discourse, we freely discuss shortcomings of Islam and Christianity, of capitalism and communism, and indeed, Jewishness should be discussed as well. It is not a racist discourse: leading modern debunkers of Jewishness are people of Jewish origin from Karl Marx to Israel Shahak. It is not a right-wing discourse either: The First International of Marx condemned, after long and lively debate, philo-Semites as well as anti-Semites. 
Racists are often nasty and stupid. Indeed, Christine Mohn succeeded to concoct a nasty piece proving her inability to read and understand the text. For instance, she writes, “The most important content in Shamir’s political agenda is that Jews are best characterised as Christ-murderers”, while I write just an opposite: “There is no collective guilt over many generations. The Jews should not be blamed for killing Christ anymore than French blamed for sending Joan of Arc to the stake”. 115 
To conclude, I would quote an American socialist thinker Dave Kersting: “We should feel offended by this dramatic concern about anti-Semitism - at a time of openly racist horrors against the NON-Jewish population of Palestine, who are suffering from the undisguised ethnic-supremacy of the Zionists. Disproportionate concern about "anti-Semitism" is a key weapon in the most brazen actual ethnic violence of our time and place” 
Four Blind Men 
Our comprehension of the world starts at juxtaposing observations. Four blind men describe an animal they encountered: it is like a column; no, a snake, no, a barrel, no, a tooth. Their impressions would be of little value unless there were a man of vision to integrate them and draw a picture of an elephant. 
Various manifestations of Jewish spirit produced a cascade of differing impressions almost defying an integration attempt. Zionist Jews in Palestine created a many-tiered rigid caste society, where natives are excluded, imported ‘guest’ workers have no rights, army and security apparatus controls everything and a call for equality disqualifies the caller from holding a public office. Globalist financiers of George Soros kind, followers of Karl Popper’s Open Society offered and created other systems. There are impressions of activity by Jewish media moguls, 
 	140
Hollywood producers, museum curators, art dealers, human rights activists, New York bankers 
and Washington neo-conservative ideologists.
The observations are valid and important; now they should be collected and systematised until the ground is ripe for a man of vision who would draw a picture of the elephant. It is not an easy task, for it is an article of faith in our world, ‘thou shalt not draw an elephant’. This commandment is enforced by the fierce Jewish opposition to such endeavour. 
This forbidden and mammoth task was undertaken by the Anonymous (and possibly collective) author of WHEN VICTIMS RULE: A Critique of Jewish Pre-eminence in America, (further called The Critique), two-thousand-pages-long collection of observations of various 
Jewish activities. This work in progress is posted on www.jewishtribalreview.org and probably will remain there for quite a while. Its sheer size is just one of the reasons why it is not 
likely to emerge as a printed book. While describing the challenge that moved him, the Author 
writes: 
“In "free societies”, anyone who wants may write, and publish, works tha t attack Christianity; assail the "historical revisionism" of Afro-centrism; deconstruct the myths of Hinduism; defame the Pope; disdain Republican, Democratic, communist, or any other ideology; emblazon the whole of Islam as a hotbed for irrational mania and terrorism; write entire volumes about the alleged worldwide Japanese economic "conspiracy"; and vilify the entirety of the nebulous entity known as the "white establishment" and anyone dictated by skin colour to be within it. But, curiously, in the vast expanse of deconstructive engines of all and everything, one cannot criticize the sacrosanct domain of Jewish history, politics, and identity, unless the critic is willing to be systematically marginalized in all walks of life, prepared to be tarnished nd branded as a contemptible hate-filled "anti-Semite”, risk losing her or her job, and be categorically lumped into mainstream society's moral and intellectual garbage dump reserved for the likes of the Nazis and Ku Klux Klan. ” 
The biased discourse so aptly described by the Author causes much mental anguish to Americans of Jewish origin, separates them from their Gentile compatriots and even more regrettably contributes to the loss of life in Palestine. That is why a good new deconstruction of Jewish history, politics, identity, religion and tradition is certainly needed, especially as the critical works of 1920s and 1930s became outdated. The Author has followed the trail blazed by Professors Albert Lindemann of the University of California, Kevin MacDonald of California State University, Israel Shahak of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Elliot Horowitz and other researchers. 
The Author collected immense amount of data, sometimes trivial, sometimes relevant 
facts and opinions. The bibliography is colossal, as if the book was produced by a Jewish Studies 
 	141
department of a well-endowed American University. It could be a companion volume to Encyclopaedia Judaica. Severely abridged, it would be readable and still impressive. In the full form, it will be used whenever there is a discussion on the Jewish influence in American politics or media. For instance, recent debate Neumann – Blankfort would be easily substantiated by referring to this book. 
However, this interesting book is regrettably short of insight. While noting and criticising ‘Jewish pre-eminence’, it does not offer an answer to the paramount questions: What does it mean? how it was achieved? Why it is achieved? Without an attempt to answer, the book remains but an important database. 
The Author is worried that he will be considered ‘anti-Semitic’, but my main objection is quite an opposite one, namely, The Critique is too ‘Jewish’ by its outlook, and not only because some pages appear as a Jewish vanity publication, listing prominent and successful Jews. It is true, there are lists of Jews in unorthodox business of robbery and murder, but even this thing is not unusual. Isaac Babel happily described Jewish gangsters of Odessa, while the stories of Jewish-American gangsters were published many times and are quite popular with Jewish readers. 
Probably the word ‘tribal’ is the key to its ‘Jewish-ness’ and to the relative failure. The view of Jews as a tribe is a very Jewish view, promoted nowadays by Adin Steinzaltz, the chief Talmudic authority in Israel. He called the Jews: ‘family’. But this view does not furnish us with a good explanation of the Rise of the Jews and of its consequences. If the Jews are ‘a tribe’, sort of extended family, what is the secret of their magic attraction and strange successes? There are many ‘families’, from Sicilian Mafia to Hong Kong Triads, but can they measure up to the Jewish influence, nay, centrality in the Western world? By adhering to this Jewish ‘clannish’ view the Author overlooked the ideology behind the Jews. For instance, he quotes: 
Raphael Patai, a Jewish scholar, claims that, for all the knottiness surrounding the modern 
day issue, being Jewish can best be described as nothing more than "a state of mind" 
And smugly adds: 
This kind of "state”, of course, won't afford you citizenship in today's state of Israel, nor 
acceptance into any Jewish community anywhere. 
True? Not really. This state of mind is shared by Conrad Black, a Gentile who became a Jewish media mogul without undergoing circumcision. He is an accepted and valued member of the Jewish community and a potential citizen of Israel. Technically, by virtue of his marriage to his Jewish wife, but much more so by his state of mind. Plenty of Gentile Americans share this state of mind. On the other hand, a factory worker or a peasant born of Jewish parents technically entitled to the place in the community and to the Israeli passport but lacks this state of mind and 
 	142
would be out of place in the Jewish community. In Israel there are many immigrants of Jewish origin who were thoroughly de-Jewified but decided to come to Israel. They do not fit into the Jewish society and form its outcast fringe.
While rejecting insightful remark of Patai, the Author accepts some misleading Jewish 
declarations for their face value. He writes: 
“ Yet modern Jewry's deep animosity towards Christianity stems from the accusation that institutional Christianity was seminal to anti-Semitism in the Middle Ages… “ 
It is the traditional Jewish point of view, deeply un-historical and anachronistic. In the 
same vein, the Author could say, 
Yet modern Jewry's deep animosity towardsPalestinians stems from the accusation that 
Palestinians were seminal to anti-Semitism… 
In both cases, Jewry was on the offensive, not a defensive side. The Jews attacked Christians from the days of the Apostles, just as they attacked Palestinians by depriving them of their livelihood from the very beginning of Zionist immigration. The Author probably noticed his mistake and tried to correct it without harmonising with his preceding statement: 
Judaism had, of course, antipathy for Christianity from the latter's very inception. 
So, the reader has a choice of two contradicting statements: the Jewish animosity is a reaction to Christian anti-Semitism, or it is a primary attitude of Jews. The Author goes on, getting deeper into the bog of anachronistic contradictions: 
Christianity evolved out of Judaism; it was founded and propagated by Jews dissatisfied with the direction of the seminal faith as guided by its leaders. "Popular hatred of the Temple priests and the rich”, says Lenni Brenner, "became the basis of Christianity, and the New Testament must be seen as the last major production of the Jewish religious genre”. 
Again, it is a traditional Jewish point of view, debunked by Professor Israel Joseph Yuval of the Hebrew University. Yuval proved that while Christianity ‘evolved’ from the Biblical Judaism, the Rabbinic Judaism came to existence AFTER Christianity appeared as a reactionary response to it. Lenni Brenner can be forgiven for his weak grasp of ancient history, but the Author should know that Christianity rose and won the day when there were no Temple priests neither ‘filthy rich’ anymore, after AD 70. 
No study or deconstruction of Jewishness is meaningful, unless one understands that Jewry was born in order to fight Christ and Christianity. It found other uses: to make money and share influence. Likewise, an army can be used for many purposes, to harvest potatoes or extinguish fires, but it is created to fight wars. The Author collected much evidence of Jewish hostility to Christianity, but he failed to comprehend its key role in Jewish attitudes.
 	143
He failed for he adopted basically Jewish materialistic ‘export vision’ of history, world 
and self. He quotes: 
As even Mark Twain noted, "With most people, of a necessity, bread and meat take first rank, religion second. I am convinced that the persecution of the Jews is not due in any large degree to religious prejudice”. 
It is an erroneous observation of a myopic Yankee. In the course of history, people gave up their bread and meat, wives and children, died and killed for the sake of their faith. While persecution of the Jews was not due to religious commandment, the relentless Jewish assault on Christendom can’t be comprehended without this framework. 
The Jews promote the Tribe vision, as it sounds quite harmless and stops potential escapees: why indeed should one escape one’s own tribe that one belongs to by virtue of birth? Again, if it is just a tribe, it really makes no difference what sort of positions its members occupy. The Tribe vision allows the Jews to claim for their own – the Apostles and Karl Marx, and many wonderful people of Jewish origin. This vision proclaims: once a Jew, always a Jew. However, reality is different: two thousand years ago there were millions of Jews, while by 8th century they disappeared almost completely. Spain succeeded to undo its Jews. If descendents of Jews were Jews, there would be hundreds of millions Jews nowadays. 
The non-tribal character of Jews is well illustrated by the fate of the Jews of China. This community was successfully assimilated, and all efforts of Israeli and American Jews to bring them back to ‘Jewish conscience’ failed, for it makes no sense to be a Jew outside of Christ’s ecumene. 
Indeed, what is a Jew? Everyone has a small part of his personality that stops him from embracing (=being together with, or identical to) Christ. It is excessive care for one’s property, anti-collectivism, godlessness and fight against God = Christ, dishonesty, elitism, some sorts of creativity, disregard for others. That is a small Jew inside us. The fiery catharsis of Christ’s incarnation, mission, passion and resurrection expelled this slag from the body of Church. Presence of slag is to remind us of the catharsis, and to help us to contemplate of God. Provided there is no God but God, rebels against God take the side of the Prince of the World, and he takes their side. 
That is why great theologians and mystics from St John to Martin Luther, from Muhammad to Fr Serge Bulgakov contemplated on the Jews. For them, the Jews were a visible proof of God’s attention to Man, a living memory of Incarnation and a negative example of what can go wrong. A Jew who understood it and acted correspondingly ceased to be a Jew. A Gentile who accepted the Jewish mode of behaviour turns into a Jew. The ‘pre-eminence of Jews in 
 	144
America’ is another form of re -stating words of Marx: America has been Jewified and accepted 
the Jewish values. 
The Author failed to understand this spiritual meaning of Jews and Jewish influence. Not a tribe, but ideology, that is the essence of the problem. Pre-eminence of Jewish ideology and Jewish values in America is the true problem of America and the world. The Author quotes words of a Jewish commentator, Robert Kamenetz: 
I began to suspect that Jewish identity, as it has evolved in the West today, could be a real barrier to encountering the depths of Judaism. In other words, being Jewish could keep you from being a Jew. 
And exclaims: 
What on earth is one to make of this observation! 
However, Marx proposed an answer: Judaism is sordid form of Christianity, while Christianity is sublime Judaism. Kamenetz (like many good and spiritual Jews) felt that immersion into the depths of Judaism (=Chr istianity) leads to rejection of Jewish identity. Such people should be supported and assisted to leave the Jewish fold. The leaders of the Jews are aware of the danger and that is why they fight the church and derail its efforts to save the Jews from Judaic tendency. In my opinion, the greatest Jewish achievement in the US was the Boston proclamation by Bishops of the Catholic Church that Jews do not need salvation, effectively reducing Christianity to the level of ‘faith for goyim’. 
Judaic spirit is a real danger to the tripartite ecumene of West-Russia-Islamic world. But biological approach proposed by the Author does not help. One of modern ideologists of European Traditionalism, Horst Mahler, a great adversary of Jewish supremacy, stressed the spiritual element of the struggle:
“ Hitler failed for he attended to biological (racist, tribal) aspect of Jews, while it is the spiritual aspect that had to be fought. Only in April 1945 he recognised that the Jews represent certain Spirit that can’t be defeated but by spirit. The belief that there is no God, that Man is self-sufficient (Humanism), that the World is realizable without recourse to the concept of the Absolute Spirit (God), is the triumph of Judaism over other peoples. On this basis alone these peoples are delivered to Globalism and ordained to destruction”. 
Without spiritual background, the tribe-based research of the Author offers no solution 
but copying of the Jewish strategy. 
II 
Offensive or Defensive? 
(Second Part of discussion with www.jewishtribalreview.org.Chad Powers’ response 
to the first part can be found on that site) 
 	145
It is good we agree on many points, and it is equally good we differ on others. Probably 
the greatest difference in our reading emerges from your words: 
"Being Jewish" … manifests itself as primarily a defensive allegiance against the 
non-Jewish Other. 
In my opinion, it is an OFFENSIVE allegiance, and it is not hair-splitting on my side. The same error of confusing offensive with defensive repeats itself in the two chapters on antiSemitism in WVR. The Author brings numerous examples of ‘Jewish extreme sensitivity’ to what they consider ‘anti-Semitism’, and it includes such unlikely culprits as vegetarianism and lack of reference to Jews. For the Author, it implies extreme defensiveness of the Jews. But let us apply some basics of psychology. 
If a person is dead certain that he is hated, he probably knows of a very good reason to be hated for. Jews in Israel have no doubt the Palestinians hate them, for they would hate Palestinians if the situation would be reversed. If you steal, rob and kill you are sure you should be hated. If you install yourself as a Master Folk over subservient population, if you eradicate their culture, demean their traditions, make fun of their faith and emasculate them, you KNOW you should be hated. The Palestinians are not Jews and they do not hate the Jews, but many Jews do not understand it, as they project their own feelings to their enemies. 
The anti-Semitism fighters within the Jewish community are the Jews actively engaged in warfare against the host society. They consider themselves the Herrenvolk and the Gentile Americans are their flock to be controlled and shepherded. For them, all protestations of Gentile innocence are of no avail: the Jewish anti-Semitism- fighters KNOW the goyim have a very good reason to hate them. 
Holocaust supplies an easy external explanation for their fears, but in 1920s it was supplied by ‘Russian pogroms’ and in the 19 th century by ‘Inquisition’. In case one runs out of reason there is a very good explanation of Elie Wiesel, that of totally irrational anti-Semitism. Still, these explanations are just a cover for the real reason: these group took over America’s discourse, and they expect their successes to be met with hatred of the subjugated people. 
Search for anti-Semitism is an active offensive search for the remaining pockets of resistance within American psyche. It is akin to the search-and-destroy operation carried out by soldiers in the conquered city. In their eyes, palpable absence of anti-Semitism in the US is a clear proof of total surrender of the Americans to their new elite. While discussing ‘antiSemitism’, the Author could consider the search for anti-Semitism as a sterling proof of the searchers’ guilt. An innocent sane person has no reason to believe he is hated, and there is no reason to commit them to psychiatric asylum. 
II 
 	146
In the forthcoming struggle, it makes sense to know who your enemy is and what sort of victory you hope to achieve. In my opinion, the enemy is Jewish supremacy carried out by organised Jewry. 
Now, following Isaac Deutscher and other thinkers, I would distinguish between Jewry and Jews, i.e. people of Jewish origin. Jewry is a structure, a state without territory, an offensive ideological formation. Jews, people of Jewish origin could belong to Jewry or reject it completely and become ordinary Americans, French or Palestinians, like thousands and thousands of their predecessors, from the Apostles to St Teresa of Avila to Karl Marx. It is a question of personal choice, but we are not indifferent to the result. Isaac Deutscher put it neatly: let Jewry perish and Jews live. 
There is always a problem how to distinguish Jews - members of Jewry and ordinary people of Jewish origin. In the days of old, religion provided sufficient indicator for a person’s relationship to society. The Jew was in the state of declared warfare with the society, as Marx put it. If he would not like to be anti-social, he would accept Christ. Nowadays, it is not that clear: Christianity in America isn’t posited as the only alternative, nor a religion is considered necessary. 
Fortunately, we have three criteria. They are 1. Support for Jewish supremacy in Palestine, 2. Preference of Jews over non-Jews, and 3. Support of anti-Semitism fighters.
These three parameters allow us to separate goats from lambs by non-ethnic criteria. Conrad Black, a friend of Sharon and of Foxman, neatly falls into Jewry, while my friend Michael Neumann finds himself on the side of angels. 
Now, what sort of victory should one wish for? In my opinion, the first goal is liberation of discourse, removal of means of mass communication from the clutches of Jewish supremacists, democratisation of access to media. In the longer run, cutting Jewry to its natural size. Let the religious Jews pray in their synagogues, but in case they take their synagogue with them to a bank or to a newspaper office, the affirmative action anti-discrimination law should be enforced. The Jews constitute two per cent of the US population, and that is exactly the maximum share they should have in the resources and administration. 
It is very generous approach: nowadays, in the Jewish state, non-Jews constitute 50 per cent of population but occupy no important positions at all. But Christian approach is not a mirror copy of the Jewish one.
Eventually, Jews will leave Jewry and join all- American population. Our three criteria 
would allow us to see whether we deal with sincere conversion, or a trick. If a person sends his 
 	147
money to Jews, instead of general population, if he calls to support Israel, if he alleges Christian customs make him feel uncomfortable, he belongs to Jewry and should be treated as such. If he freely intermarries and communicates with the others, if he cares for all and not for Jews only, if he values the spirit of America, he is just an American. 
III 
I regret that you misunderstood Michael Neumann’s opus (Blame Yourself: American Power and Jewish Power) you described as Defence of Jews. Yes, Neumann tried to make light of the Jewish power and to magnify the power still in Gentile hands. On my list I run Jeff Blankfort’s response. Jeff refuted him, in brief but poignant description of the vast powers of the Jewish lobby. (I would recommend you to link or display Blankfort’s piece). You, in your response, perceived Neumann’s essay as a usual Jewish dissimulation. 
But actually Neumann tried to encourage you, the Gentile America, to cheer you up, to remind you that ou still have the immense strength of your sinews and your mind. He wasy worried that your spirit is crushed by comprehension of the Jewish power. He behaved like Jesus in the Sufi poem by Jalal ad-Din ar-Rumi, who whipped a sufferer around town, until he vomited a huge snake. Why did you beat me? Asked the healed sufferer and Jesus replied: if I would tell you the truth about the snake you would die of fear. 
It is necessary to make people aware or the great unjust and discriminative concentration of power and wealth in hands of a small group. But it is also tactically reasonable to play this power down, like Mao Zedong did when he called the nuclear might of the US, ‘a papier- mâché tiger’. Neumann’s call for more civil courage was timely: unless you will spe ak up nobody will do it for you. 
Your response to him was a bit too suspicious. There are many guys with Jewish names who prefer equality to Jewish supremacy, because they know: Jewish supremacy is not rule by Einstein or Freud, it is rule by Mort Zuckerman, Ariel Sharon, Richard Pearle et al. Together we can win the game. 
Though I am flattered by being described as ‘anomaly’, but as a matter of fact, I receive many letters to the contrary. Just today I received a letter from an anti- Zionist (or should I say ‘pro-equality’) activist of Jewish origin in California , Jeff Blankfort. He writes: 
“When speaking at an event last year on the subject of "Washington as Israel's Most Important Occupied Territory”, I began my speech by describing the Protocols of the Elders of Zion as "funny papers" compared to the reality not only in Washington but in most of the cities of the United States including San Francisco and Berkeley where I was speaking. Most people who refer to the Protocols have not read them - and I am convinced, given the times and language in which they are written and the terms used, that it is indeed, a forgery, but a forgery 
 	148
that, ironically, presaged what we see today in the US and to a lesser extent in other Western countries, albeit today's versionis much more sophisticated and solidly based in reality. In short, life imitating bad art. And no sector of our society is immune.” 
There are hundreds of similar letters written by people who explicitly reject any claim of organised Jewry on their soul. That is why I believe in possibility to undo the Jewish hegemony in full partnership with ‘Jews’. Again, it is not an ethnic divide: goys Black or Murdoch are as pro-Jewry as Zuckerman. You write: 
The key to Black joining the powerful "tribe" of course, in any sense, rests upon his 
Jewish connections -- in this case his wife, Barbara Amiel… 
 I think this is an error of judgement. Black is not a weakling managed by his wife. A lot of people have Jewish wives (or Jewish husbands). It means nothing. Probably every family in the US elite has a member of Jewish origin (probably your family as well). It is quite normal way of assimilating minorities. In such a way, other successful and powerful minorities were integrated and dismantled in the course of human history. The Jewish leadership hopes to perpetuate its control over these descendents of Jews, but Jews can be assimilated and dejewified like everybody else, if America is alive. That is the challenge for America: to dejewify Jews before Jews will jewify them. 
Extreme Right and Left 
‘Jews are against Fascists and Neo-Nazis’ (as extreme right is often described). This received wisdom is an inherent part of our collective conscience. Oriana Falacci made it the leading motif of her long apotheosis of Jews. However, like many received wisdoms it has to be critically addressed. Historically many Jews were active in the Fascist movement. There were Jewish party leaders and ministers in the government of Mussolini. ‘If I would just agree, the Nazi party would be stampeded by Jewish members’, boasted Hitler in 1935. Zionist leaders, from Stern to Yitzhak Shamir to Wise expressed their support of Nazis and were prepared to find their niche within the New World Order of Hitler. It is well attended by Lenni Brenner, the anti-Zionist Trotskyite author of Zionism in the Age of Dictators, Mark Weber of HRA and other researchers. 
Nowadays the old constellation comes back, as the French Zionists joined forces with French splinters of extreme right (ok, Neo-Nazis) against the Muslim community of France. Reuters reported that “French neo -Nazis formed an alliance with extremist Jewish groups on the Internet to publish a torrent of hate messages directed against Arabs and Muslims, according to a report by a leading anti-racist group. Members of extreme-right groups were prepared to set aside their anti-Semitic feelings to share Web space and know-how with extremist pro-Israeli campaigners, amid a rise in violence in the Middle East” 116. 
 	149
In Flanders, an alliance of Zionists and Fascists of Fillip De Winter is a fact. In Holland, the late Fascist leader Pim Fortuyn was extremely pro-Zionist. In England, Martin Webster sounds alarm for what he considered ‘pro-Zionist turn of the British extreme right’. Zionists can provide the extreme right with legitimacy and access to media in exchange for support of Zionism, he wrote Being fully aware of it, some extreme right leaders entered a symbiotic relationship with Jewish organisations. In Russia, Alexander Dugin, an important thinker and a charismatic figure of the nationalist right flirts with the extremist Jews, settlers of Hebron. An American extreme right website117 preaches: “Saving Israel is even more crucial than defeating the Left. We should not relax in the battle against cultural Marxism, but even more urgent than waging war on Marxism is the need to save Israel from its own leaders and from total destruction”. 
Thus, Zionist forces promote their own versions of pseudo-right, to fight Muslims, and pseudo- left, to fight communists and nationalists. They are identifiable by their bottom line – in the end they support the official line of Jewry. On one end, there is Stephen Schwartz, who was a Trotskyite, a Reaganite, and now a Muslim, but in all his reincarnations he followed the party line: calling for the US intervention in Latin America, in Balkans, and now preaching war on ‘wahhabist’ Saudi Arabia118. On another end, there is Lenni Brenner, who always refers to Communists as ‘Stalinists’, instigates clashes with the right -wing demos and also calls for an action against Saudi Arabia for some obscure feminist reasons. 
The World War Three made imperative the strategic coalition of the true left and right forces against their common enemy. Naturally, our adversaries fear it more than anything else. They try to frighten folks away by the images of Commies and Nazis. Mysteriously, a ‘small’ question of Palestine became the litmus test for real opposition to war and the fake one. Thus, Marxist opinions of a friend of Palestine, the editor of Socialist Viewpoint Rod Holt, were de-legitimised by the 'mainstream' as efficiently and ruthlessly as those of Buchanan or Sobran. 
The anti- war movement had brought the Left and the Right together. Such a Left-and-Right coalition is desirable tactically and strategically, but it has a deeper meaning, as well. The Left and The Right promote two differing approaches, where one stands for individualism, another for equality, one stands for progress, another for stability, one for the roots, another for mobility, one for hierarchy, another for freedom. Both are good and important. (Yes, they can become nasty if run unchecked, but it is true even about rabbits). 
However, the whole field of discourse is not a straight line, but a ring consisting of two semi-circles. The Left and the Right semicircles meet in two spots. One of them is the centrist bog, the Republicrats, but its opposite is the perfect combination of mind and heart, the place of highest spirituality akin to Annunciation. This far-away meeting point of Left and Right is the 
 	150
total rejection of the whole range of Mammonite strategies from Globalisation to Zionism. For people aware of Hegel's dialectics, that is the place where the left turns into its opposite, the right, and the lamb lays with a lion. Spiritually it corresponds to the meeting of Sublime and Mundane. It is the place of love to God and Man, and therefore the enemies of God and Man call it the place of hate. 
Rock of Dissent 
A victim can develop mental attachment to the tormentor. Patty Hearst, a milliona ire’s daughter, was kidnapped and fell in love with her kidnappers. In the Night Porter, the dark movie by Liliana Cavani, an ex- inmate of a Nazi camp and an ex-SS-man, her tormentor of past, run a passionate love affair. 
Now something similar happens in the Palestinian American community. The most reviled and wronged group of American population is called to defend the most prosperous and powerful one against their own supporters. On 24th of August ’02, there will be an event in Washington, Rock for Palestine, or Rock against Israel, as it is also called. The event is organised by some right-wing Americans, loosely connected to a small group called National Alliance (NA). Whatever one thinks about NA, one would expect a satisfied shrug, at least, if not outright support coming from Palestinians and their friends in the US. 
Instead, in the emails there is a hysterical letter119 addressed to “all my Arab sisters and brothers”, calling to violently confront the event in a military manner (!) “in several different contingents with various risk levels”. The letter is extremely violent and is written in intemperate language of hate, the like of it we have not seen before: “We have to stop this racist scum from polluting the Palestinian cause”, no less. The organisers of the event are described as “neo -Nazis”, “fascists”, “Nazi enemies” and “anti -Semites”. It is composed by a mysterious East Coast Anti-Fascist Network, and has some Arab names attached to it, though for sure it isn’t written by an Arab. 
Now, nobody likes Nazis, but I wonder why this militant Anti-Fascist Network did not go out to confront gatherings and demonstrations of Judeo-Nazis? What is so wonderful about us Jews that so many people wish to go out and fight for us “in different contingents with various risk levels”? Why this fighting Uruk -hai does not describe Mort Zuckerman or Richard Perle, “racist scum”? Not even Israeli settlers, as racist as anybody, were ever described as “racist scum” that “should not pollute Palestine”. 
It is a mistake to describe anybody as “scum”. We should promote more tolerant discourse, accepting or arguing, not fighting somebody else’s war. The letter of this “anti - fascist Network” looks like an attempt of the Jewish lobby to make its adversaries to fight each other. 
 	151
This thing has no end. Today they want us to fight NA, tomorrow they would ask us to condemn Farrakhan, and next day – to reject Hezbollah and Hamas. Maybe some of us would like to be approved and promoted only by the Yale professors. But we live in real world. Israel accepts support of every racist that extends its support: be it South African apartheid of old, or present-say fundamentalists, and it does not hurt its “credibility”. 
It does not mean that one should run forward and endorse the NA get-together. But these people should be worked with, not rejected out of hand. Some of their erroneous ideas could be corrected. If they would just say “affirmation of European legacy” instead of “white supremacy” you would discover that the arguments against them collapse. It is like saying “let us make love” instead of 'fuck you'- the meaning is quite similar, but wording is important.
I do not intend even to enter discussion, whether the organisers of the event are good guys or bad guys. They can’t be more racist han the present Israeli government and the American Jewish community leadership. They can’t be more racist than Pat Roberson and his bunch of (anti-)Christian Zionists. Let this anti- fascist (and surely crypto-Jewish) network go out and fight them first. I would bless whoever supports the cause of Palestine without checking their ideological credentials. I bless all supporters of Palestine full stop. 
However, navigating to the home page of the NA, one finds a cartoon to sympathise with. It is rather crude depiction of a Neo-Con, looking like a cross between Kissinger and Perle, asking America to kill his enemies: Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia and so forth. Yes, these guys are short of finesse, some of their ideas are weird, but they came to correct conclusion: America should not fight the WWIII for the Zionists’ sake. 
In our Togethernet, “the freest discussion group in the known Universe ”, we had some people who will attend the concert. One of them wrote: “I don't know of ANY white “supremacists” outside of a coup le of fantasizing juvenile delinquents in the World Church of the Creator and some Hollywood Nazis. And a section of the Republican Party personified by George Bush. “Supremacist” is a label created by the Zionists of the ADL and kindred spirits. It was used for the same purpose as calling all Palestinian opposition to Zionist occupation and invasion, 'terrorism'. Methinks the Zionists engage in a lot of projectionism when they cast their epithets”. 
If we go out now to defend the powerful American Jews and to fight these ‘White’ guys, because we do not like their ideology, our next step should be to go out and defend Israel with our own bodies against possible attack from Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. Saddam is also supposed to be a bad guy, and I am ready to accept he is. In 1991, I wrote in the leading Russian newspaper, “Probably Saddam is a bad guy, but the Middle East needs a strong bad guy to counteract other, Zionist bad guys”. 
 	152
The world is full of bad guys, and things are good only if and when the bad guys balance each other. Saddam would balance Sharon, while the White supremacists would balance the Jewish supremacists. If indeed these men are not supremacists, but cultural separatists, as they claim, we certainly can do things together with them, and with another group of cultural separatists, the Black Muslims, too. 
The author of the epistle offers, with his low grade cunning, an additional reason for Palestinians to go and fight for Jews: “If we don't do this, our Nazi enemies will claim our noble cause and our Zionist enemies will try to present them as our face”. Let him rest assured. In Israel, and in Jewish communities overseas, Palestinians are presented as Nazis on daily basis. Menachem Begin called Arafat, “Hitler” years ago. If there is a nasty thin g that the Jewish-owned media could say and print about Palestinians, they already did it. When Palestinian children are shot, Palestinians are blamed that they let their children out. The Palestinians are already smeared so much that they can not be smeared more: they are already described as Jew-haters and baby-killers. How come we Jews do not become “discredited” because of Kahane terrorists or Sharon’s assassins? Because people understand: not every Jew is a Judeo-Nazi. In the same way, Americans can distinguish between different opponents of the Israeli apartheid. 
Let us suppose for the sake of argument, that these ‘white supremacists’ are real Nazis. (They are not). It would be enough for them to cease attacking Jews, and they would become perfectly good in the eyes of the US media. After that, they would be permitted to say whatever they wish against Muslims, Palestinians, Blacks. All this talk against fascism lasts only as long as the fascists are against Jews. The moment they switch sides, they get kosher approval. Now, an Israeli government delegation participated in deliberations of European extreme right (“fascists”) in Brussels 120. In France, Zionists and Neo-Nazis joined forced and ran joint internet server for anti-Muslim hate. In the US, the “pro -white” people are not courted by the Jewish community, but it still could happen, if we do not watch out. 
Probably you had seen this last Bruce Willis movie, Last Man Standing. In a small Texan town there are two gangs, and Willis helps them to fight it out. The Jewish supremacists are a million times stronger than all White supremacists put together. Elementary strategy calls us to avoid giving any support to the Jewish cause, until the apartheid in Palestine is dismantled. 
 As for the concert, probably some Palestinians and their friends will get there, and the rest would stay away. The organisers did not ask for anybody’s endorsement. Let the anti-fascists keep their strength for more worthy cause. And whoever will go to fight for the 	 American Jewish community, let him be prepared for disappointment. His chivalry will not be reciprocated. 
 	153
The Dangerous Liaisons 
The eople of Francep	have sent an important message to the world, by passing the nationalist leader, Jean-Mari le Pen to the second round of the French presidential elections. It was not just  a proof of general dissatisfaction, as the NY Times claimed. The first round occurred while the Israeli troops besieged the Church of Nativity, and their bulldozers worked around the clock covering mass graves of their victims in the Jenin refugee camp, they bombed churches and mosques in Nablus and Gaza, shot at the Holy Virgin in Bethlehem, while one hundred fifty thousand Jews marched in Paris and elsewhere, supporting the genocide in Palestine. Waving Israeli flags and draped in the blue and white colours (the tricolour is dropped and forgotten), the Jews marched from the Place de la République to the Place de la Bastille in Paris, chanting in French and Hebrew and carrying signs that read "Yesterday New York, today Jerusalem, tomorrow Paris”. 
Today’s Jerusalem is an unhappy city, its non-Jewish majority dispossessed, pushed into ghetto and controlled by the brutal Border Police. Today’s Jerusalem has the most advanced torture facilities, and there, thousands of kidnapped Palestinians are subjected to electric chocks, beating and humiliation. Today’s Jerusalem is a place where only Jews can move freely and enjoy the fruits of civilisation. Should it be a model for tomorrow’s Paris? Mais non, said the French. 
That was the main message sent by the French voter. We should thank General Sharon’s brutality and ill-conceived solidarity of Jews in France with the génocidaire for this result. Until now, the Jews were divided. In Palestine, Zionists created a toxic, fe rociously nationalist and religiously fanatic entity based on Hitler’s Nuremberg Laws. Elsewhere, in France as well as in Britain, Jews supported the liberal paradigm. In Palestine, Zionists shot at the church; in France, their supporters undermined it by subterfuge.  One law for themselves: extreme right wing nationalism of Sharon. Another law for the other: neo-liberalism and multi-culturalism. 
Jews became united to an extent unknown since the days immemorial, united by a common will, single purpose and a feeling of arriving to the pinnacle of power. Not hundred per cent, but who is hundred percent united? Intoxication of power and unity caused even usually cautious people to drop masks, to leave pretences. This new openness provided us with a previously unheard-of insight into the soul of Israel supporters. 
 	154
A Jewish American voice, Ron Grossman of Chicago Tribune121 wrote, “As a self-proclaimed humanist, I ought to recoil in horror from the thought of tanks rumbling through a city, anybody's city. My head should hang in sorrow at televised images of street fighting (rather, massacres - ISH) in Bethlehem and Ramallah. But here is a hint: Don't lecture or preach to us. Forget about appealing to our better selves”. 
Please note this plural ‘us’ before denying the obvious. Zionists do not hide anymore behind the useful but dated device of “Americans , French or British citizens of Jewish faith”. It is again The Jews, a single body with a single mind. Forget about appealing to their better selves, as they have not got any. 
“N o one can express the aspirations of most Israelis like the prime minister. This is not a war that was waged by Sharon, the "warmonger”, this is the war of all of us”, reports Gideon Levy, a man of heart and conscience, in Haaretz. “It will also be very difficult to blame Sharon for the consequences of the war, in the light of the sweeping support he has been given by the majority of Israelis. Nearly 30,000 men were mobilized and they reported for duty as one man, making the refusal movement, with 21 refuseniks currently in jail, irrelevant”. 
Their supporters abroad were just as awful as those in Palestine. Professor David D. 
Perlmutter wrote in LA Times122:
I daydream--if only! If in 1948, 1956, 1967 or 1973 Israel had acted just a bit like the Third Reich, then today Israelis would shop, eat pizza, marry and celebrate the holy days unmolested. And of course Jews, not sheiks, would have that Gulf oil. 
Witty if snobbish Taki of the British weekly Spectator contributed the following
anecdotal evidence of the new Jewish vehemence and single-mindedness:
On Easter Sunday, during lunch, the richest woman in Israel, Irit Lando123, suddenly burst into my house and began to harangue my friends and family about Adam Shapiro. Despite the fact she's one of my wife's oldest friends and was invited to drop in after lunch, I was extremely annoyed. I reminded Irit that my house was not Israeli occupied territory; that it was Easter; and knowing how I feel about the plight of the Palestinians, she should change the subject. Which she did, turning on the press, instead, and how they gave publicity to that godawful traitor Adam Shapiro. 
As few mavericks of Jewish origin like Adam Shapiro or marvellous Jennifer Loewenstein became increasingly marginalized, too many Jews rallied to support Sharon and Israel. From Moscow to Brooklyn, from Marseille to Hampstead, WE ARE ONE, proclaimed the headline of the Jewish Week. This vision of united, ready for the kill, organisation could not but scare the French voter, and any thinking man. 
 	155
Le Pen was (mistakenly) considered an anti- Zionist. It was not true, and many Zionists actually supported him for his anti- immigrant views. But the erroneous vision influenced some voters. It is quite impossible to access exact share of anti-Zionist vote in France, but it is not negligible. 
The French and the West European Left should learn the lesson before it is too late. Their liaison with Zionists became a liability and a source of embarrassment. Historically it was probably justified, but not any more. Instead of supporting Zionist agenda, the Left can compete with the Right by addressing problems of working class in the country and of the income disparity on the global scale, and, yes, accepting anti-Zionism. Even Right’s anti- immigration agenda can be interpreted by the Left as fight against the cause of mass immigration, the unfair globalisation and Bush and Blair’s War on Islam. In the forthcoming May elections in the UK, the Left should give the boot to Tony Blair, and turn to the tradition of Michael Foot. 
The electoral success of Le Pen could signify the turn-around in post-war policy. Inverting the slogan of French Jews, we say, Yesterday Paris, Today Washington, and Tomorrow Jerusalem. 
P.S. My commentary on Le Pen’s electoral success in the first round of the French 
presidential elections caused many responses, from exuberant 
“Yes, man. I agree with every word” 
of Gilad Atzmon, the Israeli musician and writer, to surly 
“Take me off your list. I'm seeking to have you banned from al-awda-unity” 
of the good Jewish American supporter of Palestinians, Stanley Heller.
The discourse went by two distinct routes, one, referring to Le Pen, his policies and circumstances, including the question of immigration; two, is the usual ‘fight against antiSemitism’ of our Jewish friends. I hesitate to enter another debate of anti-Semitism. After Jenin massacre, during the vicious siege of the Church of Nativity, I am not sure we should give much consideration to fine feelings of our Jewish friends. Hundred years ago, a similar discussion went on between the Russian Bolsheviks (of Jewish and any other origin) and the Jewish Bundists. Bund felt the Jewish people are too special to get the general treatment. Years and aeons passed, but good people like Stanley (though I appreciate him and his work for the cause) do not succeed to get out of Bund mould. 
If our Jewish friends’ feelings are hurt, they are now in the same boat as the Muslims, terrorists to a man, as the Germans, willing executioners of You-Know-Who, as Europeans (White Supremacists) and the rest of mankind. This demand of a special treatment for the Jews is a source of Jewish neurosis. Why a Jewish Week may write, “We (the Jews) Are One”, but I 
 	156
may not repeat: “the Jews are unified to an incredible extent” ? Isn’t it a case of having a cake 
and eating it, proclaiming unity within and forbidding the outsiders to see it? 
Stanley objects to an ‘old canard’ of Jews as enemies of Christ. We live in the strange days when old canards became true. Jews besiege the Church of Nativity, and probably will destroy it soon – is it an “old canard” or reality? Senate and Congress of the US kowtow to the Jews – is it an “old canard” or reality? Stan is sure that the Americans will forever stand by the Jews, right or wrong. Well, the success of Le Pen should teach him that it can change.
He thinks that Le Pen won the hearts of French voters by his anti-Muslim views. How come, then, that Le Pen was tried twice for his “anti-Semitic” remarks, and never – for the anti-Muslim ones? I am not alone in my opinion: Naomi Klein of No Logo wrote: “The hatred of Jews is a potent political tool in the hands of the right in Europe and in Israel. For Mr. Le Pen, anti-Semitism is a windfall, helping spike his support from 10 per cent to 17 per cent in a week”. 
Some readers misunderstood me and thought I support Le Pen. Surely I do not: Le Pen is a bad guy in my books, but bad guys will be called to undo the excessive Jewish power if the good guys fail to do it.
Innocent abroad 
(Response to Jackie Jacubowski’s The double message of Yasser Arafat (Dagens Nyheter August 9th 2002) 
The medieval seafarers were notorious for delivering home rather dubious titbits from faraway lands. People with dog heads, mares impregnated by Easterly wind, ferocity of natives were reported about, and duly recorded by their land-bound contemporaries. Whenever one leafs through Isidor of Seville or Adam of Bremen, one encounters a picture of the world greatly misunderstood and misinterpreted due to innocence and ignorance of writers. Since then, we learned that one should write about things one knows first- hand. Coherent writing demands a certain expertise. 
It is probably not enough to be a Swede to write intelligently about Swede root, or to have dark skin to write a leader on African affairs. Are you still with me? Then you will share my astonishment why DN decided to spare half of its Culture page to splash a piece on Middle East and peoples of Islamic world penned by Mr Jacubowski. From my personal acquaintance with Jackie, this many-gifted writer knows about the Middle East as little as the next man. He speaks no Arabic, he never studied the area, he is no expert on Islam. His only connection is that Mr Jacubowski deeply loves Israel, as do many Polish Jews who preferred to come to Sweden rather than to sweat it out in our hot and beautiful country. As an Israeli, I approve and 
 	157
appreciate this feeling. He could write a poem full of love to Israel and/or to Jewish people, and 
it could be of interest to DN readers, or at least to friends of Mr Jacubowski. 
Instead, he chose to write on subject he has no idea about. Jackie tells us what was preached in a Gaza mosque. How could he know? He has no language, no tools to understand what is said, and he is ten thousand miles away. The answer is simple. Careful reading shows that Mr Jacubowski lifted all his examples from a single publication by the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), an organisation ostensibly supposed to bring westwards the Arab discourse. MEMRI sends around its sets of quotes, always hostile to Islam and Arabs, to be picked by the likes of Mr Jacubowski. How do I know it is his source? In his essay, he repeated the MEMRI line calling ar-Riyadh “the Saudi Government official newspaper”, while it is a small private-owned paper.
As the respectable British newspaper, the Guardian, reported124, MEMRI is a secretive body managed by Colonel Yigal Carmon of Israeli Military Intelligence. Out of six members of MEMRI staff, three are working (or have been working) for Israeli Intelligence, another one served in the Israeli Army Northern Command, that ran the al-Khayam Torture Prison in South Lebanon. 
The non-Army member of MEMRI staff, Brian Whitaker of the Guardian tells us, is an Israeli right-winger Meyrav Wurmser, from the Likud ideological warfare body in the US, the Hudson Institute. While Jackie quotes Amos Oz with sympathy, his main source, Ms Wurmser, considers “leftwing Israeli intellectuals” like Oz, - a threat to the state of Israel. 
Information and disinformation coming from such biased sources has to be correctly presented to the reader with full credits to its origin: the hate- mongering right-wing elements within Israeli Intelligence. Mr Jacubowski broke this rule and misinformed the Swedish reader. By innocence or ignorance, he turned this newspaper into another conduit of Israeli propaganda. 
His second major source gets full credits. It is the Islam scholar Bernard Lewis, who provides Jackie with some especially virulent conclusions. I must admit this choice shows even more the innocence, or ignorance of Mr Jacubowski. Lewis was tried and found guilty of “hate crime” in France, and was branded as a Holocaust denier. Could such a person serve as reputable source for judging one billion Muslims? Probably not without informing the reader of his very particular views. Surely, Lewis denied the Armenian holocaust, not the Jewish one, but I hope even very devoted to Israel Mr Jacubowski would not distinguish between blood and blood, genocide and genocide. Or would he?.. Astonishingly, this holocaust denier is very popular with Jewish extreme nationalists. 
With such sources, it is not strange that Jackie’s piece is saturated with Jewish
supremacist bias. It calls for a lot of Chutzpah or ignorance to speak of “problematic attitude of 
 	158
Islam towards the disciples of other religions”. No sincere and knowledgeable Israeli would say so: an owner of glass house does not throw stones unto his neighbours. We know that Simeon bar Yohai, a great Rabbi, whose memory we celebrate on Lag Baomer, had taught, “Kill the best of Goyyim (non-Jews)”. We know that our most prominent modern Ashkenazi Rabbi Adin Steinzaltz wrote: “For a Jew, it is better to serve Hitler, than Jesus Christ”. We know that the greatest living Sephardi Rabbi Yosef called Arabs “snakes who should be killed”. Islam is much more tolerant to Christians and Jews, than other way around. 
Mr Jacubowski “discloses” to the readers the “hidden second meaning” of Arafat’s words, going all the way to Mecca and Medina. If he is so keen on interpretation of hidden allusions, maybe he will interpret to the DN readers the advert published on the front page of Haaretz newspaper125, signed by a group of Rabbis. The Rabbis proclaimed the theological identification of Ishmael, i.e. the Arabs, with the Amalek. 
Here is the hint: ‘Amalek’ is mentioned in the Bible as the name of a tribe that caused trouble for the Children of Israel. In this story, the God of Israel commands His people to exterminate the Amalek tribe completely, including its livestock. King Saul botched the job: he exterminated them all right, but failed to kill nubile unwed maidens. This ‘failure’ cost him his crown. The obligation to exterminate the people of Amalek is still counted among the tenets of the Jewish faith, though for centuries nobody made the identification of a living nation with the accursed tribe. 
In plain English, the Rabbis’ ruling means: our religious duty is to kill all the Arabs, including women and babies and their livestock; to the last cat. The liberal Haaretz, whose editor and owner are sufficiently versed to understand the ruling, did not hesitate to place the ad. 
Jacubowski quotes words of an Egyptian preacher against peace. This preacher could compare his notes with the late Lubawitche r Rebbe, one of the most authoritative Rabbinic authorities of modern Judaism, who forbade to sign the ‘godless’ peace treaty with Egypt. 
This is the ‘theological’ discourse of the Middle East; in this context Mr Jacubowski could explain to the DN readers the unpleasant sayings of our neighbours. But he preferred to quote out of context, and misled the reader. 
One can understand why. It is easier to reject the medieval accusation of Jews killing Christian children, than to deal with horrible amount of real Christian and Muslim children murdered by the soldiers of the Jewish state. But for us, Israelis, it is the fact we should confront: hundreds of Palestinian children, from age of three months to sixteen years, were shot by Israeli soldiers before the first suicide bomber left his base. And we are painfully aware of it. The head of Shabak, the feared Israeli counter-intelligence, a harsh old soldier, not a soft left-wing humanist, expressed his astonishment and horror, speaking on TV News, about ease the Israeli 
 	159
soldiers kill Palestinian children. “Why don’t they refuse such an order?”, said Ami Ayalon. But 
for Jacubowski, it is preferable to speak about medieval accusations. 
As in passim, Mr Jacubowski ‘explains’ to his readers what is al-Nakba. This instant expert says it is “Arabic for the Catastrophe, i.e. the foundation of Israel”. I am at loss, is it an attempt of al-Nakba denial, a disease Jackie got from the Holocaust denier Lewis, or just plain innocence, akin to dog heads in Adam of Bremen chronics? If al-Nakba, in his enlightened opinion, means “the foundation of Israel”, why we do not translate it always in such way? Naturally, al-Nakba is not “the foundation of Israel”, but the horrific ethnic cleansing perpetuated by Zionists in 1948, when 90 per cent of non-Jews (native Palestinians, Armenians, Circassians, Germans, Russians, Greeks) were forcibly expelled, and their property confiscated by the emerging Jewish state. As the publisher of Judiska Kronika, Mr Jacubowski could translate and print in the next issue one of the best known Israeli short stories, Khirbet Khize, by S. Yizhar, “the Israeli James Joyce”. There he would find a blood -curdling description of al-Nakba, never to be forgotten. Jackie thinks that the Swedish foreign minister does not understand the true meaning of Arabs. Alas, as we have seen, he understands it even worse.
However, his lack of understanding can bring grievous consequences. He, and other active “friends” of Israel reinforce the feeling of one -billion-strong Muslim world that it is not only us Israelis, but all the Jews stand against them. Publication of his biased essay entrenches the myth of omnipotent Jews who are able to print such biased stuff in important newspapers from New York to Stockholm. 
Presentation of our Palestinian neighbours as “untrustworthy Arabs, full of anti-Semitic hate” is not only wrong. It implies we have no place, no future in the Middle East. A ghetto, even an extremely well armed ghetto can not survive the hostility of neighbours, while Jackie ’s message reinforces the ghetto mentality of our people. We, Israelis, are not seeking a new Masada, a new Warsaw Ghetto or the nuclear holocaust. Unlike Jackie, we live there and we would like to stick around. Our Palestinian neighbours are wonderful people, not haters and monsters. Advices of Bernard Lewis and other right-wing hate- mongers already brought us to the most severe crisis of present days. We, people of the Holy Land, should turn to understanding, mutual love and respect, full equality for a Jew and Gentile, as in Sweden. Try and support it, instead of hate- mongering. 
Response to Nigel Perry 
Mr Perry has worries. He is not worried about Palestinian refugees or about the dried up 
springs of Palestine. He is worried that a newspaper I quoted had a link to Holocaust deniers on 
 	160
its website. “We are only one click away from common or garden variety Holocaust denial». Well, it is his worry. I am not worried at all by the ‘deniers’ or ‘revisionists’. My opinion on this subject was expressed in the Vampire Killers. But for Perry, as for every employee of the Jewish lobby, holocaust cult is the quintessence of holiness. You deny Deir Yassin or the Immaculate Conception, and they would not move a eyelid. Only the Holocaust is of interest for them. 
Perry pushes it even further, ‘Shamir trying to sell apparently stolen Nazi memorabilia to David Irving, who is arguably the most famous Holocaust denier of our times’. In this sentence only names are spelt correct, all the rest are lies. But let us, for the sake of argument, disregard this point. After all, a lie says more about its inventor than truth. 
What is wrong, in Perry’s mind, with David Irving? For me, a mass murder is a mass murder. Mass murder at Auschwitz is neither better nor worse than mass murder of Dresden or Hiroshima. And both are irrelevant to the Palestinian conflict. As for denial, Shimon Peres denied the mass murder of Armenians, and somehow nobody is horrified. A leading figure of Not In My Name, a Jewish pro-Palestinian organization, did not deny but justified the mass murder of Palestinian Christians in AD 614 (they were bad to Jews and deserved their death, he wrote), and he remained a best friend of Abunimah and Perry. Irving has his ideas on the scope of the mass murder of Jews during WWII. These ideas were recently voiced by the well known columnist of the Nation, Christopher Hitchens, and the mass murderer of Cambodians, Henry Kissinger, attacked him for ‘holocaust denial’. 
Norman Finkelstein criticized the idea of the Jewish holocaust’s uniqueness. The unique qualities of the Jewish holocaust do not imply it is unique: they are just specific qualities of this specific holocaust. All holocausts are dissimilar, as are unhappy families in the opening of Tolstoy’s Anna Karenina. I would add that the idea of the Jewish holocaust’s uniqueness is based on a single premise: that of Jewish uniqueness. ‘Denial’ or ‘holocaust’ wasn’t ever a dispute about the events of the WWII. It is about power, about present powerful position of the American Jewish establishment and its Israeli offshoot. It is a frightener: whatever you say, you are not allowed to discuss, nay, mention the question of Jewish power in the US. 
Maxim Rodinson, a noted French Marxist and biographer of the Prophet, defined Israel as ‘a settler state’, a colony. But every settler state has its mother country, the source of external power. French Algerie was manned and supported by France. What is the external power supporting Israel? What is its mother country? It is not the US, it is the network of Jewish communities around the world led by the American Jewish community, the World Jewry. The US was a settler state, whose mother country was England. Later, the tables were turned, and the US became the more prominent. Similar development took place in Brazil, which became more 
 	161
prominent than Portugal. Maybe Israel will become more prominent than its ‘mother country’, 
the overseas Jewish communities, but it has not happened yet. 
The Algerian comparison helps to understand things. Imagine yo u are an Algerian visiting pre-Evian France. In these days French army killed and tortured thousands of Algerians. In France you would meet many French supporters of Algerian Arab people, and probably you will come to a conclusion that it is not France that fought them, it is the French settlers in Algerie. But it would be a wrong conclusion: the war was carried out by the might of France. France – not the French settlers in Algerie – was criticized in the UN and demanded to put end to the war. French supporters of the Algerian Arab cause knew they were fighting against France. They thought that there are things more important than consanguinity. 
American Jews, supporters of the Palestinian cause, will do well if they consider this. The war in Palestine is carried out by the offshoot of the American Jewry, and it will be won or lost in the US. The real power of the Jews is not just in money, it is in our strong influence on the discourse achieved by holding (and sometimes misusing) important positions in academia, in the media, and in the liberal-arts disciplines. It is a delicate subject, and an American Jewish thinker Isaac Asimov turned to sci- fi in order to express his feelings. In his Foundation, he speaks of ‘the guardians of the historical narrative’. 
The permitted discourse on Palestine is a mainstream Jewish discourse, between the hard Jews of the Kahane type and the soft Peace Now. It always takes for granted the necessity of sustaining the Jewishness of Israel. This precondition excludes a real solution of our problems. 
Nigel Perry is an enforcer of Political Correctness. He proudly mentions many years of involvement with the Palestinian cause. Well, such guys are one of the reasons why the Palestinian cause looks the way it does. He writes:
‘Shamir suggested that the only thing that would assist the cause of Palestinian liberation is the denigration and marginalization of the American Jewish community. Needless to say, both this analysis of the supposed problem and solution is intellectually and morally bankrupt’.  
Perry lies and misleads. To point out the excessive influence of a group is not ‘to denigrate’ it. To pass the power of discourse to people at large is not ‘to marginalize’anyone. Yes, the discourse should be changed and its base democratized, in America, Europe and elsewhere. That was the great idea of Edward Said, expressed in his Orientalism. 
The resentp positions of the American Jewish ‘guardians of historical narrative’ are unsustainable, they are also damaging. Democracy in Palestine, for me, was always a symbol of democracy for all. Removal of Jewish extra rights in Palestine is connected with removal of Jewish extra rights in America. People should be equal and have equal access to discourse. 
 	162
Perry’s argument shows the true interest o f Perry. He takes care of his Jewish American employers and enforces their line in the Palestinian circles. I worry about the excluded ones, I write help you with the discourse. 
Perry wrote:
‘It is worth noting that Shamir's response to the Abunimah/Ibish letter contains no actual denial of anti-Semitism. "Any irrational aversion to Jews should be certainly eradicated and condemned”, is the closest he got. Not "I am not anti-Semitic" or any formulation so simple’. 
The A-s word has no definite meaning. If it means biological aversion to the descendents of Jews, it is bad. If it means dissatisfaction with the important positions held by the organized Jewry, it is reasonable. These positions are not sustainable anyway. Ethnic and religious minorities can dominate the Imperial discourse, as Greeks did in the Ottoman Empire, but only as long as they identify themselves with the Empire. Otherwise, there will be a painful divorce, as it happened with Greeks of Istanbul when they identified themselves with new-born Greece. 
The holocaust discussion appears to me a hidden crypto-religious discourse similar to the ‘filioque’ argument between the Orthodox and the Catholic churches, or a dispute about Caliph succession between Sunni and Shiah Islam. The sides say one thing, but mean something different. It is a crypto-discussion about Jewish power, as the Islamic discussion was an argument between power groups. I would say: drop this oblique talk, let Auschwitz rest in peace, speak about the real problem. 
It has nothing to do with ‘guilt’, as French feel no guilt for killing a million of Algerians, nor Americans care about the murdered Vietnamese. ‘The guilt feeling for the Jewish holocaust’ is just a form of submission to Jewish power. In the same way, the confession of sins in the Church is a form of submission to Church power. 
As long as the participants of the discussion accept the guidance of Nigel Perry and other crypto-supporters of Jewish exclusivity, they are bound to lose. The Western world is ripe for the real discussion of the real Jewish power, without fear of the ‘anti-Semitic’ label. After all, we are able to discuss the power of the aristocracy, despite the aristocrats’ enormous suffering in the terror of 1793. Would ‘the hate laws’ apply to a discourse on the vestiges of the aristocracy influence? 
Kugel Eaters 
Jews are good to eat kugel with, opined that notorious anti-Semite, Sholom Aleichem, and he added, that is all they are good to do with. This maxim came to my mind, as Chicago hosts the ‘Junity’, or Jew ish Unity for Just Peace conference. Maybe Sholom Aleichem was too harsh. He spoke without knowing any Sephardi Jews who would rather die than touch kugel. But 
 	163
even forsaking this sticky delicacy, I can imagine few things Jews can meaningfully do together, - for example, pray. Political struggle for equality in Palestine does not call for a separate Jews-only discussion. 
Moreover, it is a self-defeating course. The concept of Jews for Justice, Jews for peace and other separatist all-Jewish groups in pursuit of common goals appears to me about as justifiable as that of Whites against Apartheid. Equality in South Africa was achieved by overcoming such dubious groupings, by the color-blind force of the ANC. The civil rights struggle in the Southern states was carried out by Blacks and Whites together. It appears that the cause of justice in Palestine should not be different. Why, then, the Jewish Unity conference instead of an all- American conference? 
This question has an answer. Many American Jews have come to object the mistreatment of non-Jews in Palestine. Their numbers are limited, as is their influence, but the process is important and desirable. Maybe they cannot change the world, but their honorable position has a profound impact on the outcome of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. And on their souls. In standing up for justice, they encounter marvelous new friends, their fellow Americans, and discover the human warmth outside the all- Jewish environment. They break with the tribal tradition of ‘Jews hanging together’, and discover the way to join their countrymen. They become better human beings; they achieve ‘tikkun’, the mystic correction of soul. 
Such a man is Bob Green of Vermont, a psychoanalyst, a nephew of the first Prime Minister of Israel, David Ben Gurion, and a scion of the illustrious Aharonson family who added many pages to the history of Palestine. His best friends are Mousa, a computer expert for IBM, an American Palestinian from ancient Aboud, and his wife Kristin, an American of Norwegian extraction, a brilliant translator of Arab literature. I met them in Vermont and was blown away by their friendship, based on love for the whole human race. They are a paradigm of brotherhood: when other Jews follow the way of Bob Green out of separatism, the present policies of the organized Jewish community will come to an end. 
That is the last thing the bosses want. I would not be amazed if this subject came up, when they met in Edgar Bronfman’s mansion in Manhattan. The head of the World Jewish Congress hosted a meeting of the fifty richest and most powerful Jews of the US and Canada126. There was no press coverage, no limelight, just a few lines in the newspapers. In a terse report by Shlomo Shamir, Haaretz reported that these billionaires gathered to discuss ways to achieve Jewish unity and strengthen the Jewish identity of American Jews. They also agreed to launch yet another major PR program under the Orwellian codename of ‘Truth’ with the purpose of influencing American public opinion regarding Israeli policies. 
 	164
The megabucks crowd call themselves the ‘Mega group’. In press accounts published a few years ago, this “Mega” title came up in wire tapped phone conversation. An Israeli official asked whether he should ask for Mega’s help in order to promote some Israeli interest. It was construed that Mega is an Israeli mole in the upper reaches of the US establishment, and duly denied by the Israeli embassy in Washington, DC.127 The newshounds and spook watchers had it all wrong. ‘Mega’ was not an agent, Mega was the boss128. 
It is a favorite subject of many columnists and analysts, whether the tail (Israel) wags the dog (the US) or the other way around. Here I have to disappoint the conspiracy seekers. In my opinion, Israel does not dictate American policy. Our small and poor state with its motley population commanded by old generals is quite unable to do that. By no flight of imagination can I see in my country having forces with the ability to swing world public opinion. We don’t have the money or the spirit to do the trick. Indeed, the Megabucks crowd, represented at the Bronfman gathering, influence us, even more than they influence the US. Our politicians are as weak and corrupt as America’s, and they are easier to swing and cheaper to buy. Even relative small-timers in the American Jewish community can cause eruption and bloodshed in Israel. Consider that a California bingo-parlor owner Moskovitz could push our ex-prime minister Netaniyahu to open the tunnel near the Mosques and cause major bloodshed. That is why, in Israel, we have a parody of democracy, instead of a democracy. 
Isaac Deutscher, a Jewish scholar brought up in the Jewish world of Talmud studies, saw their influence: “A wealthy American Jew, a ‘worldly businessman’ among his gentile associates and friends in New York, Philadelphia or Detroit, is at heart proud to be a member of the Chosen People, and in Israel he exercises his influence in favour of religious obscurantism and reaction. He keeps alive the spirit of racial-talmudic exclusiveness and superiority”. 
It is not an American invention. The French Jewish man of letters Julien Benda noticed that ‘the Jewish magnates and financiers, rather than literary men, had a sovereign belief in superiority of their race and in natural subjugation of a gentile’ 129 I would add that members of Jewish mafia were always on the forefront of the Jewish assertiveness, and these super-rich have more than a touch of Mafia around them. 
The Megabucks crowd in New York can buy Israel with their spare change. If they so desired, we would have peace in Palestine today. But they are not interested in Israel per se. Israel for them is only an abstract instrument for achieving Jewish ‘unity’. It is just another tool, on a par with the constant efforts to keep the memory of the Holocaust ‘alive’. The idea is to keep Jews together, away from hanging with other folks. The heads of the American Jewish community need these tools to rule as ‘community leaders’. Absent these tools; theirs would be shell organizations, all chiefs, and no Indians. 
 	165
In a new book titled The Jew Within130, Steven Cohen and Arnold M. Eisen, write: ‘The organized American Jewish community has issued various alarms in recent years about assimilation, intermarriage and diminishing population’. The book was reviewed by Dr Bill Friend, who added, ‘Only one third of the US Jews still belong to the organized community, intermarriage is over 50%, and less and less people identify themselves as Jews. The leaders of the organized Jewish community are scared by the loss of identification with the state of Israel, as the less the Jews of North America identify with the State of Israel, the less power ‘the Jewish Lobby’ can exert on U.S. foreign policy with regard to Israel’. 
In Dr Friend’s mistaken estimate, ‘The Lobby’ exist s for the sake of Israel, and Zionism is the corrupting force. This opinion presumes a lot of altruism in the hearts of American Jewish community leaders. In my opinion, the Megabucks care for themselves, and they need Israel in order to keep the American Jews together, supporting them. That is why they do not mind bloodshed in Palestine, and even a bloody regional war does not scare them. A war, and multiple casualties in Israel would just give a boost to the desired goal of achieving American Jewish Unity. The reality is that the cult of Zionism is an old and toothless beast, a political experiment that has been reduced to a poorly scripted and staged soap opera for the entertainment of a distant American Jewish audience. 
Today’s Israel is populated by rea l but bewildered men, who can not understand the intent of the script writers. Our heads spin with all the limelight and attention. The generous gifts make us dizzy and infect us with smug self- importance. When Bill Clinton was on his way to visit Israel, our Rabbi Yosef suggested the American President should kiss the feet of the Jews in supplication. Cabbala teachers multiplied and Israeli ministers ask their advice and guidance. The Haaretz newspaper even published a short story about an American president being overthrown for failing to comply with the Cabbalists’ decision. 
In my opinion, the Megabucks crowd, rather than the forces of Cabbala, move the events in the Middle East131. It is not magic, just money, a lot of money. They do not rule America or Israel, but they exercise a great deal of influence. Fifty billionaires united in any mansion present a very real force in the world. Yet, they still have a desperate need for a ‘united community’, like a shepherd needs a flock of sheep. 
They are quite tolerant to a bit of dissent. You may support Israeli policies or reject them, as long as you do it as a Jew, in an exclusively Jewish group. Jewish Unity for Just Peace, or Jewish Unity for Holy War are quite the same; in the sense that they aspire to the ideal of Jewish unity. I prefer the idea of human unity and would love to leave the megabucks stranded without a flock to lead. 
 	166
History repeats itself. Over a hundred years ago, the Russian Jewish socialists, Bund, asked Lenin for permission to join his new mo vement as a separate collective member. ‘Everyone of you is welcome to join the common struggle of workers against Russian and Jewish moneybags, but as a separate group you would just split our forces’, he replied. Eventually many Russian Jews joined the movement of Russian workers, and together they changed the course of history. The Bund withered, some of its members drifting to Zionism. 
In a way, Lenin’s approach was similar to Paul’s in his dispute with Peter132 In Antioch, Peter behaved like a brother to Gentile Christians until the emissaries from Jerusalem arrived. Then he got cold feet and separated himself from Gentiles. The other Jewish brothers also started acting like cowards along with Peter, until Paul, this learned Jew from Tarsus and lover of Israel, opposed him in public and turned the tide back. Lenin and Paul were right: for a great universal movement to thrive, there can be no place for ethnic, racial or religious separatists. 
Chicago Powwow
A response to the Kugel Eaters from a good friend caused me to have second thoughts. “Don't go picking on people trying to do good work. My friend Sara is not for separatism, but she does feel like a minority among American Jews and she is right. They need to get together to powwow (an old American Indian word) against Mega”. It is probably true, we Jews-for-Palestine need a bit of mutual mental support, like gays leaving the closet. If that was the idea, the conference was justified. Its participants met with similarly minded folks, and it gave them strength and new friends. 
It is with organizers of the conference that I found myself at odds, as they were behind the broad personal attack on me. Steven Feuerstein and Mitchell Plitnick, the chief organizers of Junity, disapprove of the idea of pluralistic emocratic state in Palestine. It is a perfectlyd legitimate position, quite natural for men who value Jewish unity and identity as highly as they do. But instead of just saying so, and engaging in the political dispute, they preferred a devious way. 
Feuerstein sent forward his friend Abunimah, as he wrote in his rather corny confession: “I know Abunimah well. He is one of the smartest and more principled human beings I have, in fact, ever met. I am some 13 years older than him, but every time we are together I think to myself: "I want to be like him when I grow up”. 
Abunimah wrote his letter, accusing me of … anti -Semitism. He was duly rewarded by the prime appearance at Junity and a joint walk in the park. I think this “smartest human being” manifested his political naïveté. He thought it will make him and the Palestinian cause many new Jewish allies. As a matter of fact, he just supported another branch of the Lobby. He also scared 
 	167
away some potential allies: who would like to enter the fray where stab in the back is considered 
‘a realization of First Amendment’? 
Together with Feuerstein, Abunimah employed the classic weapon of the Jewish lobby, guilt by association. I quoted133 Christopher Bollyn, a Spotlight journalist, who wrote an explication of my article. Immediately Steven Feuerstein made an observation: “I am astonished that Shamir would rely on a reference from a journalist at Liberty Lobby's Spotlight to support his views and reputation. Liberty Lobby is an extreme right-wing organization with fascist and neo-nazi inclinations. Any friend of Liberty Lobby is no friend of mine”. 
I certainly do not seek friendship of Mr. Feuerstein. As a matter of fact, I do not know whether I wish to befriend Liberty Lobby, or whether the Liberty Lobby wishes to befriend me. We did not swap cigars and small mauve billet-doux yet. All I did was quote a forum communication of a journalist from the Spotlight. In the best of his smear tactics, Mr. Feuerstein builds a syllogism: you quote a man who writes for a newspaper. Ergo, you support all this newspaper ever published. 
Socrates would reject this crooked logic and say: one may quote even a New York Times journalist, and it does not imply support for bombing Iraq and the strangling of Palestine. But lesser folk fall into the trap and begin to discuss the newspaper of Mr. Bollyn. Abunimah ‘finds’ the goods: “there is a prominent link on the Spotlight site to a periodical called The Barnes Review”. This Barnes Review is up to no good, he continues for a couple of pages. We would not follow him for a simple reason that you can access practically every site on the Web via a couple of links. You can even access Abunimah’s site from my site 134 via two links. So, the discussion of virtues and faults of the Barnes Review is as relevant to our subject, as kings to cabbages in the Lewis Carroll droll passage. It shows profound lack of sincerity of the Abunimah - Feuerstein team. 
Nigel Perry, another friend of Feuerstein, imported wholesale personal accusations from right-wing Zionist Camera site and the revisionist site of Dr David Irving. He is not afraid of the guilt by association. He goes even further, and exclaims: [Shamir’s words are] “insulting to the genuine friends of Palestinians from Israel: the Allegra Pachecos, the Lea Tsemels, and the Andre Rosenthals who struggle in the Israel legal system on behalf of Palestinian rights; or the Gila Svirskys, the Uri Avnerys, the Uri Davis', the Roni Ben- Efrats, and the Mikado Warshawskis who struggle among the Israeli public and in front of Israeli bulldozers on behalf of Palestinian rights; or the Amira Hass' and the Gideon Levys who struggle in the Israeli media on behalf of Palestinian rights”. 
In the Zionist discourse it is a standard rhetoric figure, to speak on behalf of the ‘millions 
murdered by Nazis’ or ‘all victims of Arab terror’. But even a Zionist usually chooses to speak 
 	168
on behalf of dead. In order to speak on behalf of live persons, you are supposed to ask for their instructions. Amira Haas, Gideon Levy and the rest are able to write for themselves, and if they would feel insulted, they would surely voice it. Barmy Brit just used their names in vain. I loved his plurals and struggles. As we say in Israel, ‘it sounds better in Yiddish’, as in English it sounds quite awful. 
Perry would not recognize sincerity even if he would stumble into it by chance. He boldly claims, that “Christopher Bollyn of The Spotlight informs us that "Christ killers" was a perfectly acceptable characterization of Jews’. Naturally Christopher Bollyn said no thing of the sort, but Perry knows, repeat a lie often enough, it will become accepted for its face value. He does not desist from making a Nazi-style remark, “Shamir might not be strictly Jewish in all the senses of the word”. There are not many Jews ‘str ictly Jewish in all the senses of the word’ found in the Oxford or Webster dictionaries (mean, greedy etc). I hope I am not one of them, either. 
The purpose of the attack orchestrated by Feuerstein, was twofold. First, to rush the Jewish supporters back into the fold of Jewish Unity, where they would be guided by Feuerstein and saved from anti-Semitism by his tame Palestinian, Abunimah. Harry Clark characterized it: “The JUNITY agenda begins with a presentation on how Jewish traditions inform peace activism, and the balance of the program is much concerned with Jewish outreach and education. Its favored mode of interaction is the "Arab-Jewish dialogue", which it enters from a position of moral equivalence, or even superiority, e.g., " 'We' have suffered, you have suffered, let's talk”. (See Edward Said's scathing account of "dialogue" in "Peace and Its Discontents"). Jewish Unity invites a favored Arab-American, Ali Abunimah ("Working With Our Allies") to certify its presentation. 
“Jewish Unity's language and program are recycled from similar impulses during the first intifada 10+ yrs ago, and the Israeli invasion of Lebanon 10 yrs before that. Here we are in 2001, Sharon is PM, Palestine is getting the Warsaw Ghetto treatment, and the announcements only refer discreetly to a "variety of views" and propose a lowest common denominator of "completely ending occupation of the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip ”, all the while disingenuously protesting "mainstream" Jewish organizational and media views. "Jewish Unity" means Jewish consensus, Jewish limits, the pale of acceptable opinion, beyond which one cannot go 135”.  
Stan Heller, whom I like and respect, made in my opinion an error of judgment, by placing a call starting ‘If you are Jewish…’ I do not thin k it is good to enforce Jewish identity, it will surely please our adversaries. 
There is a second reason for the attack, as well. The Jewish lobby wants to keep the 
Palestinian struggle in the politically correct boundaries, where it is as harmful as a kit ten. By 
 	169
following the guidelines of Feuerstein-Abunimah-Perry, Palestinians get as an ally, such person as Naomi Jaffe of Troy NY (she refers to herself thus: ‘I am a Jew who has been active for 40 years in feminist, anti-racist, and anti- imperialist movements in the United States. I am currently chair of the Free Mumia Committee of Albany, NY”. ) 
I do not write for Trotskyite Feminists, as I am not worried they will embrace Sharon, or that he will embrace them. I write for the general warm-blooded audience, and the following response provides full proof it works: 
Dear Mr. Shamir, I am a Christian living in the Midwest, USA. I read your article, The Third Dove. It absolutely blew me away. I firmly accept the Holy Scriptures as the authoritative words of God. Raised as a Baptist, I accept the Bible figuratively, historically, symbolically AND literally. Having read the prophecies I know that God has promised Israel a domain far more expansive than the thin strip of beach currently in her possession. I have not wavered in my faith in God and His words, and still believe this shall come to pass”. 
“As an American, I've spent most of my mature life subconsciously trying to "help" God complete His plan, thinking that politics could fulfill scripture. My special faith in God and God's special people (the Hebrews) somehow justified the deaths of nearly 500 Palestinians this year alone, including women and children. If I die and learn from God Himself that He accomplished His special plans using tear gas, rubber bullets and propaganda I should think I'll be disappointed”.
“Your words and perspectives have helped me change the attitude that allowed me to morally and consciously accept a terrible injustice. God doesn't need me to fulfill His words. And Israel can take care of herself the same as Sweden or Pakistan. I may not know what IS the peaceful solution, but I now know what it IS NOT. Best regards and thanks, Spencer Warren”. 
This is a proof that the so-called Christian Zionists are the soft underbelly of the beast, and one can cause their disengagement. Probably that is the second important reason why the Jewish Lobby went into battle. The Junity leaders could never influence the American audience, as they are too nationalistic. Perry writes with arrogance: "Speaking as someone who has been steeped, boiled, and occasionally roasted in Christianity for over a decade now....”. I think it is quite offensive for the Christian audience, but then, he cares for the Jewish one. 
Mitchell Plitnick of Junity, responding to Mamilla Pool, justified the holocaust of Palestinian Christians in the 7th century with the Sharonesque 'retaliation' rhetoric, so familiar to us. He wrote: "Jews clearly, and quite justifiably, supported the Persian invasion, and they did let loose with intense vengeance which did have to be reigned in by the conquering Persians, 
 	170
but this was clearly the result of the treatment Jews had received from Christians for decades 
before". I doubt a man of such views could sincerely support a just peace in Palestine. 
If some of the attackers got into the fray in the spur of the moment, let them desist. The world is big enough for all of us. Let them write for people who like their style, and I shall write for the folks who prefer my writing. Yes, ‘Don't go picking on people trying to do good work’ is quite true... and if they would not pick on me any longer I shall not pick on them. 
McEnroe of the Lobby 
[Defence of an American journalist Ami Pagnozzi, attacked by a McEnroe]. 
Colin McEnroe spared no vitriol while debunking the Hartford Courant columnist, Ms Ami Pagnozzi. He didn’t draw line at her political views, but gave her full treatment of Jezebel, larger-than- life Scarlet Woman with a 666 cell phone. The result is somewhat grotesque: journalists exist to describe others, not to be described in a minute detail. I would not enter the controversy whether Ms Pagnozzi’s treatment of Middle East conflict was fair or harsh. It is, after all, a question of political preferences. For me, an Israeli writer from Jaffa, the exciting part of his story was the wealth of biographical detail surrounding Amy’s nativity. McEnroe claimed at great length that Ms Pagnozzi is a child of a Jewish woman raped by a wild Iraqi Arab. In our modern days, this sort of archaic allegation seems to be unusual, even for hired hatchet job. But it rang a bell in my memory. 
Quite recently, I read on the Web a similar story about Mr David Goldmann, the New York-based spokesman for ultra-Orthodox and anti-Zionist Jewish group, Naturei Karta. For his support of Palestinian rights and critique of Israeli establishment, Mr Goldmann was described as ‘a son of a Jewish woman raped by an SS Nazi officer’. 
Another gentleman with Scottish name called me ‘not really a Jew in every sense of the word’ for my compassion to the persecuted Palestinians. He did not go into the rape details, otherwise my frail mother would find him and scratch his eyes out. 
It appears some Jews still believe that only a person of such origin is able to take to his heart the sorrows of non-Jews. In their book, a pure-born Jew should consider a goy being a sort of animal below compassion. Kind Mr McEnroe provided a clue to his instigators, when he mentioned a fatwa of 22 Rabbis demanding Ami’s removal. 
A clue, because the source of this idea can be found in Babylonian Talmud, the 5th century compendium, still learned by our Rabbis and therefore known to the 22 just men. There, in tractate Hallah, p. 41 one can find the inspirational source of Mr McEnroe, in the description of Jesus Christ, this symbol of compassion, as ‘son of raped menstruating woman’. I presume, the notion of Amy’s mother menstruation at the time of the alleged rape was removed by the 
 	171
squeamish editor. So, they actually want to compare the Jewish supporters of Palestinians with 
Jesus Christ, a person much hated by our Rabbis of old. Amy should be proud of this association. 
The 22 chose a gentleman with Scottish name to front for them, as a part of our Jewish tradition. In the hilarious Psmith by P.G. Wodehouse, every loan shark on the stony path of the young man had had a Scottish name like Campbell or McDonald instead of original Levy. Real life imitates fiction, and a Jewish kid from Slovakia chose the Scottish name of Robert Maxwell when he became a British media lord. He died in suspicious circumstances after looting his employees’ pension funds of hundreds of millions of dollars and shifting money to Israel. Probably Amy’s adversaries naively thought to impress the reader with the apparent objectivity of the Scottish name, but they forgot to hide the fringes. 
In my opinion, it would be better if the discussion on the Middle East would stop short of personal stuff and the Rabbis, Priests and Sheiks would mind spiritual well-being of their flock, while staying away from political controversy. 
Jaffa Dream 
At night, in my Jaffa home, I dreamed that I sit in a Dublin landmark, the famous pub of Barry Kiernan. A fancier of hangmen’s craft, Barry embellished the walls of his saloon with pictures of famous executioners, together with the tools of their bloody trade: axes, nooses, swords. A tall broad-shouldered man in a mask nursed his Guinness and perorated to his listeners: 
- In the days of yore, there was no palace without its own hangman, adored by people and kings alike. Hangmen performed a much needed function in the society, removing the dangerous and subversive elements. They weren’t cruel or bloody by nature: they were forced into this craft, as son of a hangman was not accepted in any other guild. Our ancestors were discriminated against: they had to drink and eat separately, banned from the church, marry within their trade, forever branded with the mark of Cain. Still, they created a marvellous culture of their own. A few dozens years ago, it appeared that the great order of executioners was disappearing fast. Only old men would gather in Nuremberg, while our youth despised the executioners’ tradition, married outside the caste, pursued independent careers and were ready to forget their beautiful old ways. The caste was dying out, like other medieval guilds and castes.
But a few determined men can change the course of history. Some years ago, the new idea took hold over minds, that of creation of an independent Hangmen’ State. It will be home to rejected and homeless children of executioners. They will come, the torturers from NKVD and KGB, electric chair operators from Texas, sons and daughters of axe-swinging masters from Tower and Bastille, Beijing and Berlin, and live a happy and productive life on the shores of  	172
Liffey. The native non- hangmen of Hangmen’ State will be happy, too, as they will see their 
property value rise fast. Naturally, they will have to vacate some place for new arrivals… 
A young listener intervened: 
- Strange idea! Then, other medieval castes would also wish for their own states. Shall we 
have a State of the Nobles, a State of the Thieves, even a State of the Jews… 
- How can you compare! – exploded the speaker. – The Hangmen protected the society with their sword, while the Jews were loan-sharks, slave traders and smugglers. Why would anyone wish to be a Jew just because his ancestors were Jews? In such a State, life would be impossible! 
Loud outburst of listeners’ laughter woke me up, covered in cold sweat, in my peaceful 
Jaffa home.
 Part Five. The Russians 
The Hurt Pride of Uri Avneri 
The ultra- nationalist Israeli National Union Party (NU) called to cancel Israeli citizenship of Uri Avneri, the well-known peace activist whom I admire for his courage, organisational abilities and persistence in struggle. Avneri wrote a response, showing some troublesome tendencies. One would not pay attention to its faux pas if they would not be so characteristic for the Israeli peace camp. 
Avneri could have noticed that over one half of our country’s population has no Is raeli citizenship, this prerogative of Jews and 1948 Arabs. The NU ideologists want to turn Avneri into a Palestinian? Very good, if the good people of Israel will be stripped of their Israeli citizenship, the blue passport with the Menorah would become a stigma of Jewish supremacists. 
But, instead of it, Avneri wrote: 
The abysmal Chutzpah! The leader of the National Union party is Avigdor (Ivette) Liberman, a person brought up in the Bolshevik education system of Stalin and who has absorbed - as we can see - the racist and power-hungry attitudes of the red tyrant. He has come here when everything was ready, to a state that we have created (literally) with our blood, and now demands, no more no less, to cancel our citizenship. 
Well, I have no love for Liberman, a right-wing thug and ex-night club bouncer, but despite being a Russian immigrant he is as much an Israeli citizen as the German immigrant Avneri. The racist Chutzpah is that of Avneri, who does not mind Russians to protect the Jewish state but would not like them to have their own opinion.
‘He (Liberman) has come here (to Israel) when everything was ready’, writes Avneri. Yes, everything was ready: 90% of Palestinians were expelled and their property shared by Avneri and his chums. (It is well described by Tom Segev in his ‘1949’.) Everything was ready:  	173
peasants of Sasa and Deir Yassin were already slaughtered and the survivors were pushed into refugee camps, by Avneri’s generation. Everything was ready: the Arab land was confiscated and passed under control of Avneri’s fellows-in-arms, who meanwhile became the real estate developers. Everything was ready: the occupation was already in place when Liberman arrived.
Oh yes, occupation. Avneri is against occupation. He is for a Palestinian state; as long as his and his friends ill- gotten booty of 1948 remains in their hands. No return of refugees, no return of stolen property, no re-building of Palestinian villages, as it would undermine their prosperity and exclusive hold on power in Israel. 
Uri Avneri, as the majority of Israeli peace camp, belongs to the elite of Israeli society. He is an Ashkenazi Jew of the old generation, and these people control the Jewish state, supplying its generals, professors, politicians, businessmen, heads of Secret Service nd newspaper owners, editors and columnists. This elitist minority feels that it owns Israel. They have differences of opinion, but they agree on one thing: no outsider should be let into the power structure. 
The first to suffer from their elitist exclusivity were the Palestinians whom they expelled and dispossessed. But Avneri’s people, the Ashkenazi Jews, are generals and real estate developers. They needed soldiers and workers. In order to sustain their power they imported millions of people of Jewish origin from North Africa and Russia. These immigrants were supposed to fight for Avneri’s Israel and keep mum. They were not given a share in the ‘safe’ spoils of 1948: but, as it is usual in criminal gangs, they were offered to keep a ‘hot’ stolen property, the lands snatched from the Palestinians on the territories occupied in 1967. It was clever if dastardly act. The generation of Avneri pushed the immigrants to the West Bank and ensured their devotion to the Jewish state, for real estate developers and Labour Party people of Avneri’s generation controlled 90% of the lands within 48’ borders, the lands they did not buy but stole from the Palestinians. 
Now, Avneri’s generation has the best of both worlds. They kept the huge holdings stolen in 1948 and, through the good services of the Israeli peace camp they placed themselves into position of moral superiority towards immigrants. They forever spoke of giving up the conquests of 67’, of removing settlements mainly populated by immigrants and socially weak groups, but never of sharing Palestine with others, Palestinians, Moroccans or Russians.
They strictly kept the discourse in their hands. In the main Israeli newspaper, the Haaretz, there are no Palestinians, one token Moroccan and one token Russian (I occupied this position of dubious honour until I spoke for return of the Palestinian refugees to their villages). In Israeli universities these groups are equally under-represented. Not in vain, Avneri’s people are much disliked by the Oriental Jews and by the ussians. Extremely manipulative, they created theR
 	174
‘peace- loving’ image for themselves and provided ‘war-mongering’ mask for the Orientals and 
Russians. 
But, as a matter of fact, the under-privileged communities of Palestine have much in common. They share the same food and customs, Oriental Jews speak Arabic, while many Russians belong to the same church as Palestinians. They frequently intermarry with Palestinians, at least as frequently as with the Ashkenazi ruling elite. Now, the Russians represent 35% of Israeli army. They were brought in to protect the 48’ trophies of Avneri’s generation, but this plan can misfire. The Russians and the Oriental Jews have no vested interest in the exclusivist Jewish state. They would be better off in one Palestine with full equality for all. 
It would undo the holdings stolen in 1948. Return of refugees would bury the exclusive political power of Ashkenazi elite. But to achieve it, we need a different peace camp, not the one led by the titular head of Peace Now, the rich real estate broker and corporative lawyer Tsali Reshef. Probably not even one led by Uri Avneri.
For the strongest passion, the profound hate of his letter is directed towards Communism. The peace camp of Reshef and Avneri is rabidly anti-Communist, totally devoted to the US and connected with the liberal wing of New York Jewry. 
Avneri writes of ‘the Bolshevik education system of Stalin’ and of ‘the racist and power -hungry attitudes of the red tyrant’. As an Ashkenazi Jew, he should daily pray for Joseph Stalin, who had sent millions of Russian soldiers to death to save the Jews. As for racism, Stalin was an angel in comparison with Avneri’s buddies who slaughtered and expelled non-Jews: Palestinian Christians and Muslims, Armenians, Germans and enslaved the survivors. The Bolshevik education system produced people thriving to equality, rejecting racism and elitism. Rise of racist Russian Jewish party in Israel is an achievement of Zionist victory over Bolsheviks, not of the Bolsheviks. The power-hunger is rather the quality of Ashkenazi elite: they never let anybody in and never share with others. They can’t forgive to the ‘red tyrant’ that he undid their brethren’s hold over post -revolutionary Russia. 
Avneri and his group, the Peace Block, are fervent Anti-Communists. Objectively, his outburst is the best propaganda for Liberman, as no Russian likes to hear about ‘Stalinist education’ and ‘you came when everything was ready’. It is an ethnic jibe, if anything. Avneri’s small group is as totalitarian as any, and has practically no Palestinians, Russians or Oriental Jews. For them, peace camp is the exclusive occupation for wealthy, akin to golf. Indeed, when my first articles appeared in internet and brought in much response, the elitist peace campers received me as the Long Island golf club members meet a Schwartze golf pro. 
The Avneri’s attack on Russians and on Communism comes in the critical pre -election 
time. In the elections soon to come, the Israelis will vote for a party, not for a candidate. The 
 	175
Communist Party of Israel is the only legal party in the land supporting equality and comprising Jews and non-Jews. Its leader is a Palestinian with a degree from Tel Aviv University, while wonderful Tamar Gozhansky occupies a modest second or third place on the list. The Communist Party called on the Russian left and the Palestinians of 48’ to vote for them. Avneri prefers the Jewish supremacy parties, be it the Ashkenazi Labour of Mitzna or Yossi Sarid’s ‘Left for Wealthy’. For a supporter of Palestinians, banni ng of the Arab MP Azmi Bashara and Balad removed the vestiges of doubt: even if the court will overturn the decision, they had lost precious time. Now there is no alternative: the Communist Party is the only one to vote for. This is the party with proven record of struggle for equality, a party that tries to reach people of all under-privileged communities, the only one that is against Jewish supremacy, and the only one that has a chance to influence the forthcoming political struggles. Even more important, it is the party that you never will say ‘sorry I voted for them’. 
And to my dear comrade Uri Avneri I shall say with all my Russian Bolshevik Chutzpah: the state for the privileged Ashkenazi Jews you fought for was established in New York. In Palestine, we should undo everything you did, in the interests of all native and adoptive dwellers of Palestine. 
Wolf, Lamb and Ouroboros 
A perfect propaganda man could make cat lick mustard, at least by pushing mustard up under cat’s tail, Bertolt Brecht wrote. Uri Avnery, the perennial symbol of Israeli peace camp, proved his worth in PR by his essay, The Bi-National State136. In the tender- voiced but steely warning ‘Keep off the Jewish State’, he calls upon the Palestinians to love and accept the bitter medicine of partitioned Palestine, for (he claims) their fate would be worse in the democratic state. Why it is better for Palestinians to be locked up in their small enclaves than live as equal citizens in the whole of Palestine? Avnery breaks a new ground in public discourse and proclaims: Jews can’t live with non-Jews. 
The Jew and the Goy are like wolf and lamb; if you want the Wolf dwell with the Lamb, please provide a fresh lamb every day. There was, I understand, a slight difference of opinion who of the twain is a wolf, (classic Zionists clamoured the lamb skin), but Avnery leaves us in no doubt: while sojourning together, the Goy will lose to the Jew. In his own words, “In a joint state, if it were to be set up, the Jews would dominate the economy and most other aspects of the state, and try very hard to preserve that situation.” 
Well, this is the opinion of many men in many countries. They point up Jewish dominance in Hollywood and the media, as well as in banking and finance from Moscow with its oligarchs to New York and Washington and conclude as Avnery does: the Jews can not live in 
 	176
one state with non-Jews, for the Jews would dominate the economy and most other aspects of the state137. Usually they call for transfer of Jews, too. However, until the present publication of the Avnery’s ground -breaking article, this opinion was effectively banned from majority of websites and printed media. Now, the Counterpunch presented the discerned reader with the opinion, and none of the ADL gang expressed shock or dissatisfaction. Indeed, if you support Zionism you may express any opinion including that “the Jews can not live in one state with non-Jews ” . 
Avnery made a great improvement upon the old line by presenting it as benevolent care for the weak goy: ‘Let them have a separate state, for otherwise Jews will dominate them’. But there is no reason to distinguish between Palestine and other lands with sizeable Jewish communities. Here is Rhodes, as Greeks said to a man who claimed he can jump very high – on the isle of Rhodes. Avnery’s idea is fully applicable everywhere, if it applicable in Palestine. It should be equally applicable in the US, where a Jewish state should be created soonest so that Jews wouldn’t dominate the Goyim. 
The Jewish State of America (the JSA) does not have to be contiguous: it can use the pattern established by Jews for the Goyim in Palestine. However, the citizens of the JSA should not be allowed to vote in the USA, or influence its discourse, or hold property in the USA, in full compliance with Avnery’s ideas on Palestine. Their property outside the boundaries can be dealt with the same way the Jewish state in Palestine dealt with Gentile property. It will solve the main problem on the way to democracy in Palestine presented by Avnery, namely: “ American Jewry has immense political, economic and media might, and they will not lose it for many years to come” . The might of American Jewry contained within the limits of the JSA would not matter much for the rest of the world. It will solve the second problem presented by Avnery: “the Arabs are becoming more and more the bogyman of the Western world”, for with the Jews safely contained in the JSA, the USA will pay attention to its own interests and will become the best friend of the Arabs. 
If that doesn’t suf fice, Jewish states can be created elsewhere too: the Jewish state of France, the Jewish state of Russia, the Jewish state of Germany, for Avnery’s approach to Palestine contains a universal message. (Germans actually tried to create a Jewish state in Poland, probably for the same altruistic reasons.) 
And then, we will be able to undo the Jewish state in Palestine. Extreme Jewish nationalists from the settlements will trek back home to Brooklyn (surely an integral part of the JSA), while millions of ordinary dwellers of Palestine, of Jewish or other origin, will be able to live together in peace. 
II 
 	177
For the witty construction of Uri Avnery is built on a mirage. He says:
- ‘according to the bi- national idea, the territory between the Mediterranean Sea and the 
Jordan River--Palestine / Eretz Israel— will again constitute one state, as in the days of the British Mandate before 1948.’  
But it is not an idea, it is the only reality on the ground. The existing apartheid state 
occupies the territory, so it has to be democratised, not created. He says: 
- basically it is a clash between the Zionist movement and the Arab-Palestinian national movement, of two nationalistic peoples.
It is an attempt to create symmetry where is none. Palestinians are real people possessing their language, literature, culture, growing their olives in their own terrain. They do not need nationalism. ‘Jews of Israel’ are nothing without their Zionist idea, a mishmash of sundry immigrants without single unifying element. That is why Avnery’s co mparison with Cyprus, Yugoslavia, Russia and Canada is misleading. De- zionised ‘Jews of Israel’ can become Palestinians, like de-zionised Jews of America can be just Americans, but they can’t create a new nation. 
Not only is his position immoral, as he supports equality for Jews elsewhere and their supremacy in Palestine. A Jewish state is impossible, because in any state, somebody has to work, and I do not mean work in advertising, sales, real estate and security & intelligence apparatus. In the Jewish state in Palestine, the work is done by native Palestinians, and imported Chinese, Thai and Russians. 
III 
This arrangement is collapsing. One- million-strong Russian community is increasingly restless. ‘The Israeli elites ruined us, sucked our blood through their real estate schemes, hooked us on their mortgages, while keeping at the arm’s length from real positions of influence in the society’, editorialised Globus, usually docile Russian Israeli weekly. Restless are the North Africans represented by the ‘single mothers’ march’, for the neo - liberal Bibi Netanyahu and Ariel Sharon inverted the usual Jewish approach to Goy and applied it inside the ‘Jewish society’ to consume its weaker elements. 
The Wolf has to eat; and if there are no lambs, it will eat itself, starting from the weaker tail. It won’t be a Wolf anymore, but rather Ouroboros, the emblematic serpent of ancient Egypt and Greece represented with its tail in its mouth continually devouring itself. Now the Jewish Ouroboros already devoured itself up to its neck. Avnery’s ‘two -state solution’ is a means to reinforce the controlling positions of the old Ashkenazi elite, but it is unsustainable. The creation of the Jewish state was a great experiment that proved the futility of this idea. It has reduced 
 	178
itself ad absurdum and pointed out the true dichotomy of the world: not Jews versus Gentiles, but Wolf versus Lamb. Instead of creating a Wolf state, we should de- fang wolves and peacefully live together – in Palestine, in the US, in France and elsewhere. 
IV 
Too many things in Avnery’s writing remind us: Zionism and Nazism grew of the same 
need to combat Communism. He writes: 
“The 20th century has seen several "utopias" that have caused terrible disasters. The communist vision, for example, was based on the assumption that there is a perfect human being or that human beings can be perfected. It clashed with a reality of imperfect human beings. As the German post-communist leader, Gregor Gysi, once told me: "We tried to impose the perfect system on imperfect human beings. So we tried to impose it by force." Thus a system of terror came into being and millions were slaughtered, from the Ukraine to Cambodia”. 
As if the imperfect system of Mammon worshipping replete with consumerism, egoism and alienation had not been imposed by force. As if the system of terror established by the US did not slaughter millions from Hiroshima to Guatemala. Avnery’s preference for the Zionist anti-utopia reminds me of a man who preferred to marry an ugly woman for beauty passeth.
V 
Zionism is Protean if anything. It has its tentacles in all lines of thought. It is represented in the extreme right, who says “Saving Israel is even more crucial than defeating the Left” and “We should not relax in the battle against cultural Marxism, but even more urgent than waging war on Marxism is the need to save Israel from its own leaders and from total destruction” 138. It is represented in the left, who says, “The cause of Israel is the quintessence of Marxist liberation struggle139 It is represented by Jared Israel and plethora of other ‘libertarians’, by anarchists of Antifa, by finance analysts of Wall Street Journal and by some pseudo-communists of Eastern Europe, old buddies of late Robert Maxwell, the Mossad agent. It would be strange if Zionism would not be represented in the extremely important struggle for Palestine. Alas, Avnery’s essay confirms that the good man is a proponent of a Zionist line in the peace camp. It should not surprise us for he actually sued an Israeli newspaper that called him ‘non-Zionist’ and won. Witty Uri Davis called him ‘the only Jewish citizen of the State of Israel who can produce a court ruling attesting to his Zionist credentials’. 
There is a non- Zionist Israeli peace camp. In the same time the Avnery’s essay appea red, his good friend and a member of his Gush Shalom, Yehudith Harel from Tel Aviv published her impassionate call to return Palestinian refugees home: ‘This beautiful and rich human resource could not only boost the local economy but also contribute to our cultural richness and diversity’, she wrote. Harel supports One State, and calls for ‘de- zionization of Israel, equality and rejection 
 	179
of apartheid’. There are many less privileged Israelis who have no place in the self-devouring 
Ouroboros. They should be brought together. 
There is an urgent need to create a Palestinian version of Mandela’s ANC that would integrate all non-elitist forces in a united front. The Native Palestinian leadership should give up chasing the Fata Morgana of ‘independent Palestinian state’ and assume the key position in the new alliance. 
After Elections 
The dismal results of the elections confirmed bankruptcy of the traditional Jewish Left. Do not regret overmuch: Meretz and Labour competed with the nationalist parties in anti- Arafat rhetoric and remained adamant in rejecting the full equality for non-Jews. They were undermined by demographic shift: their electorate, wealthy and well-educated Ashkenazi Jews, voted with their legs and left Israel. Thirty five per cent of the total electorate did not participate in the elections for they live abroad, in Los Angeles and Amsterdam, in Paris and New York. There are more supporters of Meretz in the US than in Israel. While bank managers and computer experts leave for America, poor and less educated remain in Palestine, and they often vote for fascists or for religious parties. 
But it is not all gloom. The best news concerning elections hardly made the second page in Israeli newspapers, but it should lit red light on the Zionists’ board . A few days before the elections, the Slavic Union, a new political organization of Russians in Israel, made a historic alliance with the Palestinians. They supported HADASH, the Communist- led mainly Palestinian block, and now they consider forging ties wit h another radical force, Azmi Bishara’s BALAD. In their letter to voters, leaders of the Slavic Union Igor Zhemailov and Alexey Korobov did not beat around the bush. “We , the Russians, were brought here as cheap labour force and cannon meat in order to displace and fight the native Palestinians. But we have no truck with this dispute. Let us join forces with the Palestinians against racism and poverty, for equality and democracy”. 
There are over a million Russians in Israel, mainly immigrants of the last decade. Many of them, probably majority, are not considered ‘Jews’, even if they have Jewish-sounding last names. By Israeli law, it is enough to have one Jewish grandfather in order to qualify for citizenship, but such a person is not considered ‘a Jew’ in law, and therefore suffers of many legal and illegal disabilities in the racist Jewish state. Non-Jewish spouses of immigrants form another discriminated category of citizens. They are drafted into the army, but refused even decent burial. These people have a strong personal reason to support the idea of ‘a state for all its citizens’, as opposed to the present concept of ‘the state of and for the Jews wherever they are’. 
 	180
It is not the racialist division: many Russians that are considered to be ‘Jews’ also sup port the idea of a democratic state and oppose the Jewish supremacy. They have a good reason: the Jewish supremacy in Israel means supremacy of a certain socio-economic group, of wealthy Ashkenazi establishment. Young generation of Russian ‘Jews’ was thoro ughly ‘dejewified’ in the Soviet Union and accepted universal humanist values instead of particularistic ones. Many of them are Christians forced to hide their belief in Christ. Swept by the massive propaganda campaign they immigrated to Israel where they discovered the real face of the Jewish state. In the yesterday’s elections some of them had voted for Shinui, the anti-clerical party, and gave it 15 seats in the Parliament. However, Shinui is rabidly nationalistic and unable to attend to their problems. Its neo-liberal position makes Shinui unsuitable for the socially weaker Russians. 
Actually true interests of Russians and Palestinians coincide. For the both communities, the best solution is creation of non-racist, democratic state, and the only way to achieve it is to give full citizen rights to the three million presently disenfranchised native Palestinians. In the democratised Palestine/Israel of nine million citizens the concept of a Jewish State will follow its twin, the Aryan State, to oblivion. There were cases of Russians taking part in Palestinian armed resistance, but their political union is spelling doom to the Zionist state. In the next elections, probably in a year time, this union will be able to change the political map of Israel, if properly supported and nourished. 
The Jewish State is already a sham. Deeply divided between the Orthodox and anti-religious, between Ashkenazim and Sephardim, it remains a dangerous phantom in the mind of its ignorant American backers. The favourite of Conrad Black’s newspaper The Jerusalem Post, Nathan Sharansky and his nationalist party just made it to the parliament with only two seats, and as many voters as the Free Cannabis list. The options for Israel’s future shrunk to a stark choice between Jewish Fascism and the State for All, from Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. 
Enemy of the People 
(An important Israeli right-wing newspaper Maariv published a very long (four A3 
pages) article, Enemy Within, attacking me (09.01.03, www.maariv.com ) 
Maariv’s correspondent Ben Dror Yamini dedicated to me an extremely long and tedious article called Enemy Within. Ben Dror investigated my background, checked my credentials, collected quotes and deemed me ‘an anti-Semitic racist’ who promotes ‘repulsive race theory’. The young journalist forgot to mention just one thing. What actually does this enemy of the people, Israel Shamir, propose to do with the Jews he hates so much, according to Ben Dror? What does he call for? For destruction, for genocide, for discrimination of Jews? Why his articles are translated into many languages from French to Turkish and from Russian to Spanish? 
 	181
Why is he invited to lecture in best universities from Stanford in California to Trondheim in 
Norway to Kuala Lumpur in Malaysia? To call for genocide? 
It is not that the answer to this query is obscured from Ben Dror. He knows the answer very well for it is written wherever my name is mentioned. But if he would write it, the whole edifice of his article would collapse. 
For years in all my essays I call for full equality for all residents of Palestine, for one state and for equal rights for all its citizens, including right to vote, for an Ashkenazi Jew in Ramat Aviv or a Native Palestinian in Nablous, for a Moroccan in Ofakim or a Russian in Haifa. I call to void all laws that discriminate between a Jew and a Gentile, including the infamous Law of Absentee Property [which allowed for confiscation of Palestinian homes and fields]. In the introduction to my site www.israelshamir.net it is clearly and lucidly written: “Together with Edward Said, Israel Shamir calls for implementation of One Man – One Vote – One State” in our beloved Palestine (Land of Israel), whole and undivided, without Green Line, Purple Line or Security Wall, for one state for all of us, native and adoptive sons and daughters of Palestine. ‘You should have one law’, as the Bible says. I call to extend the right to vote in the nearest elections to all residents of Gaza strip and the West Bank and to incorporate these territories in the one state. 
This is essentially all my teaching, all the rest is commentary. If a call for equality is ‘racism’, then eternal warfare is ‘peace and security’, and the dre aded Shabak (the secret police) is the Ministry of Love. 
For years I call upon the dwellers of Zion to give hand to our brothers, sons and daughters of Palestine, and to live together with them in peace and brotherly love, like we live in my city of Jaffa by the sea. However, the editors of Israeli newspapers refuse to publish this call. They provide a tribune for every racist, amplify every call for transfer and ethnic cleansing, but my call for equality can’t be voiced. It is not a one person’s opinion: a ccording to the survey by Haaretz, 30% of residents of the land support this solution, because there is no other viable solution to our problems. There is no chance that a Palestinian state would be created in such borders that will provide for justice, as if it were possible it would be done by now. As long as there is no equality for Palestinians, there can’t be equality for other communities, for the Oriental Jews and for Russians. Recently established united electoral front of Russians and Palestinians is the first step to the new reality of one pluralistic Palestine for all communities. 
I refused to meet the young journalist as I prefer to deliver my opinions myself, without intermediaries. For the same reason, I do not intend to argue with him on various points he made. However, one observation should be made. 
 	182
Ben Dror Yamini decided that an expression I use, the Jewish Paradigm, is ‘anti-Semitic’. However, it is called in Hebrew, “erkei yahadut”, the Jewish Values, and it appeared in the well-known words of Ami Ayalon, the ex-Head of Secret Police, who criticized Israeli policies saying “our behaviour contradicts the Jewish Values”, and in speeches of other Israeli politicians beginning from the Declaration of Independence.
There is an ongoing discussion in Israel, whether ‘our behaviour contradicts the Jewish Values’ as the Israeli (and Jewish American) Left claims, or ‘conforms to the Jewish Values’, as the Israeli (and Jewish American) Right assesses. 
My opinion is that of the Israeli (and Jewish Ame rican) Right endorsed by the Rabbis, namely, ‘our behaviour’ conforms to the Jewish Values. However I see the obvious fact that ‘our behaviour’ contradicts the Human Universal Values. As many Jewish teachers from Professor Yeshayahu Leibovitch the humanist to Rabbi Meir Kahane the nationalist ruled, the Jewish Values are indeed different from the Human Universal Values of Christian civilisation. 
The opinion of the Maariv journalist Ben Dror Yamini is truly anti-Semitic one, as he apparently denies the very existence of Jewish values and considers Jews to be ‘people without values’. 
Israel Shamir, 
The Enemy of the People 
Part Six. Elsewhere 
Green lizard 
Cuban rhythms are heard in Montparnasse on lively Parisian nights. In Tel Aviv, Buena Vista is screened non-stop. Europeans drink the Cuban cocktail El Mojito: a stream of lemon that blends with Cuban silver rum over peppermint leaves. Around the world, Cuban cigars are displayed on the shelves of the upscale stores, and the Swedes and Canadians walk around showing off their Caribbean tan. Cuba is back after ten years of dark oblivion, like an atomic submarine emerging through the ice pack. It is in fashion, and following the fashion, I took a plane to La Habana Jose Marti airport. 
Havana is blooming at the entrance of its deep bay, and the old cannons of the Three Moorish Kings’ Fortress still protect the narrow channel. Huge Cadillac and Buick limo of the 30-40s, showing their age, solemnly roll her streets, like domesticated dinosaurs, taxis of the Jurassic Period, as unrushed as old battleships. The former mansions of colonial planters and 
 	183
American Mafia, domesticated and showing the wrinkles of age, are now occupied by ordinary 
folk like you and me. 
Well-worn like a favourite old sweater, unpretentious and cosy, Havana is a safe town. One can walk her streets any time, day or night, sober or drunk. In the permanent class war fought on our planet, Cuba remains in the hands of its people. Beefy riflemen do not loom in front of her palaces. It is the only place outside Europe, where you don’t constantly run into riot police and tough bodyguards lurking in dark glasses. Your eyes immediately notice the absence of ubiquitous signs of globalization – there are no Coca-Cola or McDonalds. Even better, there are no ads at all. Nothing calls you to buy a new Hoover or oh-so-necessary new washing powder. TV carries no commercials. Poor Cuba pays double in order to broadcast the sport events without ‘sponsorship’ ads. This country opted out of the rat race, it stays clea r of IMF, it does not seek American loans, and its officials do not traffic in heavy briefcases stuffed with Franklin notes and destined for Swiss banks. 
Cuba turned out to be a total surprise for me. Years of propaganda convinced me that it is a poor totalitarian country headed by a senile dictator. The reality was completely different. There is no suspicion, secret police, armed guards, and ‘mind police’. Cubans write wonderful poetry, shoot original films, freely discuss or write on any subject. Thanks to the American embargo, they remained immune to the American mass- media influence. In comfortable movie theatres they screen French, Spanish and even Iranian films. It makes you wish that America’s blockade of Cuba would be extended to the rest of the world. However, there is no anti-American mood on the streets – because every second Cuban has a relative in Miami. 
There are no brawls and street fights; the caballeros and campaneros do not even quarrel with each other. In a month, I never heard a voice raised in anger. Cubans seem to have surgically removed their acquisition drive and channelled their energy into music and love. The perfect beauty of Cuban men and women, the descendants of the Spanish settlers and African slaves, emphasises the Utopian nature of Cuban Socialism. They look like ideal creatures from a future world envisioned by Campanella or Moore. Men are handsome and manly. They ride the sierra in their broad-brimmed hats; their blue eyes of Galician hidalgos look friendly and courageous. The implacably shapely legs of mini- skirted girls – a result of sun, good diet, health care and genes make Cuba the place to restore one’s damaged belief in the good nature of Man. This is a place to give your shopping mania a rest and pause to live and ponder life. Utopia does exist, and it is in the Caribbean Sea. 
Lest I be suspected of any bias, I search compulsively for the dark spot on this incomprehensibly lovely picture and I find it. The Cubans are bad cooks. There is no decent dinner to be had for love or money, even a lot of money. With food, Cubans can do the 
 	184
impossible and spoil even an omelette. The local food is bad for the stomach, but good for the 
waistline. This fault is a sign of Providence, so we would not mistake Cubans for angels. 
A society is judged by its attitude to children, mused Chesterton, the original thinker, who unfairly remembered only for his Father Brown stories. He would consider Cuba the only right society in the world. Cuban kids do not beg and steal, they are not used and abused, they do not have to work for a living, they do not know hunger. The cute, clean and joyous children in shorts and scout neckties walk the Havana streets in the crocodile formation (as Brits say), holding hands. Their dress is colour coded – the kids of elementary school wear blue, while the high school students don mustard highlighting their smooth dark skin. 
I banish the dreadful thought that Cuba could become like her Latin American neighbours, that these kids would wash the cars of the punters instead of schooling, and these gorgeous girls would give themselves away not for love but for money. But Havana remained steadfast after the collapse of Moscow, Berlin and Warsaw in early nineties. Until then, the Soviet Russia was Cuba’s main treasurer, supp lying the island with fuel and technical equipment, buying her sugar and guaranteeing a certain minimal living standard for the rebel republic. Moscow’s pro -Western coup d’état of 1991 put an end to all that. The victorious nomenclature convinced the people, that the Russians would live as good as the Swiss, provided they cut off the Cuba aid. Cuba was the reliable ally and the outpost of socialism on the American continent. Yeltsin’s Russia did not need outposts. To the hearty approval of New York Times, Moscow turned the valve off. 
Cuba was left without fuel, its Soviet- made technology rusted without spare parts. The US embargo turned into an Iraq-style siege. Cuba could not sell its sugar. Official Washington counted the days before Havana’s collapse. Rad io Marti broadcasting from Miami promised the Cubans a rosy future, if they would only surrender. Cubans switched to fried bananas and rice, water and electricity were in short supply, important projects were frozen. In such circumstances, the elites of poor countries leave their poor to their own fate, rob the state treasury and run to Geneva. 
The Cuban elite, the barbudos, proved to be different. These are the men and women who had repulsed the CIA-trained mercenaries at Playa Giron, smashed the South-African armour in Angola, and did not flinch in the face of nuclear threat. And they still remain with their people, despite the temptation to cross over to the victorious side. Like a big family, all Cubans became poor, but did not lose their dignity. They remained poor, but equal. Poor but proud. They shared their rice and smiled. They withstood the temptation where everybody else failed. 
 	185
For a visitor from a land, where the difference between the poor Deheishe and rich Ramat Aviv is bigger than the gap between Upper East Side and Upper Volta, it was a lesson in humility. I discovered the country where children do not beg, where there are no homeless, where everybody has access to health care and education. Incidentally, it is the country without a class of noveau riche adorned with golden trinkets, without yuppies in flashy Mercedes cars and without overpaid generals and greedy thugs. 
There is a reason for the current upsurge of interest to Cuba. A new wind is blowing in the world. The decade of neo- liberal ascendancy is over. It was an awful decade, though Tom Friedman would tell you otherwise. It started with the collapse of Soviet Union and with destruction of Iraq. It continued with Oslo treaty, establishing apartheid in Palestine, and bombardment of Serbia. In America, democracy was pushed aside in favour of corporate rule behind a flimsy veil of irrelevant elections for figurehead puppets. 
 The mainstream American press became as servile to the new rulers as Brezhnev’s Pravda. Not a word can be heard on behalf of the weak and defeated, be it Palestinians or Iraqis, Cubans or Haitians or America’s own exhausted and overworked labour force. The incredible fusion of the power of the media and entertainment industries projected Beverley Hills fantasies to a world that has seen its poor grow poorer, while the rich became fabulously rich. We now inhabit a planet where the difference between the poorest and richest strata in the social order rivals the disparities in the ancient Roman Empire. The high life of rich bankers and their coterie has been paid for by the desperate poverty of untold millions. 
If we keep up at this pace, the gulf between rich and poor will certainly expand and we will leave to our children, a world of homeless, rootless, migrant workers, and the super-rich and their bodyguards. As has happened previously in history, the dark forces are bound to overreach. The market economy wet dream ended with the Seattle bang. People found their voice in the Web, while Seattle and Prague proved that the West is not spiritually dead. The siege of Iraq is slowly eroding and the mean spirit of Madeleine Albright has departed. As Churchill said after al-Alamein, it is not the beginning of the end, but the end of the beginning. 
That is why Cuba’s thriving social laboratory is so important. It is a test of an alternative path to development. Cuba is an attempt at society of equality, created by those, who do not wish to pull the blanket to their side of the bed. The potential yuppies departed for the American dream of Miami. The society, freed from this element, drew up a new set of goals: less hard work, end the rat race, La Vida Loca for the common man, right now, all the time and for everybody. Cubans are not exhausted by hard work, they love to gather and talk, dance, sing and flirt. Their life is a continuous concert, where the viewer and actors are not divided by the 
 	186
floodlight. While Europeans and Americans come home and turn on the TV, the Cubans gather 
and play their beautiful music. 
As I walk the past the jolly cafes of Montparnasse, I find myself drifting back to my memories of the rhythm of Cuban life and miss them badly. Where are you, my green lizard with eyes of wet stone?.. 
Havana - Paris 
The Malaysian Solution 
Take a country populated by diverse communities, the indigenous and immigrant, of roughly equal size. These communities profess different religions and ply different trades. The immigrants are better at business; the natives prefer to till their soil. It could be a description of Palestine with its native Palestinians and the immigrant Jewish communities. But here the comparison ends. In Malaysia, the communities live in peace without UN peacekeepers, they pursue their cultural and religious interests without submitting to bleaching multiculturalism, their country prospers while rejecting the IMF recipes, and it is a native son of soil who stands at the helm of good ship Malaysia. 
On a less formal note, Malaysia is warm, wet and exotic. On the monsoon-swayed shore of Andaman Sea, a long-tailed, lithe monkey throws coconuts from the heights of a palm tree, flying fishes jump out of the warm blue sea and splash back, a white triangular sail rises on the horizon. Indians serve their sweet and punchy tea, teh tarik, pouring it with gusto in pulling motion, and neatly place curry on ecologically- sound banana leaves. Malay fishermen unload their haul on the shore and sort it under a broad banyan tree. At night, hundreds of stalls open at the Night Bazaar, feeding, dressing and entertaining locals and tourists. 
In Malacca, the oldest- in-East-Asia Catholic church stands next to the Great Mosque next to a Vishnu temple next to a Taoist pagoda. The Dutch-built austere Town Hall is surrounded by spacious British colonial mansions. Narrow streets preserve the harm of the Seventeenth Century, when the Malaccan sultanate was the hub of commerce. Many of its denizens bear proud Portuguese names, but in appearance they do not differ from other residents. 
In Penang, old Hakka smugglers warm their bones on the wooden jetties that form a floating island off Georgetown. Tamils sell junk on Armenian street, next to the most advanced chip plant, home to Athlon microprocessor. Yuppies have not taken over all of the Old City, and it reminds of Jaffa as it was before 1948: a modest, humane Eastern city. The glorious Oriental Hotel preserves the days of Somerset Maugham and the Straits’ Settlements. Delightful and modish Chinese girls flock out of the convent school. Native Malays carry on their unruffled life in peaceful villages, happily serve in the army and provide the backbone of the administration. 
 	187
Islam is the state religion, as it had been in the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries, when it peacefully seeped in and eventually became preferred to the older Hindu beliefs. Brought by the traders, Malay Islam is exceedingly tolerant, local, thoroughly adjusted to the place, as it is practically everywhere but on the pages of the New York Times. The girls do not cover their faces, but often wear a scarf, like religious Jewish women. On Fridays, men like to go to a mosque for prayer, the great social unifier and integrator. As Communism was always frowned-upon in Malaya, Islam is the preferred style of social movement. 
Prosperity is ubiquitous: perfect roads, new cars, brushed-up and restored relics of the past. There are no beggars, no striking poverty. Malaysians live well: they have given up home cooking and eat out in countless restaurants and at the stalls, where one dollar buys a square meal. Neighbouring Thais and Indonesians flock in and to cook their national dishes. The Twin Towers in the centre of futuristic Kuala Lumpur are the tallest in the world. 9/11 did not happen here, and the hotel security’s main worry is Durian, strong-smelling fruit the tourists are prone to smuggle in, disregarding the “No Durian beyond this point” signs. 
It is a peaceful land: one rarely sees a policeman or a soldier. There are no security guards in the shopping centres, no visible tension, no American troops or bases, no prostitution, gambling and narcotics. Evening open-air parties, much swimming in the warm sea, friendly chat, unrushed small trade: in short, a relaxing spot. How come … why do they not fight, these people of different backgrounds? 
The secret of the Malaysian success was given away by their Prime Minister, Dr Mahathir bin Muhammad, whom local newspapers affectionately call ‘Dr M’: “It is better to share a pie than to have all of no pie”. In the 1960s, Malaysia was torn by strife, for the native rural Malays felt threatened by the economic success of the Chinese and Indian immigrants, city dwellers with a long tradition of market economy. Numerically, the natives were hardly a majority, rather a plurality, of citizens. Economically, they were nowhere. Riots were frequent, and destruction appeared imminent. A pie was there to share: mineral resources, oil deposits, tin and rubber, an educated work force, a relatively small population; but the same is true for many countries that nevertheless came to grief. 
Where others failed, the Malaysians succeeded: they pursued a New Economic Policy (later called a New Development Policy), aimed to correct imbalances in agreement between the communities. That the pie of national economy should grow and the respective shares of the communities should be increasingly equalised was the idea of NEP and NDP. The prospering immigrant communities understood that disparity can ruin their good life, and agreed to affirmative action in the interest of the indigenous people. The indigenous Malays acquiesced to this relatively slow process. 
 	188
The affirmative action is not too radical: a Malay student has priority if he wants to study medicine or business management, as before the NEP there were just a few Malay doctors, businessmen, administrators. The native Malay gets a five percent discount when he buys an apartment. Malay businesses have some small tax breaks. In new developments, the developers have to secure 10 percent of flats and houses for the Malays, in order to avoid ghetto formation. Malay is the national language, but there are street signs in Chinese and English; Islam is the state religion, but there is full freedom to practise other religions as well. 
A guest from distant Palestine, I cried: Eureka! If we, Israelis and Palestinians, would learn from the Malaysian success, establish equality and take affirmative action to ensure a fair share for each community, Palestine would be at least as prosperous and happy as Malaysia. Even the notorious Jewish settlements would cause little irritation if their founders would ensure a fair share of Palestinian residents. (Nowadays, a Palestinian is not allowed even to tread on their fenced grounds.) Malaysia is an example to emulate. Let us follow the Malaysian way, erase partition, restore broken unity, return refugees home and live together happily ever after. Wealthy and privileged minorities can impose their will for a while, but in the long run, only agreement and fair sharing á la Malaysia will work. 
Not only in Palestine: This is a general panacea against the malady of inequality and national strife. In the Twentieth Century, the Masters of Discourse promoted their own patent medicine: partition and transfer. Liberally applied in Greece and Turkey, on the Indian subcontinent, in the Middle East, in the Balkans and Eastern Europe, in the former Soviet Union, and this has already ruined half a planet. Nowhere had it improved things. Subcontinent Muslims I meet regret the day Pakistan was torn off India. From Tajikistan to Belarus people dream of returning of the Soviet Union. Hungarians and Czechs feel nostalgia for Österreich . Ravaged Smyrna, devastated Sudetenland and bleeding Palestine confirm that partition wounds do not heal for centuries, and that population transfer ensures future massacres. It should be undone. 
The Malaysian way of integration had an alternative, the way of partition, and it was pursued by Singapore, a splinter Overseas-Chinese city-state at the tip of the Malay Peninsula. It has some similarities to the Jewish state: authoritarian rule, vast employment of foreign guest workers, aggressive stance towards their integrated neighbours. A great friend of Israel and the Far East base of Mossad, the Israeli intelligence service, Singapore is an important link in the global system of currency trading, an integral part of the New World Order, a supporter of the US and Australia. Singapore is better than Israel: it did not expel its native Malays, did not conquer the Peninsula, did not launch aggressive wars. It could be a free and peaceful city-state, but the dynamics of partition made it a potential source of trouble. By taking a leaf from Israel’s 
 	189
book, Singapore declared its ‘right’ to wage war on Malaysia if the country hike s the price of the 
water it sells to the island. 
Singapore poisons the minds of the Malaysian Chinese and encourages their immigration to the island. It is a very unnecessary thing, for the Malaysian Chinese community is well integrated in their country. In Penang, there is a Chinese Prime Minister, and, despite affirmative action, the Chinese retain commanding heights in the economy. What is worse, Singapore politicians try to influence decision- making of in the People’s Republic, the economic giant with little political will of its own. It is proof that the evils caused by choosing the partition model do not stop at partition but have lasting, damaging effect on the world. 
How the Malaysians did it 
The ruling block of moderate nationalist Malays and its Chinese and Indian counterparts have managed the country since the 1960s, and Dr M, actually a medical doctor by profession, has served as the Prime Minister for over twenty years. Next year he will retire at the ripe age of 78. He came to power as a young radical and Malay nationalist, expressing the natives’ disappointment over the too-slow progress in levelling economic misbalance between the communities. His victory scared the immigrant communities and made them more amenable to Malay demands. But Dr M carried out reforms gradually and gently. Under his rule, Malaysia became a prosperous industrial nation, a leader in computers as well as in traditional pursuits. Even more important, it is a rather happy land of contented people. 
Malaysia rejected the Western idea of nation-state, as it accepted the many-coloured mosaic of its communities. They are not three, but rather thirty-three. The Chinese form many communities of various languages, cultures and religions. There are Cantonese, Swatow, Hakka, Hokkien, as distinct as Sicilians and Swedes. Indians are equally diverse: Muslim and Hindu, Punjabis, Tamils, Bengalis. The native Malays also form various tribes and ethnic units. The oldest inhabitants of the Peninsula, the orang asli or `original men’, Negroid tribes akin to Australian aborigines and Indian Dravidic people, still roam the jungles. Europeans and their descendents (of mostly mixed marriages) live in Malacca, Penang and Kuala Lumpur. 
Malaysia rejected the idea of the `melting pot’ as well. Communities are not asked to integrate and assimilate; they are encouraged to keep their identity and may attend schools in their native tongues while keeping the same curriculum. They do not fall for the trap of multiculturalism, either. The uncomfortable part of multiculturalism as preached by New York is the removal of the backbone of the nation: the rejection of the original religion and culture of the majority. As I watched CNN on pre-Christmas days, I noticed their fear of actually referring to 
 	190
the Christian holiday without balancing it by an example of Hanukkah or Kwanza. Not so in 
Malaysia: there is a state religion and a state language, and tolerance of minorities. 
Most important ly, Malaysia rejected the faith of Neo-Liberalism. Together with Castro and the Pope, Dr M is an outspoken critic of the Chicago School. He does not want to sell assets to the highest bidder, nor thereby to impoverish people and create a new class of super-rich. Food and housing are inexpensive and often subsidised. Dr M is not a socialist. He prefers a strong middle class, but he was taught enough Mencius (Mengzi), the Second Sage of Confucianism, to know of the obligation of rulers to provide for the common people. 
The Neo-Liberalists tried to devour Malaysia. The Scourge of Nations, the Imperial Wizard140 George Soros, a mysterious man with unlimited resources and strong ties to the Israeli intelligence service Mossad, who broke the Bank of England, ruined Taiwan, South Korea and Thailand, attacked Malaysia, too. His financial offensive wiped out ten years of Malaysian development and ten years of 20 million men’s labour: a cool $30 billion of damage. The country would have been devastated but for Dr M, who slammed currency controls into place. 
After the Soros plague, Malaysia asked for help from the IMF and the World Bank, and was told that aid is conditional upon acceptance of IMF rules, including lifting of currency controls. Ostensibly, that was the purpose of Soros’s raid: to break the country, to send it running to the IMF and to turn it into a vassal of the New World Order. All nations that accepted IMF rules were ruined: from Argentina to Bulgaria, from South Africa to Russia.
Eduardo Galeano, the noted Uruguayan writer, in a recent interview, said: “Argentina did everything it was ordered to do by the International Monetary Fund and it’s destr oyed. The lesson is not to buy into IMF discourse, which leads not only to the extermination of national economies, but to horrific consequences that are not only economic. A discourse that not only translates into mass impoverishment and an offensive concentration of wealth, but into slaps in the face, the daily insults that are the ostentation of the power of the few, in the face of the helplessness of the many... It discredits democracy. Nowadays, it is identified with corruption, inefficiency, injustice, which is the worst thing that could happen to democracy. Another tremendous injury is the great damage that the culture of solidarity has suffered all these years. Right now the predominant culture is that of "every man for himself”, and if you fall, you’re screwed.
The new name for the financial dictatorship is the “ international community” ; anything that you do to defend the little that remains of your sovereignty is “an attack against the international community”, rather than an act of legitimate defe nce against the usury practiced by the banking system that rules the world, in which the more you pay, the more you owe. That is why in a country like Argentina everything has been dismantled: the economy, the state, the 
 	191
collective identity of a people who no longer know who they are, from where they came or 
where they are going.”. 
The stubborn old man, Dr M refused to accept the IMF diktat, and Malaysia retained its prosperous independence. It did not go under as Russia and Argentina, because its ruler was a determined man who deeply felt his solidarity with his people. But it was not an easy feat: Dr M had to fight a to-the- last- man-standing battle with his Deputy Prime Minister, Anwar Ibrahim, the IMF supporter in Kuala Lumpur. Anwar Ibrahim used the Soros- inflicted depression and stirred unrest. A weaker man, a Gorbachev, would have collapsed and vacated his seat, plunging the country into chaos. Dr M is made of sterner stuff: he deftly dealt with the Neo-Liberal by using some old and not-too- liberal laws against homosexuality. That was a correct if difficult decision: In similar vein, the Americans had sent Al Capone to jail on a trumped-up charge of small tax evasion, as they could not make other charges stick. An IMF supporter is no better than a gangster.
However, for many Malaysian intellectuals this was a traumatic experience: they would have preferred correct results to be obtained by correct means. “Dearie, don’t we all! But we can’t put ‘IMF support’ into the penal code”, I said to them. “ The ruler has a duty to his people to protect them from neo- liberal wolves, and this obligation precedes his personal ethics”. 
Soros retained a menacing presence in Malaysia. He paid for a Web magazine and repeatedly tried to buy a newspaper to brainwash Malaysians, as he does elsewhere, notably in Russia. In a Kuala Lumpur hotel, I met Malaysian fellow journalists who expectedly complained about another very non-Western Malaysian precept, that of government-controlled media. This would have been an embarrassing moment for me if I had not heard this complaint twelve years ago, in the offices of Russian newspapers. The Russians had no Dr M of their own; they privatised their media. It was snatched up by a bunch of moguls and turned into subversion tools against Russia. Now, almost all Russian media belongs to a galore of Israeli citizens. 
That is why I told my Malaysian colleagues: “Sorry, guys. If you had had it your way and made your newspapers and TV independent of government, you would have had a lot of fun for a whole week. One week later, your media would have been bought by George Soros, the man who preaches of the advantages of open society to oysters. As long as a wolf roams outside, a clever sheep sticks to its shepherd”. 
This week, Dr M had an unexpected reason for joy: a French court found Soros guilty of insider trading. Its small fine of $2 million means little for a man who makes $1 billion a day, but it is satisfying to see him branded a thief. I would not be amazed to learn that the terrible excesses of the Zionists in Palestine were arranged as a diversion of attention away from their Globalist brethren. While Zionists ruin a village, Soros and the IMF ruin a country. 
 	192
Together with Castro, Dr M understood that the source of their power lies in the overvalued US dollar. Since 1972, the US freely issued green bucks no longer tied to gold. This financial swindle, the biggest in the history of mankind, brought enormous wealth to some people, and ruined a lot more. That is why Malaysia is the brain and the engine of an ambitious plan to create a stable currency, the golden Dinar. It is also called the ‘Islamic Dinar’, as Islamic Law forbids usury and interest, and the Dinar will bear zero interest. (A similar step was taken by Solon the Wise in Sixth Century BC Athens: he cancelled debts, zeroed interest and made people free. A hundred years later, Athens ushered in its Golden Age.) This year, the Dinar will become the currency to settle deals between Malaysia and some Arab countries. 
Currency trading, the pet tool of Soros, should be banned, thinks Dr M: 
The traders sell huge sums of currency they do not have to buyers who are members of the same circle. The buyers in turn sell this fictitious currency to others, force down the value and buy at the 
depressed prices. Short selling has been taken to the ultimate level. The currency trading is many times bigger than total world trade. 
The New World Order has in Dr M a most outspoken enemy. He views it as a
continuation of old colonialism by new methods: 
Free trade had always been the war cry of the Europeans. In the 19th century they used gunboats to open East Asia for trade. They went to war when they were not allowed to supply opium to China. 
Now, the gunboats have disappeared, but the pressures are no less effective. An occupation army cannot colonise more effectively than the economic arm-twisting used by the West. Now international institutions are used to open up the countries for ‘free trade’. Once the countries are opened up, the big 
corporations and banks would move in, and the locals will be swallowed up.
Dr M has not mellowed with years. His thinking has become even more striking and extraordinary. While visiting Japan, he called upon the Japanese to reject the Western model as it is sure to ruin their achievements: 
Japanese system worked very well for the Japanese. It made Japan the second most powerful economy in the world. It may not be the Western way, but it can’t be all wrong if it can achieve so much.  
In Dr M’s view, Japan should return to strong government involvement in economy, and take up its leading role in Asia, for “East Asia and the world need Japan, its dynamism and its single- minded dedication”. For Dr M, as for many important politicians in Asia, WWII was not a war between ultimate good and ultimate evil. “The success of the Japanese army in the early days of the war finally broke the spell cast by the Europeans. East Asians learned that their European overlords could be defeated”. Similar sentiments are voiced in Iran and in Arab 
 	193
countries, where anti-British resentment brought nationalist leaders to seek help of the Axis 
Powers. 
Malaysia is an ‘alternative’ country where many Western ideas were found wanting and were rejected. We are used to frequent changes of prime ministers and presidents and see it as a success of democracy. But Dr M, this benevolent king-philosopher in Plato’s mould, disagrees. It takes many years for policies to produce fruits, he says. First year in power, the ruler learns to be addressed and to address others properly. Next year, he forms his opinions. Then he makes decisions, and only in a few years can we judge his decisions properly. He succeeded because he had enough time, he says. 
This idea is unusual for us, but as the matter of fact, three of the most charis matic and extraordinary statesmen of our days, Dr M, Dr Fidel Castro and the Pope, persist in power for tens of years with great success. Commercial companies, nowadays as powerful as any state, also do not change their helmsmen without urgent need. 
Surely, if a statesman like Dr M were to lead Japan, (or China, or Russia, or, indeed, the EU) the world would be different. Many things have changed since WWII, and Europeans, together with ordinary Americans, are now experiencing the brunt of the same policies Asia suffered in its colonial past. ‘The Open Society’ has become the tool for robbery brought home, as the New World Order is the colonisation of Europeans and Americans by their new financial elite. 
Dr M is a strict opponent of the American War on Terror. For him, “terrorism never dies until the causes for terrorism are eliminated”. He speaks against the impending Anglo -American aggression in Iraq, he refuses to accept the rant of ‘Islamic terror’. Dr M supports the much-suffering people of Palestine without the caveats usually produced by his meek-hearted colleagues in Europe. His voice is heard, for Malaysia has not surrendered its discourse to its enemies. 
Malaysia reminded me of Cuba, the Island of Freedom in the Caribbean Sea. It is also an alternative society where highly educated men map a different future for mankind, for “today’s world is in shambles. The abuses of the free trade system, the unlimited greed of speculators, have resulted in the world losing its way”, in the words of Dr M. Similar ideas are expressed in Castro’s speeches. The two politicians met a few times and expressed mutual admiration, despite their huge ideological differences: Castro the Communist and Dr M the Nationalist. In Cuba and in Malaysia, one can read a newspaper or watch TV without nausea. These two small countries have much for us to learn from. 
* * * 
 	194
Penang, Malaysia, is home to some of the best NGOs, notably the Third World Network, Consumers’ Society, Citizens International and Taiping Peace Initiative. Their brill iant gurus, Dr Idris Mohammed, Dr Rajamurti and Anwar Fazal amazed me with their knowledge and devotion to mankind, and shared with me their insights. I am most grateful for their guidance and assistance. I would also like to thank Dr Alijah Gordon, the American writer who made Malaysia her home, and Dr Hishamuddin Ubaidullah, the chairman of Deir Yassin Remembered in Malaysia. For the local Chinese opinion I am indebted to Mr To, a Minister of the Penang Government. I am grateful to the hospitable people of Malaysia and their Prime Minister, Dr Mahathir Mohammad, for showing a possible solution to the problems of Palestine. 
Animal Farm revisited 
Recently sifting through the archives of George Orwell I came across a long letter apparently written by one of the late writer’s friends. The letter purports to be a follow-up to the events which took place on Animal Farm, that unique experiment in animal self rule:
“Dear George, My research brought me to the Farm in **shire, which you described so vividly in your book. I can’t tell you how excited I was to receive the Academy grant to study the only Farm in the world where Animals managed their own affairs. 
I knew that full democracy at the Farm had been substituted almost immediately by the harsh rule of Pigs and their ferocious Dogs, so I was rather afraid to cross its well- fortified perimeter. As I was driven in a Horse-cart through the wide avenues of the Farmstead, Linda the Piglet told me that the horrors of oppression described in your book were now consigned to history and a liberal system had come into existence.
The place was one of the least efficient farms in the area. But the Animals were well fed and decently housed, though in rather shabby shacks. It was not a place of total equality; a small band of specially bred Pigs was in charge. But even their superior conditions did not seem to differ greatly from the rest - a bit more grub, a slightly bigger shack, access to a Farm- owned cart.
The Animals were not content. And the closer an Animal was to the pinnacle of power, the more dissatisfied she or he was. Linda’s dream was to go into the world of Humans and become the star of the Muppet Show. That evening she brought some friends round to my Human Lodge room. They were ruling Pigs and intellectual Foxes - the only kinds of the animals which a stranger like me would meet at the Farm. The proletarian Horses and peasant Cows couldn't speak Human language anyway. 
All the visitors complained. The Pigs compared their sty with palaces of Texan oil millionaires (they watched «Dallas»). I met one prominent Pig, Stinky, who had everything the Farm could give. He was the boss of the Massage parlour for the Ruling Pigs and therefore 
 	195
belonged to the elite. That meant unlimited grub, a nice sty in the Centre, a comfortable country 
cottage and opportunities to go to London and Paris. 
«You must be content with your life”, I commented.  
«No, I am an unhappy creature”, he whined, «whenever I go to Paris or New York I have to economize and stay in our own service flats. The joys of the Cote d’Azur are not for me, I cannot shop in the Faubourg St Honore”. 
«But you have your own pretty vacation resorts, your own jewellers”, I argued.  
«They are not as good as yours”, he said firmly.  
The Foxes were even less happy. «We are forced to live in the same houses as horses”, a Red Fox told me. «We with our superb education - living with those coarse beasts”. The Silver Foxes proudly proclaimed their North American origin; one showed me an article in the Encyclopaedia Britannica attesting to this fact. 
«You see”, he said, «we could be living in Beverly Hills. I have a relative who moved 
back to America and has landed on Nancy Reagan’s shoulders”.  
«Life is so gorgeous outside”, exclaimed Linda. «I once went to a Pig exhibition in Montreal. We stayed in golden sties, washed in huge bathtubs and were served real French fries. Just think: we all could have such a life. But our bosses will not have it. They keep telling us that Humans would eat us, slaughter us, take away our children... Tell us, how can we get rid of the ruling Pigs and join Humankind?» 
I found myself in a dubious position. This enthusiasm for Human society was exciting and contagious, but the vision was patently too optimistic. I mumbled something about pork chops. Linda looked at me with horror: «I should have figured it out for myself - if you were invited to the Farm, you must have agreed to support Rotten’s brainwashing machine. It»s good that not all Humans are like that. Mr Johnson, for example..”. 
«Who is Mr Johnson?”, I inquired.
«I am Mr Johnson”, said a tall, blond, clean-shaven man in a well- cut grey suit who 
entered my room without knocking.
«Dear Mr Johnson”, the others greeted him. «You are back. Did you bring those little 
things you promised?» 
«Yes, I did. Here is a pack of Marlboros for you, Linda, and some Christian Dior for you, 
Stinky, and blue jeans for you, Rose..”.  
I learned that Mr Johnson was the heir to the huge Johnson Ranch to the West and was a regular visitor to Animal Farm where he would buy up surplus produce and sell nice things from the Big World.
 	196
He later told me that his father, Jamison Johnson senior, dreamed of making his eastern neighbour's lands part of his estate. If modernized, Animal Farm could be a good source of income, producing milk, meat and hides...
Business aside, Mr Johnson senior was quite obsessed with the idea of regaining Animal Farm for people. «The thought of animals ruling themselves is a horrible profanity”, he would say, «it could lead my cows and horses into temptation”.  
Anyway, Mr Johnson junior had come that evening for a special religious occasion - to 
celebrate the Cargo Cult. Its Chief Priest was Stinky.
«Ladies and gentlemen”, Stinky proclaimed, «let us thank our Great Benefactor, dear Mr 
Johnson. And let us thank The Great Box of Goods”. The animals cheered.  
But Mr Johnson had some bad news: «We tried to convince Chairman Rotten to sell us some meadows which border with our Ranch, but he didn’t agree. That is why you cannot have all the sweets and goodies you asked for, dear Stinky”.  
«Bloody Rotten”, fumed Stinky, «What do we need those meadows for? We have enough meadows. It’s sweets we are short of. Next week I’ll come to your ranch and we shall see what we can do”.  
They walked away hand in hand. 
I did not understand then that I had witnessed the great moment: the beginning of the 
revolution which was to change the face of Animal Farm...
A few days later I switched on the TV in my Human's guest room in Animal Farm and instead of the usual stories about the Best Working Horses I saw Stinky's visit to Mr Johnson's Farm. It was just like a royal visit, with a red carpet and a sea of journalists and cameras. Overnight, Stinky had become the most popular Pig in the world. Even Animals who had known him for years started to look at him with new eyes as he proclaimed:
'We shall make our life every bit as jolly as that of the Johnsons.'  
Until now life on Animal Farm had been boring but easy-going. Every animal got its low 
quality but ample fodder and had no reason to work harder. But all this was going to change. 
Then, Max the Fox - a Fox of good standing with many influential Pig friends -received a novel toy from Johnson. It was a glorious, flashing, Japanese video box. A Pig with access to the press that printed the chits for hay sales bought the video box. But Max the Fox made a smarter move: he used his small worthless chits to buy huge amounts of hay which he drove to Johnson's to swap for 20 more video boxes. 
This made quite an impact on the Animals. Now they could see that the good life was not 
tilling fields nor weaving cloth, but selling videos and exporting hay.
 	197
The Foxes and Pigs started to sell hay to bring in Human delights. And hay became 
scarce. Proletarian Cows and Horses had to queue, waiting for its delivery.
They stopped working: queuing for hay was consuming all their time. As hay became scarce Foxes discovered that they could get handsome profits by selling hay for more chits. And although the Horses and Cows were unhappy nobody understood their language.
Some old-style Pigs opposed Stinky. They thought one should leave some fodder for Animals, and they were supported by a small and esoteric group of intellectual Horses who tried to remind the Animals that life outside also included slaughterhouses. 
But Stinky was unstoppable. When he introduced a new freedom of speech campaign, Mr Johnson Senior unveiled a competition for the best piece of journalism debunking Animal Farm's past. All dark spots of the Farm's history were exposed, all skeletons were removed from the closets, while life outside was truly glorified.
The Farm became a miserable place. Stinky was awarded honorary doctorates at
Salamanca and Oxford but became increasingly unpopular back home. 
'Very soon Stinky will be overthrown,he Old Guard Pigs will rule again and we shallt lose all our hard-earned villas and millions,' said Max the Fox to his friends. 'It's time to act.' He remembered Tough the Hog, once in charge of a farmstead but dismissed by the senior Pigs in a row over stolen tarts. Tough was a great admirer of the Human way of life which he felt consisted of executive jets and whisky galore. Max found Tough inside his sty brooding over an empty bottle and offered him the chance of a lifetime...
Then Max went to Stinky and warned him of the danger: 'You will be overthrown if you 
do not protect yourself. You must use the Dogs for your own defence.'  
'How can I - a Salamanca and Oxford Doctor of Philosophy - behave like an old founder of the Farm?' Stinky whined. But eventually he agreed that the Dogs could be brought in on the sly.
Max chose old toothless Dogs and placed them around Stinky's residence. Then Tough the Hog appeared with a carefully chosen band of Foxes. 'Bite me if you dare,' he exclaimed, 'but you cannot stop the Animals craving for the Human way of life.' 
These noble words were immediately broadcast by Johnson TV and brought many a cheer. The Foxes rushed for the palace, while the old Dogs could not figure out what they were supposed to do... Stinky claimed he had been imprisoned by the Dogs but this cut no ice with Tough's band. He was dismissed and locked up. The Day of Great Victory over the Dogs was made a national holiday and a statue of Tough strangling a ferocious Baskerville Hound was erected on the ma in square.
 	198
'The Pigs' rule is over,' proclaimed Tough the Hog. Pigs who supported Tough were renamed Swine. Tough did not care for the old style titles: he accepted a perfectly Human position of Executive Manager.
More and more meadows and pastures belonging to Animal Farm were handed over to Human ranch owners in exchange for Free Aid. Johnson fortified his fences to stop hungry Horses and Cows grazing there, and only Foxes and Swine engaged in export were allowed across. 
'But what could they export?'wondered - until I spotted Max overseeing a truck beingI
loaded up with rather thin Cows.
'It's silly to be the only Farm that has lots of Cattle but does not export beef,' he explained.  Some of the Animals - mainly Horses and few Pigs - began to notice what was going on and gathered in protest. 'Animal Farm for Animals!' they shouted. 'Do not sell us to the butcher!'  
The gates of Tough's office opened and a pack of Great Danes stepped out. These were not old toothless creatures but strong, ferocious beasts that charged the crowd. Tough won the day - but discontent was strong. Even my guide Linda started to have her doubts as she saw her friends disappearing into the meat trucks. 
Max the Fox, meanwhile, went to Mr Johnson Senior and came back with a contract: ‘Animal Farm will belong to Mr Johnson and will be called Johnson's New Farm. Mr Johnson will provide the animals with hay. It is only natural that he will be free to take some animals to his facilities. Mr Tough will remain Executive Manager’.  
The contract was signed and that is how the troublesome history of Animal Farm came to its end. The new Human masters were forced to send quite a number of Animals to slaughterhouses. Nobody needed so many hay sales personnel...
Johnson made his Ranch even more efficient, closed a few outlying corrals and turned every literate Pig into chops. Foxes were sent to furriers and Johnson's TV closed down as it now created inappropriate expectations among the Animals. Thoroughly disgusted I left the blighted place. On board the train I met Max the Fox and Tough the Hog; they were on their way to Florida. 
Civilisation X 
(A talk given at “The Dialogue of Civilizations: the Contradictions of the Globalization” International Conference on May 23, 2003, in Kyiv, Ukraine. At the conference, Shamir was elected a member of the Ukrainian State Administration Academy) 
The organisers of the conference could not find a better place to discuss its topic, for 
Ukraine is the borderlands between Civilizations; the ground where these ultimate personae of 
 	199
human history check their valour and vitality by prayer and sword. Founded by Vikings, peopled by Slavs, baptised by Byzantines, decorated by poplar and scented by lilac, Kyiv is the tolerant city of Igor’s Lay , the old epic poem of a battle waging between the Orthodox Christian Slavs and the Turkic horsemen. Its hero Prince Igor, a Roland of Eastern Europe, marries a daughter of a Turkic chieftain, for there is no reason for deadly enmity between cultures. Rudyard Kipling expressed it in the last less frequently quoted line: ‘there is neither East nor West, when two strong men stand face to face’. 
Though your thyme-perfumed steppes interspaced with chestnut groves served as the preferred battlefield of Germans, Turks and Slavs, paradoxically, the border skirmishes of Janissaries, Cossacks and Hussars, the let- go of excessive masculine energy, prove the civilizations have no reason for conflict. Orthodox Christians, Roman Catholics and Muslims have their own habitat and they do not stray out of it, while the warriors deeply respect their adversaries and display their chivalry between the wars. 
It is a trite observation, and that is why the concept of Clash of Civilisations was shunned in political discourse since the Crusades. The confrontations were perceived as ideological ones, be it the Cold War of Communism and Capitalism, or colonial wars of Imperialism and Liberation. American political scientists revived the Neo-Darwinist and racist concept of Clash of Civilisations for practical reasons: to explain and encourage the war of America against the World. Its enemies are presented in ‘civilisational’ terms: ‘Old’ (read: independent) Europe, Dar al-Islam, China. If these are the enemies, who are the friends? What is ‘our’ civilisation of Huntington and Strauss, Perle and Wurmser, Feith and Rice? Whatever it is, this Civilisation X is equally rejected by people of Eastern and Western Europe, French and Ukrainian, Germans and Greeks, Chinese and Zulu. 
Let us consider the qualities of this Civilisation X: 
- 	It is exterritorial, knows no borders and able to attack and devour from Iraq to 
China, from Russia to Nicaragua. It has no natural habitat and able of endless expansion. Wherever there is a man to enslave, a house to bomb, a tree to fell, it is ready to come. 
- 	Its main occupation is usury. They provide loans to states, ensnare them with 
impossible conditions and ruin them.
- 	It considers human solidarity and brotherhood – ‘totalitarianism’. - 	It rejects Spirit and considers it ‘fanaticism and fundamentalism’. 
- 	It equally abhors Apostolic Christianity and Islam; but it loves to set the
Christians upon the Muslims, and vice versa. 
 	200
- 	Its devotion is given to the Jewish State. Not only the JINSA Cabal is ethnically faithful to Israel; the US National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice said that the security of Israel is the key to security of the world. Rice added that she feels a deep affinity with Israel.
- 	It is heavily engaged in drugs. Wherever they win, heroin has its field day. 
London's The Independent newspaper, reported from Baghdad: The city, which had never seen heroin, is now flooded with narcotics. It is not unusual that where the Americans go, the narcotics flourish. Taliban had successfully eliminated the drugs from Afghanistan but since the US forces took over the control, Afghanistan has become the largest producer of heroin. Some reports suggest that the drug and arms trafficking is patronized by the CIA to finance its covert operations worldwide. 
- 	It exalts vengeance. The war against Afghanistan was promoted as ‘vengeance 
for 9/11’. 
- 	It has soul of dastardly knave, in its narrow meaning of ‘opposite to noble’. 
They did not dare to attack Iraq until it was fully disarmed by the UN. 
- 	It produces no art. In vain archaeologists of Fourth Millennium will search for 
their Venus. The rusty American Venus a.k.a opus 5327 exhibited in the
Guggenheim is identical to any heap of scrap metal. There are no glorious temples, no exciting architecture, absolutely nothing to miss if the gods would pour sulphur and brimstone on its cities. 
- 	It is obsessed with paranoid fear. It is not enough that America spends on weapons ten times more money than the rest of the world. They want to disarm everybody. The war in Iraq was caused by desire to remove its weapons. Now they want to disarm Iran, Syria, Korea, and Ukraine and Russia just wait for its turn. 
- 	Fear of weapons is not aimed exclusively outside: the proponents of Civilisation 
X try their best to disarm the American people as well. For this reason they committed the ass murder atmWaco and implicated militias in Oklahoma bombing.
- 	It despises labour and labourers. American cinema, the only existing quasi-art output of Civilisation X, depicts millionaires and whores, gamblers and brokers, bums and gangsters, but its last worker was depicted in the pre-war Grapes of 
Wrath. 
 	201
- 	It loves the rich. They believe the rich are virtuous, for they are blessed with 
wealth, while the poor are evil and damned just because they are poor. 
The psychological portrait should be recognisable for the Ukrainians. Yes, the Civilisation X presently at war with the rest of the world, is this eminently familiar and contemptible figure, a medieval Ukrainian Jew, a usurer, tax collector and alcohol pusher magnified by a factor of million. Its size impeded our recognition, for it is not easy to recognise an elephant-size louse. 
Centuries ago, this figure ruled your steppes. After expulsion from France and Spain, the immigrant Jews settled in the Ukraine, suborned the timid native Jews and in short time strategically placed themselves between Polish landlords and Ukrainian peasants. They had lent money to landlords and peasants, pushed alcohol, managed the feudal estates, and eventually became the ultimate source of power. The Jews fought the Church, for the Church objected to their liberal trade in alcohol and usury. Until nowadays, the Jewish word kabala (receipt) is used in the Ukrainian language for ‘debt enslavement’. 141 
The Civilisation X pushes heroin instead of vodka, loans out billions instead of two roubles, sucks out the wealth of nations instead of meagre livelihood of a peasant, fears nuclear weapons rather than moujik’s axe, but it is the same complex of ideas and methods. In short, Civilisation X is a dangerous and aggressive mutation of Jewish spirit grafted on the Anglo-American basis. Huntington was right – up to a point. The Conflict  of Civilisations is unavoidable, but it is not a conflict of Christendom and Islam, but the conflict of Christians and Muslims versus Neo-Jews. 
2 
What a strange and dreadful thought, one would say. However, this thought is shared by many Jews, for instance, by a prominent Jewish thinker, ex-Rabbi of Oxford, author of a few books, a TV personality, Rabbi Shmuel Boteach, incidentally, a leader of Khabbad, the most racist and xenophobic Jewish movement. He notices and blesses similarity, almost identity of the traditional Jewish attitude and the ruling US paradigm. I do agree with him in his diagnosis, though our conclusions are diametrically opposed. Rabbi Boteach proclaims in The Jerusalem Post142: “America and the Jews are teaming up take over the world. But it is a conquest of ideas rather than armies, and you can be sure that when they give it back, it will be in much better shape than when they took it.”  
It is a conquest of ideas, but they are backed up by Tomahawks. These ideas will improve the world, like the character of the Jewish joke ‘translated and improved’ Shakespeare. As for ‘give it back’, tell it to Palestinians.  
 	202
The ideas are the worst part of Jewish heritage, for these ideas were already tried in the Ukraine and now they are tried in Palestine. These ideas force many young Palestinians (‘suicide bombers’) to commit suicide rather than to live under the unbearable Jewish rule. These old Jewish ideas were modernized by Leo Strauss, the brain behind the JINSA cabal. Pfaff143 sums them up in a one- liner ‘The ostensibly hidden truth is that expediency works; there is no certain God to punish wrongdoing’, or in even shorter form, their power is based on the secret knowledge that there is no God144. 
It is not a new observation. The Prophets complained about the Jews who act as if there is no God to punish wrongdoing or apportion grace. Since God through Christ has opened his Covenant to the Gentiles, those from the Jews who do not consider themselves to be in one beloved Israel of God with righteous Christians from all other nations do not belong to Israel either and do not participate in the Covenant of God145. In plain words, by rejecting Gentiles, the Jews rebelled against God. 
Now these rebels command the nuclear arsenal of the US. Pfaff names leading disciples of Strauss: Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz; Abram Shulsky of the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans, Richard Perle of the Pentagon advisory board, Elliott Abrams of the National Security Council. These men have now enough bombs to erase the mankind, or, to achieve the ultimate goal of Strauss, ensuring Jewish group dominance in  the modern world146. This	 frightening thought provides also a glimpse of hope, for 95% of American people do not belong to the Neo-Jewish community. Instead of fighting Muslims and supporting the Neo-Jews in the style they are accustomed to, the Americans can borrow a leaf from the Ukrainian book. 
For the Jewish dominance in Ukraine was undone in 1648, when the Christian Ukrainians and the Muslim Tartars led by a Polish noble Bohdan Chmielnicki and supported by Russian troops united in a ferocious Intifada and freed the Ukraine. (For centuries, the Ukrainians were libelled as mass murderers of the innocent Jews, until the modern British Jewish researcher Jonathan Israel147 proved there was no massacre; though Jews suffered as much as everybody else in the ensuing civil war.) 
The defeat of the Jewish ideas in 1648 was good for everybody, and good for Jews, as well. Jews lost their arrogance and gained some respect to their neighbours. They lost their exalted position and became better human beings. Thousands of Jews, followers of Jacob Frank, were received in the Church and became ordinary Ukrainians or Poles. Others followed Besht into new Hassidic movement which internalised many Christian concepts. 
Yesterday I visited Uman, a charming old town with its famous 18th century landscaped park of Count Potocki, one of the world wonders, where young Ukrainian belles in dangerously brief miniskirts stroll under the white pyramidal candles of chestnut blossom. There I attended 
 	203
the tomb of Rabbi Nachman, for this Jewish philosopher-saint and contemporary of Napoleon was venerated by my ancestors, and he is still revered by thousands of Jews everywhere. He was much influenced by the Ukrainian folk ways and dreamed to unite his people with the Ukrainians in one Church. He felt affinity to the soul of Jesus and repeated His words ‘I came to fulfil the Law’ while ostensibly transgressing it. He made a pilgrimage to the Holy Land but chose to return to his native Ukraine. His mystic teaching is the best proof of blessed influence the Ukrainian Orthodox had on the rebellious Jewish soul. Thus the old withered oak of Jewish spirit blossomed again in the Ukraine after the victorious Intifada.
Likewise, the strategic mega-usurer from New York and his partner the butcher from Tel Aviv will be defeated in the new world-wide Intifada, and that will be the end of the Clash of Civilisations.
Part Seven. Iraq War 
In a twist of nomenclature that would seem implausible in fiction, a craft carrying Col. Ilan Ramon of the Israeli Air Force apparently broke up over an East Texas town called Palestine. NYT, 2/2/03 
Omen 
Omens, good and bad, are sent to us like beacons to facilitate our navigation in the sea of troubles, said the renowned Portuguese writer Paulo Coelho. Wise and successful men constantly watch out for the telling signs and act accordingly. Silly and arrogant folk disregard omens and court disaster. Santiago, the main character of his hugely popular Alchemist, made his decisions by paying close attention to omens, especially those given by birds, and eventually won love, glory, wisdom and riches. With or without the bestseller, we also pay heed to the celestial hints of destiny, but usually we call it ‘a hunch’. 
We do not understand the reasoning of an old hunter who observes the birds’ flight and predicts the coming storm, but we trust his hunch. To a great extent, people are guided by premonitions and omens. The Roman armies did not leave their walled city until the augurs would complete the observation of birds. At the other end of the world, the creator of The Art of War gave the same advice: pay heed to omens and ask prophets before the war. 
Ulysses asked the supreme god Zeus to grant him a sign about whether he will overcome 
the suitors, and Zeus sent an approving omen: a clap of thunder from the clear sky. Penelope 
 	204
received a sign in her dream: an eagle ravished her tame fat geese, and she understood: her 
husband will return home and punish the suitors. 
Whoever ignored the omens often had cause to regret it. The Pharaoh of Exodus did not believe the signs and died at sea. The Jews ignored the dreadful omens at the Crucifixion and just laughed all the way to their kingdom’s perdition forty years later. 
But the signs and seers are notoriously ambivalent. It is not frequently we receive a clear and unambiguous sign, like those given to the Pharaoh or to the rebellious Jews. It happened, if ever, a few days ago, when the space shuttle Columbia, this most advanced craft of the American Empire, proudly carrying an Israeli on board, disintegrated over a small Texan city called Palestine. Israelis tried to omit and forget this strange and impossible ‘coincidence’, like their ancestors tried to ignore the torn curtain of the Temple, but in vain. 
You do not have to harrow Hades for Tiresias, the blind seer of Thebes, raise the spirit of Samuel or call for Sybil to divine the meaning of the steel bird’s crash. It is an omen that the mighty US is likely to suffer terrible calamities while serving the cause of Israel. America’s best men will perish; America’s best technique won’t help. It is an omen that Pales tine remains the stumbling block for the Jews; and even the most generous assistance of the US will not help them to overcome Palestine. It is a sign for the American president: if he will carry on doing Israel’s bidding his good ship will perish with all hands. 
The Columbia disaster is not the first sign. The steel birds’ attack of 9/11 was an omen that Israel’s influence on Wall Street and the Pentagon will bring America to disaster. For this reason it does not matter ‘who did it’, nor does it matter what caused the Columbia’s crash, as such events have their symbolic meaning. But, instead of pondering the meaning and repenting, Bush and his Administration preferred to persevere in their dangerous ways. They followed the Jewish way of disregarding signs and omens, an approach based on disbelief in Divine providence. The Talmud contains an archetypal story of a dispute where a wise man was supported by God and the signs, but he was defeated by the Rabbis, for ‘the Torah is on Earth, not in Heaven’. This Jewish headstrong and God-denying approach gave its proponents much short-term advantage, and even more long-term calamities. 
Now, after the second warning, the US leaders have to choose. They can stick to the Jewish ways, stubbornly deny God’s will and ignore omens. They can choose the way of Indians and pathfinders, gold-diggers and oil prospectors: pay attention to signs and play the hunch. 
The clever boy Santiago of Paulo Coelho understood the omens. Will President Bush?. 
The City of the Great King 
(A Talk Given in Istanbul City Concert Hall on 22.02.03) 
 	205
Heavy snowfall blocks the mountain passes of Anatolia, lays thick Persian carpets on the streets, paints white the mosque domes, churches and markets of your City, the eternal capital of great empires. I came from Jerusalem al-Quds via Moscow, two places intricately connected to the Second Rome. A few days ago I stood at the formidable walls of Jerusalem and read the still preserved letters: the city was fortified by Suleiman the Magnificent, the great Ottoman Sultan. Signs of Ottoman rule are found everywhere in Palestine, for Ottomans were the Middle East protectors for 400 years. They took over the Byzantine Empire but preserved the rights and religious freedom of the Orthodox and not-so-Orthodox Christians. Your ferocious Janissaries gave the Middle East its chance to develop in relative peace until the modern times. 
We comprehend it now, when the much maligned Empire is gone and the Turk doesn’t protect the people of Holy Land anymore. For the Westerners did not come as liberators of the Ottoman yoke; in my own city of Jaffa, Napoleon’s troops executed six thousand prisoners -of-war: Turks, Arabs, Native Palestinians. It was just a foretaste of Zionist occupation. Last week fifty innocent civilians, Palestinian women, children and men were killed by General Sharon’s army and laid to eternal rest in the cemetery of Gaza, next to the mortal remains of thousands of Turkish soldiers who valiantly defended Palestine from the Zionist-led British army. 
I came to you by the way of Moscow, the Third Rome of the Orthodoxy, to tell you: Your neighbours in the East, Muslims and Orthodox Christians, Arabs and Russians, see you as equal human beings and feel empathy to you. Stop looking askance to the West. You are at ho me in the East. The leading Russian historian Lev Gumilev exalted the Russian – Turkic comradeship-in-arms that broke the wave of Western Crusades in 13-14th centuries. In modern times Vladimir Lenin gave hand in friendship to Mustafa Kemal and forfeited all Russian claims to defeated Turkey for he expected Turkey to sustain its historical role of the protector of the East. Here is your destiny: by the very virtue of straddling the Bosporus, you should link the Orient of Islam and the Orient of Orthodoxy. The Empire is gone, but your responsibility remains. In the words of the Petit Prince, you are forever responsible for those you tamed. 
I do not want to incite you against Europe. Other way around. Why the Ottoman Empire was destroyed? It is usual to blame the European Imperialism. But in Gaza, next to that of Turkish soldiers, I saw another big cemetery, that of the British soldiers. They died in order to wrestle Palestine from the Turkish hands and to break up the Ottoman Empire. Their country, England, go t no benefit from it. Their soldiers, officers, politicians were ruthlessly killed by the Zionists. Ninety-two British subjects were blown up by our future Prime Minister Menachem Begin in the single biggest act of Middle Eastern terrorism. Zionists benefited from the dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire. It stands to reason they promoted its downfall for they wished to get rid of the Turkish Shepherd and ravage his flock. 
 	206
Now their plan is being realised. On the ruins of the Ottoman Empire, a brave new world riseth. Firstly, Iraq must be destroyed, after that, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, until all former Ottoman Empire and its neighbours from Pakistan to Africa is turned into a Zone of Special Interests for Israel, policed by the Turks. This plan was stated by General Sharon many years ago, re-formulated by the Zionist Neo-cons Richard Perle and Douglas Feith in 1996, upheld now by the Wolfowitz Cabal, the people who run the foreign policy of the US 148. The American Jews paid for mammoth posters now covering walls of Israel: they call to take over the al- Aqsa mosque of Jerusalem. They prepare to tear down the Golden Dome of Haram a-Sharif, where the Prophet had met Jesus Christ and had tied Islam with the previous Revelations of God. It could be done while the American missiles rain on Baghdad, while the American troops cross Anatolia to Mosul. And if it will be done, it will be done with connivance of Turkey, of its ‘Islamic’ government. 
I am sorry for you, friends. You were shepherds of the Middle East, now you help the Wolves. You were the rulers of men, now you became servants of the Mammon worshippers. You were the protectors of Islam, now you allow the greatest desecration of Islamic shrine to happen. Your government drives a hard bargain: how much it will ge t for blood of its Arab brothers. It brings shame on you: the Western papers scornfully speak of your bazaar manners and the mercenary spirit. Stop it, before Allah decides that this Great City on Bosporus is too heavy burden for the Turk, as it was too heavy burden for the Byzantine.
Is it the war in the interests of Israel? In the interests of America? Of Western domination, oil interests, Christendom? Not really. Beyond the phantom of European Imperialism, the resurrected spirit of Judeo-Khazar Empire emerges, the spectre of the Judeo-American Empire. In 7th-9th centuries the Khazars, a Turkic people, became cannon fodder for the ruling Jewish elites. The slave-trading Khazar Empire spread from Kiev to Caspian Sea, but the Khazars did not enjoy it: they were enslaved by their ruling caste. Now its spirit came back, for President Bush reminds of a Khazar Beg, a formal ruler manipulated by others. The Americans will have no profit of their enterprise, nor will the Turks. 
For this war is their war against Spirit, and Spirit is not to be trifled with. A short time ago, an American spacecraft carrying an Israeli military pilot made some preparations for the war with Iraq. At 9 o’clock sharp it was hit by lightning over Palestine, Texas. What other signs you need? The destruction of the Mammon Temple, the World Trade Towers of Wall Street is ascribed to a mythic al-Qaeeda group. A year and a half passed by, and though the Americans took over Afghanistan and led thousands of prisoners in captivity, they did not produce a single convincing proof for it. Experts say, no jet impact could bring the towers down. Is not it a sign of 
 	207
Spirit fighting Mammon? Unseen for those who do not want to see, a new war is going on, a war 
of spiritual forces. Turkey should find itself on the right side in this war. 
The Divine Wind a Homage to Simone Weil
Walls of cold rain and hail encompassed my Jaffa. Streets turned into ferocious streams and snow touched palm trees and whitened the sidewalks of subtropical Tel Aviv, in violent counterpoint to the violet skies hanging low, just a handbreadth above the belfries and minarets, as the hurricane rushed masses of sand and rain clouds over the deep cleft of the Dead Sea into Palestine. A sandstorm of unheard-of magnitude broke all over the Middle East, stopping American tanks in the desert, blinding the pilots of their planes, covering the crosshairs of their weapons, threatening to capsize the monstrous battleships in the Gulf. A hundred armoured troop carriers were savaged by the sandstorm. Such a Divine Wind had saved Japan from the Mongol landing of Kublai Khan; such a storm had preserved Elizabethan England from Spanish occupation. 
Like the Spaniards of the Armada on their way to English shores, the Mammonite force was not prepared for a meeting with this divine intervention. The invaders had planned to enter the soft underbelly of Asia as easily and smoothly as the dagger of Jack the Ripper had torn defenceless women. No opposition was envisaged. 
John Wayne or Burt Lancaster handed over their spare guns to the unarmed foe before the fatal shootout. But the Mammonites are not the noble American heroes of the old Westerns. They were not satisfied with their technical superiority and the ten-to-one numerical advantage of the American population over the Iraqi people; they demanded to disarm their enemy. The cowards landed only after the obedient UN obligingly disarmed the Iraqis and smashed their last rusty missiles. 
They did not expect this supernatural intervention of the elements because Mammonite power is based, in Dostoyevsky’s words, on the secret knowledge that there is no God. But the material world is not dead matter. Everything in this world is alive and interconnected: our history, our present and future, our visions and our social structure, sandstorms and hurricanes, earthquakes and revolutions are part and parcel of the tightly connected trinity of Earth, Man and God. The will of the people, of billions of men and women opposing the Anglo-American aggression, was expressed in mammoth demos around the globe and in the solemn halls of the United Nations, but it was scorned by the Mammonites. This will of the people was translated into sandstorms to remind us that our wishes are as powerful as those of the Olympian gods, and that the integrated will of the people is indeed Vox Dei. By disregarding the Will of God and Man, the War Party sowed the seeds of its destruction, for it is intoxicated by its Might. 
 	208
II 
“The strong are never absolutely strong, nor are the weak absolutely weak. Those who have Might on loan from fate count on it too much and are destroyed. Might is as pitiless to the man who possesses it (or thinks he does) as it is to its victims. The second it crushes, the first it intoxicates”, wrote Simone Weil, the French phil osopher and divine who witnessed the great intoxication of Might called World War Two. She referred to the Trojan War when she extracted this sublime lesson from the Iliad: “The human race is not divided up, in the Iliad, into conquered and conquerors. The re is no refuge from fate; learn not to admire Might, not to hate the enemy, not to scorn the vanquished”. 
This modern saint, who was born into a Jewish family, joined the Communists, fought in Spain, worked with the workers of Renault and followed St Teresa into the Church, Simone Weil cast the Trojan War as a tragedy for both the Greeks and the Trojans, for they did not stop when they could have. At a certain point, the Greeks could have had 90% of their demands, but they preferred to risk all and to win all. At another point, the Trojans could have had 90% of their wishes met, but they also chose to risk all. The two parties suffered, both lost their best men, and the victorious Achaeans were defeated some fifty years later by the invading Dorian wave. 
In a similar way, the Nazis went too far in 1939. The world accommodated some of their demands, for Prague had been under German rule for hundreds of years, and the French control over the Ruhr Valley was not based in law and tradition. The German demand for unhindered access to Danzig and Königsberg was not an unreasonable one. Hitler could have stopped at this and got away with it. ‘Appeasement’ was sound politics and reasonable course in 1938. But in 1939-1940 the German Reich proved its insatiability. Czechoslovakia, Poland, Yugoslavia, Greece, Denmark – many states were overrun, until the world decided to put an end to Nazi expansion. The dreadful war ruined Europe and Russia, and prepared the ground for the Mammonite accession. 
The Zionists went too far. They could have had a decent share in the sweet land of Palestine, willing Palestinian workers and friends, an endless supply of cheap oil and resources from the hinterland to the Haifa refineries, a very good life for themselves and their children. But they wanted to have all, and to leave nothing to the vanquished. That is why their days are numbered. 
The Mammonites are repeating the errors of Hitler and Sharon. First, Afghanistan. Nobody could understand why the Mammonites decided to attack this remote kingdom, but they got away with it, with the mass slaughter of prisoners, with the destruction of Afghani livelihood, with unleashing the opium production previously tethered by the Taliban. Now, Iraq. The battle is still undecided, and already Michael A. Ledeen of AEI (the American Enterprise 
 	209
Institute), a Zionist and Mammonite (if these twin ideologies can be separated) reminds us, “Iraq is a battle, not a war. After Baghdad, Tehran, Damascus, Riyadh” 149. And afterwards, Paris, Berlin, Moscow, Beijing. Today they wish to remove Saddam Hussein; tomorrow they will demand the head of Chirac, Schroeder and Putin. 
They are already demanding full boycott of France150 and follow-up action is on the way. Here is one of the Mammonite ads: “Boycott France because Americ an lives and security are at stake. France has every right to disagree with America. But France has moved from simple dissent to active hostility toward America. The French President Chirac warned East European nations that if they side with America, France will oppose their membership in the European Union. This week, William Safire reported in the New York Times that France has secretly been helping to arm Iraq, and has been helping Iraq build long-range missiles. These same missiles may soon be used against American soldiers”. Safire is a leading Zionist Commissar, and his ‘report’ is a Zionist fatwa against France and its President. In the report151 of the warmongers’ get-together, this plan is unveiled: “Kristol urged that we split Germany off from France but noted that such "intelligent diplomacy may be too much to hope for from the State Department." When Perle declared that "Americans are not vindictive", Ledeen interrupted to say that, in the case of France, he certainly hoped we would be”. 
 That is why there is an urgent need to borrow a leaf from the American book. In 1823, the U.S President James Monroe upheld the Monroe Doctrine in his annual message to Congress. Declaring that the Old World and New World had different systems and must remain distinct spheres, Monroe made four basic points: (1) The United States would not interfere in the internal affairs of or the wars between European powers; (2) the United States recognized and would not interfere with existing colonies and dependencies in the Western Hemisphere; (3) the Western Hemisphere was closed to future colonization; and (4) any attempt by a European power to oppress or control any nation in the Western Hemisphere would be viewed as a hostile act against the United States. 
Now is the right time to proclaim the fully symmetric Eurasian Doctrine. Let the US stay away from the Old World of Eurasia, and stop its attempts to oppress or control any nation in Eurasia. Britain should decide whether it intends to act as a Trojan Horse, in the apt words of de Gaulle, or sincerely join Europe. Iraq, or any other country in Eurasia, is not open to American colonisation. The free nations of Eurasia, led by France, Germany, Russia and China, should condemn the Mammonite aggression in the UN and call for sanctions against the aggressors. The US dollar should cease to be the reserve currency, and the US debt of $ 6.4 T (trillion) should be called in. The US-owned media, the tool of indoctrination, should be treated as a racist
 	210
propaganda vehicle for having sanctified the killing of Arabs. US forces should leave Eurasia 
and peace will be restored in the interests of all sides. 
III 
The unjust sanctions against the noble people of Iraq should be lifted immediately. These sanctions caused the deaths of millions of innocents, including a million Iraqi children. They prepared the ground for the Mammonite aggression. The terrible campaign of demonisation carried out by the Mammonite media against Saddam Hussein, the Iraqis and Arabs in general, should be denounced as racist bigotry. 
Saddam Hussein is neither a Santa Claus nor St Francis. He is not a gentle king-philosopher. But President Allende of Chile was the most liberal and progressive ruler, and still he was overthrown and assassinated by the CIA-sponsored General Pinochet, this great friend of Zionist Mammonites Margaret Thatcher, Henry Kissinger and Conrad Black. The liberal and progressive Prime Minister of Iran, Mohamed Mossadegh, was overthrown as well, and replaced by the authoritarian rule of the Shah. Saddam Hussein was brought into being by the very spirit of the Arab world as its defender, for a civilisation (in Toynbee’s sense) meeting a lethal challenge produces stern and warlike leaders able to meet that challenge. 
When Russia was about to be attacked by the most cruel and dangerous enemy of its history, Russia’s spirit brought forth a steely and stern, defrocked Georgian priest and made him ruler of the Soviet Union. A kinder, softer man would not have been able to sacrifice millions of Russians (includ ing his own son) to defeat the Third Reich. 
The Arab world was mismanaged for centuries by outside powers: by the Ottoman Turks, by the colonialists, and now by the Mammonite neo-colonial web. Saddam Hussein is the first strong independent ruler of Arabs since Saladin; it is not a blind coincidence that he was born in Tikrit, the city that gave birth to the noble vanquisher of Crusaders. He can unite the Arab world and restore the Caliphate – like de Gaulle and Adenauer restored the Carolingian Empire. This has to be done, as the present parcelling of Arab lands has created blocks of rich sheiks, protected oil wells and impoverished masses. Saddam is able to confront Mammonites and Zionists, and that is why he is much loved by the people of the Middle East. 
Saddam is vilified by the Mammonite media, but this only proves he is the right man in the right place. For whomever they glorify is surely their collaborator. They loved Mikhail Gorbachev, who demolished the USSR; they love Tony Blair, who turned England into an American colony. John Pilger described it well in his introduction to the new edition of the great classic of Phillip Knightley, The First Casualty152: “The media could praise the `miraculously few casualties’ in the Gulf War (meaning the few British and American casualties), while the horror of up to a quarter- million Iraqis slaughtered by the US-led forces was consigned to 
 	211
oblivion.” Yesterday on Israeli TV the cruel ex-defence minister of Israel, Fuad Ben Eliezer, murderer of hundreds of Palestinian civilians, called Saddam Hussein, ‘a fearsome man’. For me, and for other people of the Middle East, whoever frightens Ben Eliezer can’t be all that bad. 
Saddam has passed with honours a severe test of war: his people remain loyal to him and are fighting the Mammonite aggressor. We should support him in this hour of doom, like Winston Churchill supported Joseph Stalin. Do not worry: when the Arab world regains its independence within the framework of friendly Eurasia, it will produce kind and gentle rulers, lovers of the arts and letters. 
IV 
American and English soldiers were sent to commit the worst of war crimes, that of aggression against a sovereign state. But they weren’t sent in the interests of Americans and Englishmen. They were sent to extend the Mammonite rule all over the Middle East. We do not identify the Mammonites with the people of America. The Mammonites come and go, while the people remain forever. Nor should the Europeans repeat the American folly and try to ‘liberate’ America. Let Americans free themselves from the Mammonite yoke. It is in their interests, for the Mammonites are not a forgiving lot. They will not forgive anybody who stands in their way. They will try to crush the internal American opposition. They have stored all the photos of participants in the anti- war demos, and they will use them, sooner or later.
The Mammonites are blinded by their sheer power, by their coup of having harnessed America to their master plans. Their lack of compassion has manifested in Guantanamo, where they cage their unfortunate prisoners. Their chutzpah was manifest when they demanded to disarm Iraq and attacked it afterwards, turning all of us into their unwilling henchmen. Their lack of sincerity is proven by their massive campaign of lies and disinformation. Their godless nature is seen in their refusal to obey the pastoral instructions of the Churches. (Only some Zionist TV preachers support their war.) 
The Mammonites utilise the Zionist network and mislead the Jews into obedience. The US Senate started the war by presenting the Jewish state with ten billion dollars, and in return, “God Bless America”, a major Israeli newspaper, Yediot Aharonot, headlined today’s edition, and its web edition declared that “the hearts and prayers of Israelis go out to the US armed forces”. 
“Much of the ideological justification and political pressure for war against Iraq has come from right-wing American Zionists, many of them Jews closely allied to Israel's Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, and occupying influential positions both inside and outside the Bush administration. It is a Bush-Sharon war against Iraq”, wrote Patrick Seale, the British observer 
 	212
and expert on the Middle East. Seale is right – up to a point. The ‘left-wing’ American Zionists, 
many of them Jews, are as ridden with Mammonitis as are their right-wing brethren.
Bob Norman reports from South Florida153: “Robert Wexler has made himself one of the nation's loudest critics of President Bush. The liberal congressman attacked Bush on the environment, prescription drugs, corporate scandals, tax cuts for the rich and the President's 2000 election tactics. But Wexler said on TV that war on Iraq is a swell idea. Wexler and several other Jewish Democrats in Congress, led by Connecticut's Senator Joe Lieberman anda gaggle of representatives from California and New York, are spoiling for that fight. And because these same politicians can usually be counted on to anchor the Democrats' opposition to Bush, they have helped to destroy any hope of the Party's reining in Dick Cheney's dogs of war”. 
The US and UK Zionists do not endanger their power base by supporting the war. While their positions in the media are well known, “there are some 15 Jewish soldiers (0.03% of the British invasion force in Iraq) among the 45,000 British fighters currently in action in the US- led campaign154, reports Haaretz. This disparity explains a lot, including the ‘chicken- hawks’ label. Their mad ideas include restoration of Greater Israel from the Nile to the Euphrates and ‘historic revenge’ upon Babylon for the destruction of the Temple of Solomon in BC 586, as called for by David Ben Gurion, the founder of Israel. Needless to say, these insane plans are not in the true interest of Americans nor of the sane majority of Jews.
While rejecting the Mammonite-Zionist covenant, we do not identify the enemy with a religious or ethnic group. Indeed, many Americans of Jewish origin stand against the war and against the Mammonites. I do not want to mention again their venerable names for there is no need to distinguish between them and other good Americans. The enemy is the Mammonite ideology, `a weird crossbreed of Roman and Hebrew attitudes’ in the terminology of Simone Weil. She wrote: 
“The Romans and Hebrews were much admired and quoted every time on e wanted to justify a crime. For Romans, conquered people were objects of contempt, and they had no epics, no tragedies. For Hebrews, cruelty to the vanquished is permissible, indeed indispensable.” Simone Weil perceived the Gospels as the last and brilliant manifestation of the Hellene spirit of the Iliad, the spirit of compassion that sees the humanity of both sides in the war. That is the spirit the Americans could invoke. 
The compassionate and fiercely independent America of Henry Thoreau and Gore Vidal could and should win its long battle against the Mammonite spirit. Provided both main parties of the US are infiltrated to equal extent, the way out lies in giving more, much more, power to the states, while reducing the Federal Government’s functions to managing the US Mail. The best American intellectual magazine, Harpers’ Monthly , recently drew an idyllic picture of the world, 
 	213
where instead of the monstrous US, some seven or eight states (California, New England, Texas, the Confederacy, etc.) occupy the landmass of the North America between Mexico and Canada. Such smaller and more manageable states (the size of France!) would be able to form meaningful relations between their people and their landscape, create real and not imaginary communities, produce art and relate to Man and God. 
Americans will be able to live much better, happier and more inspired life. For instance, the $75B (seventy-five billion) America is spending on the Iraq war could provide fifty million Americans with free health care, or six million young men with university education. Americans would be able to celebrate the Nativity of Christ, not only ‘seasons’ at Christmas, and His Resurrection at Easter, without fear. 
Even the Mammonite spirit of commerce would shake off its destructiveness if confined to the Big Apple. Who knows, maybe independent New York will re-create the glory of Venice, the great trading republic, once disengaged from the huge continent. 
Israel, the exclusivist Jewish state, has no place in the free Middle East; but its inhabitants, adoptive Palestinians of Jewish faith or origin, will be welcomed and desired citizens of the Palestinian Commonwealth, on par with native Palestinians. Their abilities will help them lead their common country to prosperity and equality. Thus, the noble Zionist goal of bringing Jews back to the home of their ancestors will be accomplished, and the descendents of Jews elsewhere would be able to forget separatism and blend peacefully into the nations they live among. 
Murder Most Foul 
War is a crime, but this is a manly crime defying effeminate mores and rigid society. The most convinced pacifist can get carried away by the sight of charging cavalry, attacking troops, roaring tanks and fighter jets taking off a desert strip. Not in vain, women admired warriors, poets sung their mighty deeds, and priests anointed their heads. We can fetch a Roman adage or a Koranic verse, a line from Shakespeare or Nietzsche to praise a leader of men and disregard the costs of war. We can forgive a bloodshed, it’s sordid affairs that can’t ever be forgiven. 
Murder of the deposed Arab ruler’s young sons is the ultimate sordid crime of President Bush. It transformed him from a fool into a villain, from the dubious vanquisher of a disarmed state into a vile murderer, from a deceiver into a bloody crook, from the vainglorious chieftain on board of the aircraft carrier into a vicious monster. Whatever we think of Saddam Hussein, cynical and cruel murder of his sons is an abysmal collapse into archaic mode. This is worse than Napoleon’s murder of young Duc d'Enghien, worse than the crimes of Richard III. Stalin and 
 	214
Hitler, Churchill and Roosevelt killed millions, but they did not hunt down children of their 
adversaries. Indeed, Hitler did not lay hands on Stalin’s son he captured. 
If the president were to tear their noble hearts and gobble them dripping blood on his starched shirt he would not be more disgusting. It is a moral collapse of the ruling class: his schools, Harvard and Yale, once aristocratic breeding ground of American gentlemen, reached a moral nadir under the guidance of Lawrence Summers the Platitudinous, Samuel Huntington the Trivial, Leo Strauss the Godless and Alan Dershowitz the Torturer. Probably Sing Sing would produce a more suitable ruling class at a lesser cost. 
It is a moral collapse of the army. Hundreds of heavily armed American soldiers who participated in the execution brought shame on themselves and the Armed Forces. Copycatting the Israeli assassins, they rained missiles at the handful of men. They are not soldiers anymore, their place is with hangmen. Their cowardly deed will delegate them into the lower recesses of Hell, within a shouting distance from Judas. 
It is a moral collapse of the media. This docile tool of Empire stepped into moral abyss beyond the cowardly murder. TV pundits discussed price of blood in dollars and shekels, they argued whether the murder would put paid to the Iraqi resistance. The TV screens were turned into stakes posting the bloodied heads of two handsome young me n, a scary sight, but even scarier was the joyous crowd of brokers and investors at Wall Street, celebrating the Dow Jones’ rise by guzzling Arab blood. It was not the first vicious murder in mankind’s history; but the first one met with equanimity; a bloody sacrifice to Mammon. The healing spasm of moral disgust did not shake the sick society. 
The dead and torn body of the fourteen-year-old boy, a grandchild of Saddam Hussein, will haunt Bush whenever he looks at his own children and grandchildren, like Ba nquo’s bloody ghost on Macbeth’s feast. Indeed, the Texan killer of Hussein’s sons is but a remorseless replica of the Scottish murderer of Macduff’s sons. 
In a Christian land he would be excommunicated, for a vengeful murderer of his enemies’ children has no place in the Kingdom of Christ. Not in vain he befriended Sharon and Perle who are used to laud the murder of Haman’s children at the feast of Purim. 
Noble and brave, the sons of Saddam Hussein did not escape to a faraway land; they did not pocket billions for surrender, they did not lounge in Minsk or Riyadh as the dishonest mainstream media suggested. The Young Lions of Baghdad, they fought the superior forces of the invader, and fell defending their homeland. Kusai and Udai were together in their lives; and in their death they were not divided. They will be forever cherished in the collective memory of mankind, with other tragic and courageous fighters against the Empire from Vercingetorix the 
Gaul to the Sioux chief Sitting Bull, from Che Guevara of Santa Clara to Abdel Kader al 	 
 	215
Husseini of Qastal. Their last stand and their death redeemed Iraq and returned self esteem to the Arabs. They died in flesh but remained alive in spirit; their murderers are but living dead. When the Middle East will regain ts independence, their names will be written on the precious porphyry of our monuments. 
Midas Ears 
A new spectre haunts America. It enters the well-protected boardrooms of newspapers and banks, shakes the deep foundations of its towers. It is the spectre of glasnost: the dark secret of Jewish power is out. Just recently it was ‘third rail’, touch-and-die, deadly dangerous to mention, certain end to a career. Just recently, Joe Public snapped his TV from an eminence with an Israeli passport to a member of a Jewish think-tank, and muttered to himself: Surely it is just a coincidence that so many important and largely unelected people in our country happen to belong to this small minority group. Surely it is just a coincidence that they belong to different parties but reach the same conclusions. Surely it is just a coincidence that ninety per cent of American foreign aid goes to their cousins in prosperous Tel Aviv. Surely it is just a coincidence that they run our newspapers, television, cinema, universities. Anyway, we are not allowed to notice this elephant in our sitting room. 
Only rare desperados comment, as Edgar Steele did on Rense.com: “The silence in America concerning Jews is simply deafening, isn't it? The old adage has it that, when visiting a foreign country, to ascertain who really runs things, one need determine only who is spoken about in whispers, if at all.” Judged by this measure, the Jews rule supreme. Indeed, when I referred to ‘Jewish media lords’ during a UNESCO conference in the summer of 2001, the audience’s hearts missed a beat. 
The yet-unfought War on Iraq changed this. The Americans peeped into the bottomless abyss of World War Three and woke up from their generation- long stupor. Thus the first victim of the Iraqi War is not truth, but the strongest taboo in the West. A Democrat member of Congress, usually a most docile specimen, one James Moran, dared to tell his supporters: "If it were not for the strong support of the Jewish community for this war with Iraq we would not be doing this." 
He was immediately slapped by a Jewish overseer: "It is simply stunning to hear Representative Moran make such accusations", said National Jewish Democratic Council Executive Director, Ira N. Forman. “First, a number of the current leaders of the anti- war movement are Jewish, and Jewish organizations have clearly not been at the forefront among those groups actively and stridently supporting a war in Iraq”. Forman had spoken, and the 
 	216
media reported and amplified his view, and Moran duly recanted, slapped. But he is not the only 
one. 
The secret is out, and like the secret of King Midas and his long ears, it is being sung now from coast to coast, despite the frantic efforts of the organised Jewish community to clamp the lid back on the boiling cauldron. Kathleen and Bill Christison155, two ex-CIA experts, exposed the link between right-wing American Jews and the Bush Administration. Edward Said, the most celebrated American thinker of Palestinian origin, stated the cause: “An immensely wealthy and powerful republic has been hijacked by a small cabal of individuals, all of them unelected and therefore unresponsive to public pressure.”156 
He was seconded by courageous Herman, Neumann and Blankfort. These Americans of Jewish origin object to the un-elected, anti-democratic Jewish power as they would object to any disproportionate minority power. Their presence, as they were not afraid of the anti-Semitic label, was instrumental in turning the tide and saving the intimidated majority from browbeating. 
Edward Herman, the author of Manufacturing Consent (together with Noam Chomsky), wrote of “the powerful pro -Israel lobby in the United States, which advances Israeli interests by pushing for U.S. aid and protection to Israel, and, currently, by pressing for a war against Iraq, which again will serve Israeli interests. This lobby has not only helped control media debate and made congress into `Israeli occupied territory’, it has seen to it that numerous officials with ‘dual loyalties’ occupy strategic decision- making positions in the Bush administration…”  
Jeffrey Blankfort, the Californian who defeated ADL in court and made Foxman pay heaps of dollars for his espionage against activists, took an important next step and rejected the views upheld by Noam Chomsky, Joel Beinin and Stephen Zunes, for these older radicals play down the crucial importance of Jewish power. Jeff Blankfort noticed the roots of the Rapture Evangelicals’ meteoric rise in the US. This obscure sect would never have left its lair in remote Dixie, but for the Jewish media lords. Jeff noticed that when Black Entertainment Television was taken over by Viacom, whose owner, Sumner Redstone (né Murray Rothstein), was recently described in the New York Times as the world's biggest media owner, he eliminated BET'snews program and began running evangelical Christian infomercials for Israel. Blankfort’s list of ‘Jews in media’ 157 enables an understanding of the secret of Jewish charm, and it can be compared with a similar extensive list by Prof. Kevin MacDonald of California State University. 
The Iraqi War, and even more its linkage with Palestine, became the litmus test of Jewish power. Organised Jewry pushed for war and at the same time denied its involvement. Thus in New York City, the City Council rejected an anti-war resolution, and only 12 of its 51 members were for it. This is not strange for heavily Jewish New York. Indeed, a Democrat, Rep. Robert Jackson, said it in a most straightforward way: "New York City is the home away from home for 
 	217
most Jews; and many members of the Jewish community think [the war is] in the best interests of the state of Israel." According to Jackson, several of his council colleagues have been intimidated into silence by the pro-Israel crowd: “People are not talking about this."  
Jackson was certainly right, but a Jewish newspaper158 (surprisingly or not, all newspapers in the New York area are Jewish) condemned him for … racism: “[He claimed that] not only do the Jews run New York City, but they've cowed their opponents into silence. Jackson could as well call New York Hymietown.” 
This response is remarkable for its typically Jewish logic. First, the opponent’s rational argument is perverted and distorted, then it is aligned with opprobrium; and at the last stage, the opponent is destroyed forever. That is one of the secrets of Jewish might: the Jews enter a dialogue berserk-like, with great vehemence, quite foreign to the Socratic style. While sane people are satisfied with quoting their opponent and fighting his arguments, madmen (for berserk is a temporarily- mad individual) go for the jugular. 
David Mamet, the Jewish American playwright, provides a good example of this vehemence as he notices a “Volvo of old, the vehicle of my brethren, the congenitally liberal. It was festooned, as are its kind, with every sort of correct exhortation: Save James Bay, Honour Diversity, and so on. A most interesting bumper sticker read: Israel Out of the Settlements … a slogan which could best be translated as Hook-nosed Jews Die”.  
I wonder why Mamet stopped at this, for with equal adequacy the slogan can be translated as Torture Babies, Denounce America and Burn Apple Pie. Who cares for the form of the Jewish nose? Mel Brooks noticed long ago that Jewish girls have the cutest noses, made by the best plastic surgeons… 
It is the racist Jewish policies in occupied Palestine that annoy good, ‘congenitally 
liberal’ people. But if Mamet were honest, he would not be Mamet . 
Now, Bill Keller of the NY Times read the Riot Act to the Americans. He kindly allows that ‘most of the big Jewish organizations and many donors are backing the war’ but insists that ‘the idea that Israel's interests are driving one of the most momentous shifts in America's foreign policy is simple- minded and offensive’. Well, Keller is certainly being paid for his convictions by a Jewish media lord, and one of the nastiest, Arthur Sulzberger Jr, the owner of the NY Times, the Boston Globe and a host of other publications. This undermines the possible veracity of Keller’s words. Let something simil ar be written in a thoroughly non-Jewish newspaper! But alas, there are no important media outlets in the US that are not owned or controlled by Jews … 
Surely a coincidence? Do not bet on it. A few days ago, in the Hebrew University of 
Jerusalem, an important all-Jewish conference on anti-Semitism took place under the auspicious 
 	218
aegis of the Sasson Centre. The talk given by the French Jewish historian Simcha Epstein dealt 
with pre-war France but pertained more immediately to America. This is what Epstein said: 
“The pre -war anti-Semites said that the Jews of France organized a syndicate secretly bankrolling and subverting the press. And what did the Jews say at that time? They said: ‘Of course not! No, it’s a lie, of course not! We are not engaged in conspiracies!’ And what did the historians and the Jewish historiography coming afterwards say? ‘Of course not! It is anti-Semitic drivel!’ But we know now from Jewish sources that before the WWII the Jews of France secretly financed the press. 
“Since the end of 19th century, there was a secret Jewish organization, well financed, which bought and bankrolled newspapers. Sometimes it took over existing newspapers, which suddenly became pro-Dreifus because they received Jewish subsidies. New papers were created especially by the Jews. Two very important papers of the period, one was called Les Droits de l'Homme , the Rights of Man, was financed by the Jews, and L’Humanité, which was the Socialist and then the Communist newspaper of France, was also financed by Jews. I say this on the authority Jewish sources of course. 
“And this brings us to a dramatic dilemma of historiography. Saying this, saying what I said, is something horrible and unacceptable, because it means that the Jews organized a conspiracy and secretly bought the media, or part of the media. That was precisely what the anti-Semites said at that time, and what they still say today. And we know now from Jewish sources that the allegations were true, that there was a Jewish clandestine activity of bankrolling the press.” End of quote. 
Some people perceive every suggestion that Jews are able to act together as a mad conspiracy theory. Let them read and re-read this report by a Jewish historian made at a Jewish conference. If it is proven now beyond any reasonable doubt that the Jews of France secretly bought and subverted French media for many years in order to distort the national discourse and eventually push unprepared France into the horrible and unneeded World War Two, is it impossible to consider that the Jews of the US have secretly taken over their national media and are now pushing the US into a horrible and unneeded World War Three? 
Actually there is no need for secrecy. One of the chief Zionist ideologists, Zeev Hefetz (ex-spokesman of PM Begin), wrote in an American daily: "Disarming Iraq is only a start in Middle East" as “the Arab and Iranian (sic!) cultures” are "irrational" and that nothing can be done, short of war, to "improve the collective mental health of Arab societies". 159Certainly this massive ‘disarmament’ will be carried out by American soldiers, though the commands will be 
 	219
given by the Jewish chicken-hawks roosting in Pentagon. As for reasons for the war, they were eloquently stated by a keynote speaker at a conference on anti-Semitism by Yehuda Bauer, the director of the Holocaust Memorial Institute Yad va-Shem in Jerusalem: 
The Jews are not a nation, neither a religion, he said. They are a civilisation, and they have their civilising mission. They cannot tolerate the competing civilisation of Islam, as they could not tolerate Christendom or Communism. That is why the war with Islam is unavoidable. 
But the war is avoidable. Even today, at minutes before H-hour, the war is avoidable. And if fire is unavoidable, let the Jewish advisers of President Bush be fired. Let this Purim see the great Exodus of the "Wolfowitz Cabal" from the Pentagon. Excluding the clinical possibility of his actual zombification, G W Bush should be able to understand that he has been misled by this powerful, un-elected minority. They cannot deliver what they promised. Moreover, their own days at the helm of the Republic are numbered. They over-estimated their abilities, and pushed too hard. As the frog of La Fontaine, they can blow up. Bush still can do a U-turn, and save himself and his country. 
In a way, today’s America reminds of Russia in 1986, at the beginning of glasnost. After the Soviet citizens were allowed to learn who rules them and how, the days of the Soviet regime were counted. Glasnost gave place to perestroika. Now, for the first time in a generation, Americans are allowed to see the men in power, the toxic combination of the Right-Wing Democrats of Lieberman, the Republican neo- liberals, the Neo-Cons and plain Con- men. The Iraqi War brought them forward and presented them in clear light. Now is the time to undo their hold. 
It can’t be postponed for the divisive presidency of G W Bush is perceived as the period of ‘White’ Protestant Anglo -Saxon rule, despite the prevalence of his Jewish advisers. All available contenders for the next elections - Lieberman, Kelly and even Kucinich – claim their Jewish connections and declare their undivided loyalty to Jewry and to the state of Israel. In the present political setup of America, there will be no real alternative to Jewish ascendancy. If Bush flops, it will be construed by the media as a WASP flop. If he succeeds, it will be seen as success of his Jewish advisers. 
That is why American patriot forces should not wait for the next elections, or for the end of war. They must act now, by calling the war off. They have an enemy, but he is not in Iraq. What is called for is a new American revolution, on a par with the New Deal and abolition of slavery, with de- monopolisation of the discourse; that is of media and universities, for starters. In the beginning of the Twentieth Century, Americans undid the mighty Standard Oil. They created 
 	220
new anti- monopoly laws and terminated the threat to democracy. This achievement could be 
repeated now. 
The Shadow of Zog 
(Exegesis of Besson) 
In Luc Besson’s delightful film, The Fifth Element (with perfect Mila Jovovich and supreme Bruce Willis), an absolutely evil force, the Shadow, Messenger of Death, comes from Outer Space to destroy human life on our planet. It is impervious to bombs and missiles, and regardless of what people do, it closes in, and its cover ever thicker upon the earth. Yet in order to succeed the Shadow needs some human help. Who will, for personal profit, assist the satanic Shadow in his quest to destroy our Mother Earth? In the best tongue-in-cheek tradition of Swift, Besson gave the monstrous volunteer, that servant-of-profit, a scary name: Zog. 
The name of pre-war Albanian King, Zog is one of a few words that kick the fearsome Thought Police of ADL into action, activate FBI like Anthrax, and can send IDF assassins and ARA punks in hot pursuit, for this king – like the Jewish God - does not like his name to be mentioned. This name came back to me with the impending instalment of General Jay Garner as Viceroy of Iraq. Garner received his credentials from the bloody hands of Ariel Sharon: he supported the killing of the Palestinians by signing, in October 2000, a letter that began: "We believe that the Israel Defence Forces have exercised remarkable restraint in the face of lethal violence orchestrated by the leadership of the Palestinian Authority."160 The letter was launched by JINSA161, “the major link of the Israel lobby, the Washington-based and Likud-supporting Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs”, as defined by Michael Lind of the New Statesman, or “another thinly disguised Israeli espionage and recruiting front”, according to Washington observer Jeffrey Steinberg of EIR162. Signing the letter was a good move on General Garner’s part: it will give him the rule of Iraq. 
However, he will not have too much money at his disposal. Despite ‘NO WAR FOR OIL’ slogans, Iraqi oil won’t make Americans rich. Iraq has a huge national debt - $70 billion to Russia alone - and the Occupation Regime will have to cough it up. Debt to France is over $30 billion, and it will have to be paid. On top of this, the US Occupation Administration will have to spend considerable amounts of money on repairing the Iraqi infrastructure, destroyed by sanctions and war, before paying one cent of commission to Dick Cheney and his company. No, this war was not fought for the imperial interests of the US or for its mammoth oil companies. 
As the head of the Occupation Administration, Jay Garner’s task is to create a new Iraq, friendly to Israel. The Jerusalem Post, a hard- line Zionist daily published by Conrad Black, friend of Pinochet and Sharon, carried an interview163 with one of his wannabe Quislings, Ahmad Chalabi's right hand man, Musawi. 
 	221
“Musawi talks enthusiastically of his hopes for the closest possible ties with Israel. There will be no place for Palestinians in the new Iraq, for the large Palestinian community is regarded by INC leaders (and presumably by their Zionist instructors) as a loathsome fifth column. Instead, an `arc of peace’ would run from Turkey, through Iraq and Jordan to Israel, creating a new fulcrum in the Middle East.” 
The Occupation Regime in Iraq was installed by the US army in the interests of Zionists, and it may be rightly called ZOG, Zionist Occupation Government if anything. However, this ZOG is also a Zog, a servant of Darkness and Annihilation, for its first step was the destruction of Baghdad’s libraries and museums. A scholar of Zionism, Joachim Martillo, wrote:
“Zionism has long taken a position of stripping target populations of their cultural heritage and turning them into clay164 so that they can be remoulded in conformance with Zionist ideology”. 
My learned friend is right. This week I took myself to a lonely hill near Mesecha, a small village in the heart of Biblical Israel, where a few young ISM activists and villagers helplessly watched the Caterpillar machines uprooting olive trees, smashing lupines, devouring this unique Biblical landscape, home and cradle of the people of Palestine. They did not dare step out in front of the machines, for the American volunteer Rachel Corrie was murdered in similar circumstances, to the deafening sound of silence from Washington. Jeffrey Blankfort, the analyst from California, had good reason for calling Washington “the Zionist s' Most Important Occupied Territory” 165. 
Thus, the burned manuscripts of Baghdad and uprooted olive trees of Mesecha lead to Zog … and to ZOG. This homonymy points to a telling semantic concurrence; as Kuang -Ming Wu said in The Butterfly as Companion: "Words of a sound flock together in sense; like sound, like sense"166. Thus witty Luc Besson, who orrowed the idea of the Five Elements b from Socrates, gave us a lesson: “ZOG is Zog”. 
II 
For a while, the Jewish establishment tried to deny its direct involvement in the Third World War. They furiously rejected references to high and mighty Jews pushing for war as, (you guessed it) “antisemitism”. But eventually the denial wall was broken, and in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, the culprits, a “band of 20 -30 Jewish intellectuals”, the Neo -Cons, admitted they did it. Afterwards, Michael Lind summarised their powerful positions in the New Statesman, while my countryman Gabriel Ash optimistically predicted: “In a couple of months, when the role of the Zionists in the war will become widely known, The New York Times will publish an editorial sheepishly bemoaning the way some Pentagon officials have let their personal views influence U.S. policy” 167. 
 	222
The problem is, the US people have no way out of the Zionist takeover. While Neo-Cons and Right-wingers are guilty of starting World War Three, of introducing Fascist measures against the American population, of premeditated aggression against sovereign Iraq and of unrestrained support for the racist Jewish State, it would be mistake to leave the buck resting with them. Michael Moore’s philippics against President Bush are convincing only up to a point, for in his bestselling book, The Stupid White Men, he regrets that Al Gore was not allowed to enjoy the victory that was his by rights. But if Al Gore and Joseph Lieberman were the White House incumbents now, the US Marines would be in Baghdad nevertheless, the National Library of Iraq and Iraqi museums would still have been looted, and the olive trees of Mesecha uprooted and the flow of American cash to Israel would be continuing unabated. 
Every publicist, every internet user in America and Europe knows by now that the ‘only superpower’ was taken over by the Likudniks, the supporters of the right -wing Likud and its bloody leader General Sharon. The team of Bush and Sharon, or BuSharon, in internet parlance, horrifies the right- minded. But is there an alternative in American politics? Al Gore was a ‘hand-picked and chosen disciple of Podhoretz’ the Zionist, Lieberman is  a devoted Zionis t. Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean, ‘has a Jewish wife, and both his children, 17-year-old Paul and 18- year-old Anne, have chosen to identify as Jews’, we were informed by JTA, the Jewish Telegraphic Assn called The Global News Service of the Jewish People. Kerry ‘discovered his Jewish roots’, and Kucinich told the Jewish newspaper Forward that he “observes kashrut 168, has an ex-Israeli girlfriend and knows most of the Haggadah (Passover narrative) by heart”. Apparently, the forthcoming elections in the US (as the previous ones) are the elections for the front figure of Zionist- led America. Left Zionists or Right Zionists - that is the only choice for Americans, and, alas, for the whole world. Why did it come to pass? 
We can find an answer in a short and sincere piece by Eric Alterman169, a good Leftist, a journalist with the anti-war Nation. He admits freely: “My own dual loyalties -- there, I admitted it -- were drilled into me by my parents, my grandparents, my Hebrew school teachers and my rabbis, not to mention Israeli teen-tour leaders and AIPAC college representatives. Whose interests come for me first, America's or Israel's? I feel pretty lonely admitting that, every once in a while, I'm going to go with what's best for Israel”. 
Bear in mind: while the right-wing Jews were always shamelessly chauvinist, the left kept up a universalist appearance. If that is a voluntary admission of a progressive left-wing journalist, you can easily guess what’s on the mind of the average American Jew. As an Is raeli, I should be happy that millions of American Jews stand for me. However, ‘Israel’ in Alterman’s confession stands for ‘the People of Israel’, ‘the Jews’, not for the Middle Eastern State of Israel. If Alterman does not mind robbing his fellow Americans of their hard earned cash in order to 
 	223
sustain Israeli occupation (as he freely admits), he is probably ready to go much further for the sake of his own community, American Jewry. And this community is managed and represented by – not by the ostracised Noam Chomsky, but by an extremely unpleasant bunch of billionaires, media lords and warmongers. 
If Alterman were the only Jew in the media, one would be able to dismiss his self-admitted bias as the normal influence of an important community. If Jews in the media constituted only 3% as their share in the general population, Alterman’s position would be affordable. But their share in the top echelon of the media is in double digits; according to some sources it approaches 60%. 
Jeff Blankfort writes, Ardently pro-Israel American Jews are“ in positions of unprecedented influence within the United States and have assumed or been given decision making positions over virtually every segment of our culture and body politic”. And he quotes Benjamin Ginsberg’s "The Fa tal Embrace: Jews and the State”: 
"Jews played a central role in American finance during the 1980s, and they were among the chief beneficiaries of that decade’s corporate mergers and reorganizations. Today, though barely 2 % of the nation’s population is Jewish, close to half its billionaires are Jews. The chief executive officers of the three major television networks and the four largest film studios are Jews, as are the owners of the nation’s largest newspaper chain and the most influential single newspaper, the New York Times”. 
Is it a conspiracy of Jews to steal the Republic? No, no conspiracy is necessary. In Jules Verne’s juvenile novel, Children of Captain Grant, a villain leads the captain’s ship astray by placing a magnet brick beneath the compass. The magnet does not conspire: it constrains the compass. The sheer mass of self- involved Jews in the media acts in a similar way and draws the superpower off its normal course. For the media is the nerve system of a modern state. Modern democracy in practice in a very complicated society can be compared to a sophisticated computer. Its machinery can function successfully on one condition: there is a free flow of information across the system. While every input is instinctively checked and sieved on one criterion, whether it is good for Jews, it is not odd that the machine produces such freak output as ‘revenge on Babylon for its destruction of Jerusalem in BC 586170. Indeed, in long-gone 1948 the first ruler of Israel, David Ben Gurion, promised: “We shall me te historic vengeance to Assyria, Aram and Egypt”. Now it comes to pass, as Iraq, Syria and Egypt are targeted by Zog. 
Thus, concentration of Jews in the media created the distortion. A takeover of every other part of industry or trade would be noticed and reported in the media; but there is no remedy for media takeover. Discussion of this unbearable situation is further stifled by the ‘political correctness’ taboo. PC has its good sides, for it made life easier for a lone outsider. However, 
 	224
this very good and useful device has its limits of application. Otherwise, it could be used to defend South African apartheid, or British colonial rule in India. Isn’t it anti-white racism to notice that the political power in apartheid South Africa belonged to whites? Surely there are poor and good whites? Gandhi could be condemned as ‘racist’, for he ‘noticed’ the privileged position of the British in India. By PC logic, a good American should reply to Mahatma: yes, there are some rich and powerful Brits in India, but there are also poor Tommy Atkinses, governesses, honest administrators, writers like Kipling and Orwell. On the other hand, there are powerful and rich Rajas, important Brahmins. How do you dare, sir, to demand ‘de-colonisation’! This is sheer anti- English racism! 
An old Indian Air Force officer Joe Thomas actually reminded that, “while the population of the US today is approximately the same as the population of India a century ago, the British in India never numbered more than 50,000 and still ruled India. They did not rule India by force but by dominating Indian discourse. Indians fought for the British and put down rebellions. During the two world wars, millions of Indians fought as volunteers for Britain. If such a tiny group could control India, then it is not strange that 100 times that number can influence the United States”. 
In no way should we embrace racism. Au contraire, the anti- racist fervour of America should be turned against the Jewish racists - Elliott Abrams, Deborah Lipstadt and others of their ilk - who publish treatises comparing intermarriage with a holocaust. It should be turned against the Wolfowitz Cabal who push for racist war in the Middle East for the sake of the racist Jewish state. It should be turned against media owners who employ disproportionate numbers of Jews and thus discriminate against non-Jewish Americans. It should be turned against the church leaders who agreed to the racist notion that Jews are the only people in the world who do not need to be baptised. It should be turned against the Jewish/non-Jewish discrimination; for the present situation when a goy killer of Klinghoffer the Jew is hunted by the CIA, but the Jewish killer of Rachel Corrie goes scot- free is perversion of natural justice. Jewish racism should be confronted; otherwise America will forever have to choose between Likud and Meretz on its way to Armageddon. 
Jewish dominance in the media should be redressed, among other measures, by separating advertising and media. Advertising media shouldn’t carry news or articles, and non-advertising media should be forbidden to carry advertising. Commercial advertising in the general media was (according to Werner Sombart) an 18th century Jewish invention. Apparently that was ‘good for Jews’, but not for society in gene ral, as it turned the media away from readers towards advertisers. The separation could be enforced by banning all forms of media and business interaction, like we ban all interaction of police and business. The media is more 
 	225
important than police for the safety of society. It should be free from undue influences. Media is the compass of society. It is necessary to remove the magnet from its vicinity, in order that the good ship of our society sail smoothly. 
III 
Such a concentration of any minority group (be it Korean or Mormon) in the media would be perilous. However, the concentration of Jews has its specifics, for the Jews profess a different, non-Christian, or even anti-Christian faith. Your average Jewish editor or media lord is distinctly unhappy whene ver he encounters a reference to Christ or His Blessed Mother, for their very names are subject to strong and explicit taboo in his culture. At best, he will try to balance it with a pro-Judaic piece or reference. If Christian Americans were to refer often to Christ, the frequency of Judaic references would grow also, disproportionately to the Jewish share in the population. In our terms, ‘the magnet brick of Jews- in-discourse has turned the American boat towards forms of worship more palatable for Jews’. 
At this moment many enlightened readers’ interest begins to wane. If Goebbels’ hand automatically reached for his [Robert?] Browning at the word ‘culture’, modern Western man is conditioned to seek the Delete button at the name of Christ. However, we shall try your patience with an even more severe test and bring in the rich word ‘Metaphysics’. 
Young drivers often disregard manufacturers’ advice and use unsuitable oil for their engines. Others use unsuitable fuel. They say: ‘my car functions anyway, so why I should pay more?’ Terms such as ‘compression’ and ‘ignition’ sound like Mumbo -Jumbo to our young driver: he has never seen them. Only after few unpleasant experiences is a driver is convinced that invisible compression is a perfectly real phenomenon that can manifest itself as sudden breakdown on the turnpike. Metaphysics is exactly that: a hidden but perfectly real force within the engine of our civilisation. M. Jourdain of Moliere’s Le Bourgeois Gentilhomme was amazed that unbeknownst to himself he had spoken prose all his life. We are equally amazed to learn that we apply some metaphysical categories in our daily life. Indeed, our treatment of our neighbours, our social behaviour depends on such Mumbo Jumbo words as ‘relationship of Man and God’. 
The Jewish concept of the Man-to-God relationship is metaphysically different from the (say) Catholic one, as different as diesel fuel and carburettor fuel. The prominence of Jews in Western discourse causes the same sort of trouble that you would experience if ou were to refuel your diesel car with petrol. 
The Jewish faith as practiced by observant Jews might contain many positive ideas shared by other religions, It also borrowed a lot from other religious systems: for instance, sayings of Christ were imported nto Mishna and ascribed to Hillel the Elder (according to Niebuhr). However, it is based on troublesome metaphysics, and metaphysical level survives even the 
 	226
present low level of Jewish religiosity. According to its teaching, the One and Only God created This One and Only World, and remained totally separated from the World. It is stressed by the Cabalist term Zimzum, Contracting Divinity; which holds that God’s withdrawal from the meta -world leaves some ‘meta-space’ to the Material World. God -less World is the necessary partner of Other-Worldly God. Thus the immanent World is cruel and ruthless, a place of eternal warfare, while God is transcendental and unreachable. ‘There are no prophets’, ‘God can not intervene in our decisions’, ‘the Law is given to us and God can’t change it’ – these maxims effectively create a Godless world. Sure, God exists, but he does not manifest Himself. 
In Christian faith, Christ and His Mother bridged the World-God divide by His Incarnation, and brought in Compassion and Mercy. Since then, this World is full of the Light of Christ that is a Divine Light. People became brothers-in-Christ, His soul unites them, and an offence against a fellow man is also offence against Christ. (I describe the ideal, paradigmatic metaphysics of Chr istian faith, as different from reality as the scheme of the engine in your manual differs from the real engine of your five-year-old car). 
In the Godless world of Jewish metaphysics there was an island of light, [the People of] Israel, crowned by the Torah. ‘Israel’ of the Jews corresponds to ‘Christ’ of the Christians. The relationship between the people of Israel and themselves is brotherly, for they are one family (descendents of Jacob), and they recognise this spark of light in each other. It is apparently similar to the brotherhood- in-Christ, but metaphysically quite different, for while (in Christian metaphysics) every son of Adam and Eve is entitled to the Light of Christ, in Jewish metaphysics other people, non-Israel, are absolutely God- less, all ‘thinking beast’. In some esoteric Jewish teachings non-Jews are denied even their descent from Adam. There is no way to transform a non-Israel into a member of Israel, for Jewish conversion is but the correction of an error: certain Israelite was by mistake born into a non-Israelite family, and his conversion is but the public recognition of this error. 
(Indeed, there is a good real- life example, provided by two converts, Jennifer and Andrew. Jennifer converted, and moved into Gaza to defend the Palestinian cause. Andrew continued after his conversion to defend Jews and Jewish terror in Palestine on every Internet forum. I have to agree with the Rabbis: Jennifer failed to convert because she was born with a Christian soul, while Andrew was born a Jew, and conversion just authorised it.) 
Thus difference between ‘ours’ and ‘theirs’, ‘insider’ and ‘outsider’ in Judaism is much more rigidly drawn than in other major religions (pace Zoroastrians, another fossil, in Toynbee’s terminology, that happily remained a sleeping fossil) as non-Jews are absolutely profane while Jews are holy. A non-Jew who describes a world without God is not too wrong, from the Jewish point of view, for the non-Jew has no connection to God. Such a non-Jew is preferable to a 
 	227
Christian, for the Christian claims he is the equal of Jews, and that is sacrilege for a Jew. That is why prominent Jews in the media and universities outwardly support the doctrine of religious indifference or atheistic materialism. ‘All religions are the same’, or ‘reli gion is not important’ or ‘religion is a personal matter of an individual’, or ‘nobody has seen God’ are equal to saying ‘all fuels are the same’, ‘fuel makes no difference’, or ‘nobody has seen compression’. 
 Alexander Dugin171, a contemporary Russian Traditionalist philosopher, a follower of Rene Guenon, traced the original fault of Jewish metaphysics to its ‘extreme Creationism’, the idea of One and Only God (monotheism) that created totally separate One and Only World (monocosmism) ex nihilo (out of nothing). One could dismiss Dugin’s view by claiming that Creation is also a part and parcel of Christian dogma. However, in Christian metaphysics the equivalent of Creation is Incarnation, fruit of sacral union of the Godhead and mortal woman, while pre- history described in the Old Testament is effectively excluded from consideration or is re-interpreted through the concept of Pre- figuration. 
The OT could not be accepted or rejected in toto by the Early Christians, for the wonderful codex of the native Ancient Palestinian poetry, liturgy, metaphysics, religion and tradition, was heavily edited by the immigrant Soferim (the spiritual precursors of Pharisees). Memory of this editing was preserved in the Semitic world, and it was referred to by the Prophet Muhammad, peace upon him. Old Palestinian tradition was much more holistic, and its gods El and his spouse Ashera were integrated into environment as the rain-sending Heaven of Palestine and the fruit-giving Land of Palestine. Together, they are the equivalent of ‘God’ of OT, and the Gospel preserved for us the last words of Jesus on the Cross. He called to El, not to Yahve. 
The Old Palestinian tradition and its younger gods, Baal the Homeless (“Birds have nests, but Son of God has no home”), who defied Death, was killed and Resurrected, and Anath the Virgin, were perfect pre- figurations of the Gospel, certainly better ones than those offered by Pharisees. (A materialist would say that the Palestinian tradition had influenced the Gospel writers and the founders of the Christianity.) 
Early Christians were aware of the problematic qualities of the OT, but they had no tools to undo the Soferim-Pharisees’ editing and restore the Palestinian text. The Pharisees (for the Pharisee teaching won the day among Jews) took over the Palestinian heritage as surely as King Macbeth took over Scotland. 
(The Jewish editing of the Bible did not stop to this very day: CE Carlson172 and Steven Sizer173 noted that Scofield Reference Bible published by Oxford University Press calls for adoratio n of Israel in more explicit way with each new edition being published: “With limitless advertising and promotion, it became the best-selling "bible" in America and has remained so for 90 years. Scofield chose not to change the text of the King James Edition. Instead, he added 
 	228
hundreds of easy-to-read footnotes at the bottom of about half of the pages, and his notes weave parts of the Old and New Testaments together as though they were written at the same time by the same people”. First edition was arranged and financed by “Samuel Untermeyer, a New York lawyer whose firm still exists today and one of the wealthiest and most powerful Zionists in America”. This Zionist edition of the OT explains a lot of the strange phenomenon of Christian Zionism.) 
The Early Christians decided to put far away the OT (the Church forbade laymen to read it) but not too far. They relied upon St Paul (and later St Augustine) that there is a way to reinterpret the OT in the Christian spirit. It is true, Mein Kampf can be re- interpreted as a Zionist text, and it was actually done by some Zionist Nazi antisemites from Adolf Eichmann to Donald Pauly, but I shall be first to admit this is forced interpretation. It would be better to restore the Palestinian reading of OT but it could not be done easily in the reality of ideological struggle for souls of Jews, against the Pharisee (and their heirs Tannaim) establishment. 
The great Russian historian Leon Gumilev174 asserted that the OT remained as a latent part of Christian tradition for historic reasons: in the First-to-Fourth-Centuries’ ideological	 warfare between Orthodoxy and Gnosticism, the OT was used by the Church Fathers as a handy weapon against some esoteric concepts of the Gnostics. The unbridled Gnostics considered the Material world being evil, and were able to conceptualise the world as a place as hostile to people as was the world of the defeated Jewish paradigm. Indeed, late resurrections of Gnosticism (Albigensian, Manichaean, Cathari heresies) proved its social danger. The teaching of Evil World would effectively extinguish all life on the planet. 
However, the sharp sword of the OT did not want to sleep in its sheath. Massive import of Old Testament ideas by Protestants revitalised the submerged Jewish paradigm and brought in the extermination of Native Americans, ‘the Canaanites of the New Promised Land of the New Chosen People’, and eventually the Rise of the Jews to their present pre -eminence in American (and through it, in Western) discourse. 
(Here is the place to explain that ‘Jew’ for this author is an ideological and metaphysical construct, an abbreviation of ‘an adept of the Jewish paradigm’. Nobody has to be a Jew, or indeed a Cathari, or a Dialectical Materialist. The term has no racial meaning, despite the deep inherent racism of the bearers of the Jewish paradigm. A racist-nationalist derivation of a ‘Jew’ is Zionist, for Zionists concentrate their attention on the actual historical Jewish People and believe in their unique Chosen-ness. The Universalist derivation of ‘Jew’ is ‘Mammonite’, for Mammonites accept and universalise the outwardly aspects of the Jewish paradigm. An ‘absolute Jew’ is a Zionist (for himself and other Jews) and a Mammonite (towards non-Jews). A non-Jew can be (a mistakenly altruistic) Zionist, or (an egoistic) Mammonite, but by embracing both 
 	229
concepts he turns into a ‘neo-Jew’, like Conrad Black, the owner of the bulk of British media. A ‘perfect Christian’ is the antithesis of an ‘absolute Jew’, for he denies both the ‘divine right’ of Jews to suppress non-Jews (in Palestine and elsewhere), and the Mammonite egoism towards his neighbour. A ‘perfect Christian’ is anti-Zionist, for actual historical Jews are his dear potential brothers- in-Christ, who should be enlightened, not isolated and locked fa r away. (That is why racist antisemites are not ‘perfect Christians’) A ‘perfect Christian’ is anti -Mammonite, for he treats everybody as his neighbour. (That is why neo- liberals are not ‘perfect Christians’). 
In America, with its predominance of Jews in discourse, ‘perfectly Christian’ ideas are blocked and do not enter the discourse, while ‘partly-Jewish’ ideas pass through the sieve of the Jewish editors and professors. Thus, the ideas of von Hayek, Popper and Soros that conform to the outwardly Jewish paradigm are amplified and made central. Its American counterpart is Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand, an American best-selling (voluminous novels Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead) guru writer, and its religious offshoot, Californian Satanism as outlined in The Satanic Bible by Anton LaVey, nee Levy, a Zionist-turned-Satanist175. Their sites are full of praise of Israel and Zionism, and, yes, of Satan. Among their adepts was President Ronald Reagan, for this form of Satanism is the religion of Neo-Liberalism: get what you can, do not care for the ‘other’; the Chosen are those that ‘have’, while the have -nots are damned sinners. It explains the Americans’ fear to be a ‘loser’, for a loser is a sinner in the world of predestination. 
Thus the Jewish sieve in the media ushers in openly satanic themes. The following excerpt illuminates the point: Madonna's manager, who was thinking of signing up Manson, called Manson's manager to inquire about whether the rocker had a swastika among his many tattoos. 'Of course not,' said Manson's manager. 'One of the guys in the band is Jewish.' 'Oh, OK,' said Madonna's manager. 'We don't have a problem with Satanism, but we can't deal with any kind of Nazism.176'" 
“Now he insinuates that Jews have demonic nature!” - fumes my Jewish reader. Well, demonic as in ‘Maxwell demon177’. The Scottish physicist James Clerk Maxwell built a thermodynamic model of a box with a tiny door operated by a demon. The demon lets in fast molecules and lets out slow molecules. Thus the box can be heated to any temperature even in coldest atmosphere. In a similar way, Jews let into discourse ‘good for Jews’ items and try to block the ‘bad for Jews’ items. “It is done by all communities”, - rejects my reader. Not really. A writer may depict a bad Englishman or American, Arab (any day!) or Muslim, and he will never receive a single letter of objection. A writer may present a homosexual priest, and he will never receive a letter saying ‘Not every priest is homosexual’ or demanding to ‘offset the bias’ by showing a saintly priest. 
 	230
But every negative depiction of a Jew will run into a Maxwell demon. Dickens portrayed Fagin, the repulsive gang operator, in his Oliver Twist, and came under barrage with letters and questions of the sort “not every Jew is a Fagi n”. Dickens never claimed it, but he was forced to apologise to Jews at every lecture he made in America. It taught him a lesson, and he refrained from showing Jews of less than saintly qualities. 
Since then, a rare author dares to introduce a negative Jewish character in his book. Le Carre managed to write a book, Single and Single, about dismantling of the Soviet Union and mass theft of Russian communal property without a single Jew in it. This is like describing Mafia without mentioning Italians. 
Alexander Solzhenitsyn encountered this problem178, as in his books there are complex Jewish figures. They are KGB officers, informers, top of prison administration. None is demonised, but none is made a saint, either. He was immediately attacked and offered a way out: to introduce a main character, a ‘noble strong and daring Jew’. He ignored the advice. 
Thus the world we live in was created. Like the box managed by the Maxwell demon, it is ‘overheated’, for the critique of Jews is removed. There are bad guys of all persuasions in the fiction and in the media, but hardly any Jews. “Jews are like everybody else”, my good Jewish friends would say often. But in the mirror of the discourse, the Jews are usually saints or martyrs. In order to normalise the discourse, to save Palestine and the Middle East, to save the remnants of Christianity in the West, the Maxwell Demon should be removed.
The Jews in the media are unable to permit critique of Jews, be it of the media lords or of Israel, or of the evil neo-cons. The sieve they form is about to cause the ‘framing’ of Christ and Christians for Zionists’ crimes. Sacked Baghdad is still reeling after the strike, and already the left-wing Zionist Saul Landau has published an article 179 subtitled “Shop, Go to Church, Support Bush's War”. Thus the most anti-Christian regime of Bush and Wolfowitz is mis-presented as a manifestation of Christianity.
Jeffrey Blankfort (a strong and principled anti-Zionist voice, and good proof that a descendent of Jews does not have to adhere to the Jewish paradigm) noted: “Landau mentions not a word about the role of the Jewish neo-cons or Israel's urging of the US to pursue the war on Iraq, pushing the onus on to the Born-Again Christians”180.
This brings us back, to the Fifth Element of Luc Besson, for in the movie as in real life, Zog is not an independent force. A slave of Mammon, a servant of the Shadow, he is helping the Dark force fulfil its metaphysical task, to blot out the Light of Christ and to turn our world into Godless desert. That is why he sends bulldozers to wipe out flowers in Palestine, sends troops to sack Baghdad and Damascus, threatens Paris and Moscow, perverts Christianity.
 	231
Is there a remote chance to save the world from the Shadow? One feels that the rule of King Zog is as secure in Washington as it was in pre-war Albania, as secure as the rule of King Macbeth in his Scotland, for no ordinary man can defeat him. But on Palm Sunday I walked down the Mount of Olives from Bethpage, where Our Lord (not an ordinary man) mounted the donkey, to the Lions'Gate of Jerusalem, in the midst of a huge procession of all denominations, for miraculously, the great Churches of the East and the West decided to celebrate Easter in Palestine together. 
This had an all- important message, for the Orthodox Church puts emphasis on Christ the God, while the Latin Church emphasizes Christ the Man, as our Muslim brothers praise the Holy Spirit of God, and all of us are united in love for the beautiful Land of Palestine and Her Lady. So we walked, city folk of Jerusalem and Nazareth, Bethlehem and Jaffa, peasants from Taybeh and Abboud, and nuns and monks and priests, waving palm branches and calling Hosanna, and it looked like Birnham Wood coming to Dunsinane… 
Post Scriptum 
I would like to share with you y elation: today, on Tuesday, 8 October 2002, 2m Heshvan, the day twice blessed by Lord, I was received into the Mother Church of the Holy Land, and became a Palestinian Christian. The baptism was a happy, joyous and festive occasion, and it took place in the wonderful ancient cathedral of Mar Yakoub, the old see of St James, the brother of Lord and the first Bishop of Jerusalem. It is adjacent to the Golgotha and to the great Church of Resurrection, and it is the home church of local Arab-speaking Palestinian community. I was baptized in the old deep octagonal Byzantine font so many saints and bishops of the Holy City were baptized in. My skin still feels the touch of olive oil and myrrh, soft, supple, fragrant. I was anointed before the full immersion, and the water in the font also felt like precious olive oil, this main substance of the Holy Land. I was brought into the church by the Archimandrite Attalla Hanna, Father Theodosius, the highest-ranking native Palestinian priest of the Mother Church, who was released from his captivity. Instead of Israel, the father of Jews, I was given the name of Adam, the father of all men. It was midday when I stepped out into the atrium, feeling like a groom in his wedding day, and was met by the bells of the Holy Redeemer. It reminded me of this dream of Theodore Herzl, to bring the Jews into Church on midday with all bells a-ringing. The monks and parish folk blessed me ‘mabruk’ and indeed I feel myself much blessed to join my Palestinian brothers and sisters in their church. 
 	232
I share my witness with you, and make it known to my brothers the Jews: there is no joy greater than to be in communion with God and with the people of the land. Now, I can repeat after John, ‘for the Law was given through Moses, grace and truth came through Jesus Christ’. 
Acknowledgements
The book was written thanks to efforts of many people. I am indebted to Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein, Michael Neumann and Edward Herman, Marc Ellis and Edward Said for their support, advice and encouragement. Albert Lindemann, Kevin MacDonald, William Dalrymple, David Hirst provided me with their important historical perspective. My dear friends and combatants Hans Olav Brendberg and Knut Bergem of Norway, Miguel Martinez, Susanne Scheidt and Roberto Gianmarco of Italy, Paul Badde of Germany, Marcel Charbonnier, Maria Poumier, Xavier Lavaud, Brigitte Faoder, Christian Chantegrel, Sophie Cretaux and Trystan Mordel in France, Istvan Lovas in Hungary, Daniel Saikaly and in Quebec, Altay Unaltay and Fatma Unsal in Turkey, Idris Mohammed and Alijah Gordon in Malaysia, Ihor Slissarenko in Ukraine, Hesham and Astrid Bahari in Norway, Anton Baumgarten, Alexei Tsvetkov, Sergei Kudryavtsev in Russia, Bob Green, Miriam Reik, Daniel McGowan, Eugenie Trone, John Williams, Rima Anabtawi, Ahmad Amr, Jennifer Loewenstein in the US gave me much needed feed-back, translated my essays and occasionally corrected my follies. Fearless Californians Jeff Blankfort and Dave Kersting, hilosophers Marek Glogoczowskip	of Poland and Alexander Dugin of Russia, Israeli scholars Paul Wexler and Israel Yosef Yuval provided me with a shining example of intellectual daring. I am grateful to the wonderful Palestinian priests, Father Atallah Hanna of the Orthodox Church and Father Raed of the Catho lic Church for their guidance. The essays were edited by Sophie Johnson in Australia, and by Arthur Borges in China to whom I owe a great debt of gratitude. There are many people whom I would like to thank but in the present political climate their names must remain locked in my memory. 
The ideas behind the book were formed in reckless discussions with Alice Shamir, my partner and friend and spiritual light. My son Yohanan put some of these ideas into action by his brave stand at the Church of the Nativity. My Palestinian and Israeli friends, city folk and peasants were the main reason for this book being written. The ultimate source of inspiration was the unique land of Palestine and its holy protectors. 
Israel Adam Shamir 
ABOUT THE AUTHOR 
A Jewish folk tale relates of a mute child who has never said a word despite all efforts of doctors. Once, at a ripe age of ten, he dropped his spoon and cried out, ‘the soup is too salty!’ His parents asked him in amazement why he kept silence for years, and the child replied, ‘until now, everything was all right’. 
 	233
That is the story of Israel Shamir’s sudden appearance in the English- language media. This leading Russian-Israeli intellectual, writer, translator and journalist, was well known to his Russian readers, thanks to his books Pine and Olive and Travels in Japan, and to his translations of Joyce, Homer and Agnon into his native Russian. He did not write in English, until January 2001, when Israeli attacks on Palestinians forced him to give up literature and turn to politics. His articles appeared in Internet, were placed on many sites and were reprinted by numerous newspapers and magazines, translated to many languages. By using Internet, Shamir proved that a word of freedom can overcome any censorship. 
Native of Novo sibirsk, Siberia, a grandson of a professor of mathematics and a descendant of a Rabbi from Tiberias, Palestine, he studied at the prestigious School of the Academy of Sciences, and read Math and Law at Novosibirsk University. In 1969, he moved to Israel, served as paratrooper in the army and fought in the 1973 war. After the military service, he resumed his study of Law at Hebrew University of Jerusalem, but abandoned the legal profession in pursuit of a career as a journalist and writer. He got his first taste of journalism with Israel Radio, and later went freelance. His varied assignments included covering Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia in the last stages of the war in South East Asia. In 1975, Shamir joined the BBC and moved to London. In 1977-79 he wrote for the Israeli daily Maariv and other papers from Japan. While in Tokyo, he wrote ‘Travels with My Son’, his first book, and translated a number of Japanese classics. 
After returning to Israel in 1980, Shamir wrote for the Israeli daily newspaper Haaretz and Al Hamishmar newspapers and worked in the Knesset as the spokesman for the Israel Socialist Party (Mapam). He translated the works of SY Agnon, the only Hebrew Nobel Prize winning writer, from the original Hebrew to Russian. His work was published and eprinted many times in both Israel and in Russia. He also translated selected chapters of Joyce’s Ulysses, which were published in Moscow, Tel Aviv, New York and Austin, Texas. His poetry is included in The Blue Lagoon, the ultimate compendium of Russian oetry. Another of his translations, the Israeli-Arab Wars by President Herzog, was published in London. His most popular work, the Pine and the Olive, the story of Palestine/Israel, was published in 1988, and an updated version is to appear this year. Its cover carried a painting by the Ramallah painter, Nabil Anani.
As the first Palestinian Intifada began, Shamir had left Israel for Russia, where he covered the eventful years 1989-1993. While in Moscow, he reported for Haaretz, but was sacked for publishing an article calling to the return the Palestinian refugees and the rebuilding of their ruined villages. He wrote for various Russian newspapers and magazines, including the daily Pravda and Zavtra weekly. In 1993, he returned to Israel and settled in Jaffa. He wrote for 
 	234
Russian newspapers both in Israel and Russia and contributed to various literary magazines. During this period, he also worked on a new translation of the Odyssey, which was published in 2000 in St. Petersburg, Russia. His next big project was translating a Hebrew medieval Talmudic manuscript into Russian. 
In response to the second Palestinian Intifada, Shamir has abandoned his literary occupation and resumed his work as a publicist. In the midst of the endless talk of a “Two State solution”, Shamir, along with Edward Said, has become a leading champion of the ‘One Man, One Vote, One State’ solution in all of Palestine/Israel. But in order to achieve this purpose he called for deconstruction of Jewishness, as extremely nationalistic Jewish attitude interfered with the goal. His essays have been circulating widely on the Internet and were posted on many prominent media sites. Works of Shamir speak to the aspirations of both the Israelis and the Palestinians.
The essays of Shamir appeared in any languages: in Italian, Norwegian, Russian,m
French, Hungarian, Arabic and in original English. 
Shamir (50) lives in Jaffa, he is father of two sons. 
1 W. Dalrymple, From the Holy Mountain 
2 http://www.nypress.com/ Billy Graham: War Criminal 3 See Francis Boyle in CounterPunch 14.3.02 4 Ps 36, commentary to 5 H.Graetz, Tagbuch und Briefe, Tubingen 1977 p 287 
6 La Légende et les aventures héroïques, joyeuses, et glorieuses d'Ulenspiegelt de Lamme Goedzake au pays de Flandres et ailleurs (1867) 
7 Quoted by The Vancouver Sun | September 13, 1966, p. 5 'Lest We Forget... I Hate the Germans', Mordecai Richler from The Spectator, Excerpts for an article in the book section of a British Weekly Review. 
8 http://www.voicesofpalestine.org/outrageous/Jenindozer.asp 9 http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article 1428.shtml
10	 http://www.counterpunch.org/blankfort05272003.html
11	 Letter From Israel/Antiwar.com May 21, 2003 
12	 http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/editorial/5993253.htm
13	 NYT, June 4, 2003 
14	 AP, 15 May 2003 
15http://www.weeklyworldnews.com/bizarre/bizarre.cfm?instanceid=10 
16	 1999, University of Minnesota Press 
17	 On the Move 
18	 Ephesians 6:12 
19	 Ex 29:45 
20	 Jn 1:14 
21	 Jn 12:31, 14:30, 16:11 
22	 Serge Averintsev, Sophia-Logos, Kiev 2001 
23	 The Archaeology of New Testament, Princeton University Press, 1992 
24	 I Samuel, 21:14. reference in Biblical Archaeology Review 1980 
25	 9, 4:6 
26	 Finnegan p 334 
27	 Talmud, Horayot 12a 
28	 S Bulgakov, Persecutions of Israel, 1942 
29 see an amusing if indecent poem of the Afghan poet Rumi, Gourd Crafting, on failure of a copy-cat to observe the details of the action, and of its sad consequences. 
 	235
30	 Kevin McDonald, the Culture of Critique, Praeger, 1998, page 330 
31 This idea was promoted by Bakunin, an arch-enemy of bureaucracy, and beautifully expressed in the best Lenin’s book, the State and Revolution (1916). 
32 Eventually it was utilized for aluminium production, and after 1991, it was privatised and now belongs to a citizen of Israel. 
33Global Totalitarianism And The Death Of Nature, Diane Harvey, http://www.rense.com 
34	 see my article Mamilla Pool 
35 FALLON, p. 335 This and following data is quoted by the great compendium of Jewish activities, www.jewishtribalreview.org with much gratitude.
36	 BURNHAM, p. 25.
37	 RUBIN- DURSKY, p. 289
38	 LIPTON, p. 285
39	 GOODMAN, #2, p. 73
40	 CHRISTOPHER, p. 121
41	 KREFETZ, p. 153
42	 GOODMAN, #2, p. 142
43	 FOSTER/BLAU, 1989
44 The Weird Men Behind George W Bush's War http://www.newamerica.net/index.cfm?pg=article&pubID=1189 By Michael Lind Whitehead Senior Fellow New Statesmen (UK) April 7, 2003 
45 http://www.wjc.org.il/publications/policy_studies/pub_study20.html Policy Study No. 20 (World Jewish Congress) 
46	 OLIN, p. 51 re www.jewishtribalreview.org
47	 Aliance Israelite Universelle 
48	 Encyclopaedia Britannica
49	 co-authored with Neil Asher Silberman. 
50 In a short novella the Courting, an Israeli girl called Hulda Dever (Plague Rat) ‘sits on a park bench, entrapped by her inner charm’. A young officer Boaz stops by. 
HULDA. I sit ergo I exist. 
BOAZ: I am not one of those who sit down. 
HULDA. My name is Hulda. Hulda Dever. I was born in Tel Aviv, in the respectable family of my father the architect and my mother the newspaper columnist. I grew as the sound of flute does. At 17, when I was still rollicking with the boys in high school, I was nominated the Paratroops Delight of Gaza and North Sinai for the financial 1967/1968 year thanks to my boobs, elastic but firm. Now I am doing my master in the Military Law and prepare myself to peaceful and bright life for the sake of the state and the people of Israel. 
BOAZ. I am Lieutenant Boaz, the CFO. My friends, ministers and foreign correspondents call me “daring CFO Boaz”, but I do not like it as I consider myself an ordinary soldier who is doing his military duty. Everyone would do the same in my famous tank raid that gave me the Hero Star from the hands of the Pope, not that I know why he gave it to me, as everyone would do the same. My dashing forelock and dashing eyes I retained from my cheerful childhood spent with my father the newspaper columnist and my mother the orthopedist. Now I am a brilliant commander and strategist, daily proving my abilities for the sake of the state and the people of Israel. 
HULDA. Autumn. 
BOAZ. I am not one of those who notices whether it is autumn or not. 
HULDA. I do not express myself in such a way, as a rule, and my acquaintances usually perceive me as a jolly and superficial young girl. But as the matter of fact I am a Daughter of Autumn, and existential sorrow is the fate of my soul. Destiny of Judaism worries me, and my thoughts ponder the meaning of Holocaust. 
BOAZ. I am familiar with this feeling though I hesitate to admit it. God alone knows that I am thinking and sophisticated man, and on the battlefield, among wounded and dead, I bit my lip and feel the unbroken link with Cabbala. 
After this dialogue, Hulda embraces herself in the fit of passion, and Boaz caresses himself: HULDA: Wonderful Hulda… BOAZ: Dashing Boaz… 
51	 Israel Shahak and Norton Mezvinsky, Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel, p 9 
52	 based on his Jews in Russia and USSR, 1967, published 2001. 
53 These sayings were censored out of printed versions of Talmud and reprinted in full only now in Israel. Until recently, they were printed separately for the scholars as ‘Hesronot Shas’. The quotes are from Pesahim mem tet 13 bet, in hesronot p 8: “ Omar R Eliezer, am haaretz mutar lenochro byom kipurim shehal lihiot beshabat. Omru lo talmidav, Rabbi, emor "leshohto"! Omar lahen ze taun bracha, uze ein taun bracha. Omar R Yohanan, am haaretz mutar lekor'o kedag etc.
54	 See Shahak, 3000 years 
55	 Publisher: Yediyot Aharonot, Tel Aviv, 1999, ISBN 965-448-527-3 
 	236
56	 Beller, Vienna, quoted by Lindemann, Esau's Tears 
57	 Nedava, Trotsky and the Jews, quoted by Lindemann 
58 Christians who hate the Jews, Melanie Phillips says the Archbishop of Wales is among Churchmen worried that opposition to Israel is motivated by anti-Semitism rooted deep in Christian theology 
59	 Epistle to Ephesians (2.14) 
60	 Orthodox Church and Jewish Question 
61	 Publisher: Alma/Am Oved, Tel Aviv, 2000, ISBN 965-13-1428-1 
62 On August 12, 2002, members of the Bishops' Committee on Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs (BCEIA), an arm of the National Council of Catholic Bishops (NCCB), along with the National Council of Synagogues (NCS), released the document called Reflections on Covenant and Mission. The full document is available on the website of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.
63	 Orthodox Church and Jewish Question 
64	 Orthodox Church and Jewish Question 
65 Preface to the First Paperback Edition of The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/ 
66	 see a summary on www.thornwalker.com/ditch/deadlyenemy.htm incl. some critique.
67	 http://www.counterpunch.com/neumann01072003.html
68	 Apocalypse Now 
69	 JANUARY 10, 2003
70	 quoted by David Duke in his radio sermon, available on his website. 
71	 April 30, 2001 Democracy and the Quebec Summit, Murray Dobbin, National Post
72 Co-authors of the book are Martina Morris, a University of Washington professor of sociology and statistics, Annette Bernhardt, senior research associate at the Center on Wisconsin Strategy at the University of Wisconsin, Madison; Mark Handcock, professor of statistics and sociology at the University of Washington; and Marc Scott, assistant professor of educational statistics at New York University. 
The research was funded by the Russell Sage Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation. 
73	 Tosefta Baba Metzia 11:33-36
74	 See my article Our Lady of Sorrows
75	 See http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/Preface.htm
76	 Medved, M. (1992/1993). Hollywood Vs. America. New York: Harperperennial Library. 
77	 Cones, J. W. (1997). What’s really going on in Hollywood. www.mecfilms.com/FIRM/whats.htm 
78 see Russian Israeli Christian thinker Sergey Balandin, http://www.galanet.net/~balandin/ , review of The Dialog compendium (ed. Helen Frey) http://school.ort.spb.ru/library/torah/shoa/dialog-00.htm 
79 Shin Bet Murders JOHN DANISZEWSKI, Confession of a Killing in Cold Blood Chills Israel; Mideast: The embattled Shin Bet security service faces new criticism as agent describes 1984 deaths of prisoners.; Home Edition., Los Angeles Times, 07-27-1996, pp A-1. top of page 
80	 Co-authored with Noam Chomsky 
81	 More Nevochim, or Guide to Perplexed, 3:51 “Chinese and Blacks are less than human but above monkeys”. 
82	 http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=2110  
83	 http://www.aish.com/Israel/articles/Targeting_Children.asp  
84 Here and elsewhere we shall bear in mind an important exclusion of our wonderful comrades, Jews supporting the cause of equality in Palestine. 
85 See Medieval Sourcebook http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/sbook.html for details. It offers the following list of saints and martyrs: William of Norwich, d. 1144, Richard of Pontoise or of Paris, d. 1179, Herbert of Huntingdon, d. 1180 -, Dominic of Val, 1250, Hugh of Lincoln, d. 1255, Werner of Oberwesel, d. 1287, Rudolf of Berne, d. 1294, Conrad of Weissensee, d. 1303 , Louis or Ludwig of Ravensburg d. 1429, Anderl of Rinn, d. 1462, Simon of Trent, d. 1475, Lorenzino Sossio, d. 1485
86	 Two Nations in Thy Womb, or Perceptions of Jews and Christians, Tel Aviv, Am Oved 2000
87	 The Lady in the Lake
88	 http://www.reec.uiuc.edu/srl/Rozanov/rozanov_program.htm 
89	 Jewish attitude to smell and touch of blood, reprinted Moscow 1998 
90 Hesronot Shas, Pesahim mem tet 13 bet, Omar R Eliezer, am haaretz mutar lenochro byom kipurim shehal lihiot beshabat. Omru lo talmidav, Rabbi, emor "leshohto"! Omar lahen ze taun bracha, uze ein taun bracha.
91	Memoirs of Chekist, Prague 1925, quoted from Solzhenitsyn, 200 years I:451 M 2002 
92	 Kololol Nr 1, London – Moscow 2002 
93	 Marek Glogoczowski
94 See extensive study in Israel Shahak and Norton Medvinsky book , Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel. Hastily written and under-edited (for instance it refers to the Arc as ‘holy cupboard’!), it still provides much of valuable material. 
95	 Save OJ 
96	 Haaretz, 11 July 2003
 	237
97	 Beyliss case took place after reforms of 1905 which voided the old statutes and made the trial possible
98	 GOLDSTEIN, D. p. 68
99	 http://www.shma.com/may02/nathan.htm http://www.shalem.org.il/azure/6-articles2.html 
100 `Vicious circles closing in’, Haaretz, Interview, 5/10/02 101 IN THE SAME CAMP AS HAMSUN? By Hakon Kolmanskog 
During the last year Klassekampen has published several essays by the Israeli writer and novelist Israel Shamir, who is an extraordinary and controversial writer. His texts are quite provocative and sharp, so sharp that even seasoned friends of the Palestinians show difficulties accepting him. 
He writes about "Jewish controlled newspapers" and "the friends of the Jews in the US" without blinking. He believes the State of Israel is worse than the apartheid state of South Africa, and that this state is upheld by the Jewish lobby in the US. Shamir is not afraid of being labelled "anti-Semite". He says this label is used against anyone who doesn’t wholeheartedly support the Jewish occupation of Palestine. Klassekampen can by no means confirm the content of Shamir’s texts, but does today still publish a new text written by him. This is also a provoking and controversial one. 
We publish the text since we are of the impression that many readers find his texts refreshing and thought-provoking while dealing with theme which is usually dominated by black and white thinking and dead-locked ideas. Shamir has written enlightened and well about how the differences between orthodox and liberal Jews may be less than we outside Israel imagine. Klassekampen wants to treat the questions he raises in full earnest, but demands that he also declares his own stands.
Everybody who has read Norman G. Finkelstein’s The Holocaust Industry are aware of the fact that today the terrible mass-slaughter of Jews during the World War 2 is exploited economically and symbolically by the State of Israel. The myth of Holocaust (as a unique and incomprehensive event) is, together with the branding as "antiSemite", against all dangerous criticism of Sharon & Co.’s occupation policies towards the Palestinians. 
But to understand these contexts, to realise there is a connection between Jewish identity and the brutality of Israel’s occupation policies, must not make us indifferent to us if friends of the Palestinians are branded racists or antiSemites. One thing is that anti-Semitism has deep roots in Europe. Nobody should ignore this, especially not those fighting a racist policy against the Palestinians. And then we must ask: Who will benefit in allowing the Zionists to have a free go playing the anti-Semite card against anyone who criticise them? 
ALLEN AND HAMSUN 
Some of Israel Shamir’s wordings, including in today’s essay, seem to indicate that Shamir doesn’t see this point, or that he gives a damn about it. Today he writes things like "As ‘Arab-lover and ‘Nigger-lover’, ‘anti-Semite’ is a branding expression which stains the one who is making use of it (…) It was us ed against TS Elliot and Dostoevsky, Genet and Hamsun, St.John and Yeats, Marx and Woody Allen, and this is a much better company to be with”. Weirdly, it looks as if Shamir shares his Weltanschauung with the Zionists: Zionists do not separate between the Jewish film-maker Woody Allen’s slightly ironic attitude towards his own people and the Anti-Semitism of Hamsun the Nazi. Shamir doesn’t want to do that either, and seems to accept that both are "Anti-Semites" and join their camp. Why not engage in a political struggle in order to use "the Anti-Semitism" brand when it’s actually relevant? Wouldn’t it deprive Ariel Sharon of a strong political weapon? 
Israel Shamir should clarify his stand on such issues and clearly explain it to the World: Does Shamir think that friends of the Palestinians should feel comfortable with being put in the same camp as Hamsun? Or should we fight such "parallels"? Maybe there is something in the dogmatic dualism of the Zionists we ought to resist? Or what? Shamir was born in Russia, but moved to Israel in 1969 and lives by now in Yaffa. He has served as a paratrooper in the Israeli army and worked as Moscow-correspondent for the leading Israeli daily Ha’aretz during the dismantling of the Soviet Union. He lost his job at the newspaper when he demanded the right of the 1948 Palestinian refugees to return home. For us up in the cold North it is obviously quite difficult to grasp the crazy situation in which both Jews and Palestinians live. More frenzied, feverish and [unyansert] environments for debate are hard to be found. Maybe this is the reason why Shamir employs words, phrases and wordings which makes us react negatively? Or do we simply disagree?
Israel’s president Moshe Katsav recently visited Germany. He was last Monday confro nted by German neo-Nazis carrying Palestinian flags and banners saying "Hands off Palestine – No German armaments to Israel”. It was a disaster! If the neo-Nazis hadn’t thought of it themselves, I guess Ariel Sharon would have phoned them to give them the idea. I’m wondering if Israel Shamir shares my concerns and if he agrees with me that at all means we have to avoid a situation where Nazis march in support of Palestine? Or if it means nothing since "Anti-Semitism" has become an empty and meaningless phrase and only a weapon in the hands of Israeli Zionists? Is this a question of no importance? 
102 http://www.observer.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239,864318,00.html 103 Luke 19:39-40 104 see my essay Bankers and Robbers 105 John 19:38 and elsewhere 106 Matthew, 5:13 
107 ANTI-SEMITISM IS NOT ACCEPTABLE FOR CRITICISM AGAINST ISRAEL 
 	238
By Christine Mohn, psychologist, secretary of Norwegian Association against anti-Semitism 
Anti -Semite: The central place Israel Shamir has in some Norwegian intellectual circles illustrates that central Norwegian press organs are willing to distribute anti-Semitic attitudes under cover of Israel-critics, the author writes. Internationally Shamir was dismissed as a confused “n oisy bucket”, but he has for some reason acquired almost a cult status among Norwegian left-radicals. 
In the last months, Klassekampen, Friheten, Dagbladet and Morgenbladet newspapers have often used statements and comments from the Israeli scribe Israel Shamir in debates and articles about the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. Sometimes Shamir even was permitted to write an op-ed.
Israel Shamir is disreputable due to the paradox of being an ethnic Jew and at the same time anti-Semite. He is born and grown up in the Soviet Union, and defines himself as a Christian. He has been linked to the Israeli Communist party Mapam, but also flirts with right-extremist groups. 
The most important content in Shamir’s political agenda is that Jews are best cha racterised as Christ-killers, that Jewish Israelis organise pogroms against their Christian fellow citizens, that wealthy Jews usually have earned their fortunes dishonestly and that Jews by nature are ”rootless” individuals that in the deepest meaning do not fit in anywhere. Another anti-Semitic cliché he enjoys to put forward is the wish of the Jews of economic and military world dominance, and how they are “like a virus” infect non -Jewish societies with the aim of breaking them down. These attitudes are expressed in an aggressive, rude, sexist language, and are primarily raised in discussions about the fate of the Palestinians, who are Shamir’s special object of interest. 
As a background for his opinions about Jews and the Judaism Shamir refers, among others, to Karl Marx, Isaac Deutscher, Knut Hamsun, T.S. Eliot and the ultra-orthodox Rabbi Kook. In other words, he builds his hate on literature written by people who themselves had a somewhat incongruous view of the Jews. Especially Shamir cares for the description of Jews as God’s Chosen people. For Jews it means implies that Jews must follow Jewish rules of living, i.e. in relation to food and holidays, while other people must follow their traditions. The phenomenon of Chosen-ness, as understood in Jewis h tradition, has nothing to do with closeness to God or superiority versus non-Jews, as this term however is usually comprehended by Christians…. 
108 FrontPageMagazine.com | August 21, 2001
109 Forward, April 13, 2001 
110 http://www.vny.com/cf/News/upidetail.cfm?QID=172359
111 Adversaries Penetrate ADL's Spying Operation By Dan Evans San Francisco Examiner 4-1-2 Today: Paper trail of deceit. By Dan Evans San Francisco Examiner 4-2-2 
Locked in a nondescript computer database, a shadowy operative named Roy Bullock kept file upon file on liberal San Francisco Jews who disagreed with Israeli policies. The files included Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, addresses, phone numbers and group memberships. Some of the information was sold to foreign governments, including Israeli and South African intelligence groups. 
Shockingly, Bullock was in the employ of a civil rights group whose motto is "fighting anti-Semitism, bigotry and extremism" : the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith. Numerous targets of the ADL -- who drew parallels to COINTELPRO, the FBI's tainted domestic surveillance program-- say the profiling and covert activities continue to this day. Not only were liberal Jews a target, but information also was kept on labor unions, pro-Palestinian organizations, anti-apartheid groups, American Arabs and anti-Semites. After the Federal Bureau of Investigation broke the case in 1993, a number of these targets filed suit against the ADL. The last lawsuit was recently settled. The settlement in February marked the first time any of the organization's victims were allowed to speak out. Usually, the ADL demands plaintiffs keep quiet as a condition of any settlement. 
Without those constraints, victims Jeffrey Blankfort, Steve Zeltzer and Anne Poirier are revealing the underbelly of an organization that previously had successfully shielded itself from condemnation. They are using the ADL's own spy as a fulcrum. Bullock's relationship with Blankfort and Zeltzer began when he infiltrated a pro-Palestinian group started by the two, both of whom are Jewish. Once inside, Bullock collected and sold information about the two men to the ADL and, possibly the Mossad, the foreign arm of Israeli intelligence. 
Although Bullock never met Poirier, he may have sold information on her organization to the South African government. The woman, who lives in Berkeley, ran a scholarship program for South African exiles in the early 1990s. During the course of her la wsuit against the ADL, she discovered the ADL's operative had sold confidential information to a South African agent in San Francisco for $15,000. 
112 http://www.forward.com/issues/2001/01.04.13/news3.html 113 http://www.gordonthomas.ie/  
114 Israel Shahak and Norton Mezvinsky, Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel, p 9 115 Freak Factory, www.israelshamir.net 
116 http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,59662,00.html  
117 http://sm.org/exegesis
118 http://english.pravda.ru/columnists/2002/02/14/ 119 To all my Arab sisters and brothers.
On August 24th, the National Alliance (NA)--one of the largest and most dangerous neo-Nazi groups in America--is planning a "Rock against Israel" demonstration in Washington DC. This is a white supremacist group that is claiming to stand in solidarity with the Palestinian people against the Jews and the American government. We have 
 	239
to stop this racist scum from polluting the Palestinian cause. 
This is a call to all Arabs and especially Palestinians to come out on august 24th to stop the Nazis from hijacking our cause in order to use it to justify ethnic cleansing. We have a special responsibility to say that we have nothing in common with these Nazis. The East Coast Anti-Fascist Network will be organizing in several different contingents with various risk levels and levels of political and tactical unity. This contingent will be gathered behind a banner and around chants that express this message and will pass out fliers to the public and the press. If we don't do this, our Nazi enemies will claim our noble cause and our Zionist enemies will try to present them as our face. 
120 The Sparrow and the Beetle
121 http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/perspective/chi-0204070422apr07.s 122 April 7, 2002
123 I normalised the spelling of her name. Taki the snob had to spell quite an ordinary Jewish name Landoi (var. Landau) in the French way. 
124 http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4480174,00.html 
125 21 November, 2000
126 Jeffrey Steinberg of EIR filled in the story: Under the innocent headline, "Titans of Industry Join Forces To Work for Jewish Philanthropy," Wall Street Journal staff reporter Lisa Miller reported on an April 1998 gathering of some 20 Jewish billionaires, at the Manhattan apartment of hedge-fund manager Michael Steinhardt. That gathering involved some of the most powerful names in the Jewish lobby in America, starting with Edgar Bronfman, the chairman of the World Jewish Congress. Others included: Charles Bronfman, Edgar's brother and a top executive of the family's flagship Seagrams Corp.; Leslie Wexler of Limited, Inc.; Charles Schusterman, chairman of Samson Investment Co. of Tulsa, Oklahoma; Harvey "Bud" Meyerhoff, a fabulously wealthy and powerful Baltimore real estate magnate; Laurence Tisch, chairman of Loews Corp.; Max Fisher, the Detroit oil magnate and Republican Party powerhouse; bagel magnate Max Lender; and Leonard Abramson, the founder of U.S. Healthcare. 
According to the Journal account, the Mega Group was founded in 1991 by Wexler and Charles Bronfman, to add greater clout to the Israeli lobby, by establishing an informal, but all-powerful policymaking group, able to deploy billions of dollars in "charitable" funds for the maximum effect on U.S. policy toward Israel, the Mideast, and other issues of paramount importance to the Jewish megabillionaires. The Mega Group convenes twice a year, for two -day sessions, where, behind closed doors, the members make life-and-death decisions, affecting U.S. policy. 
Membership is by invitation only; the meetings are secret (the Wall Street Journal story was the only coverage to ever appear in the U.S. media about the existence of the Mega Group, before the publication of this EIR account); and the members each kick in $30,000 in annual dues, to cover "operating expenses" for the twice-yearly sessions. Charles Bronfman reflected the Mega Group's propensity for secrecy, when he told the Journal's Lisa Miller, "From the beginning we didn't want to be seen as a threat to anybody. And that still pertains. We don't want to be seen as the Sanhedrin," a reference to the highest court of the ancient Jews.
127 Jeffrey Steinberg of EIR filled in some details: “ For a brief period of time in early 1997, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the National Security Agency engaged in a frantic mole hunt for an Israeli spy, believed to be operating inside the highest levels of the Clinton Administration national security establishment. By the time the mole hunt was made public--in a May 7, 1997 Washington Post leak--the hunt had been abruptly ended, and for all intents and purposes, the story disappeared from the news within a matter of days. According to the Post account, in January 1997, the National Security Agency (NSA) had intercepted a phone conversation between an Israeli official at the embassy in Washington, and Danny Yatom, the head of the Mossad, Israel's foreign intelligence service. The official sought permission from the spy boss to "go to Mega" in order to obtain a copy of a confidential letter that had been sent by then-U.S. Secretary of State Warren Christopher to Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat, concerning U.S. assurances about a recently negotiated agreement for an Israeli military withdrawal from the Hebron area in the West Bank. Yatom, according to the NSA intercept, rejected the request, admonishing his agent, "This is not something we use Mega for." 128 Jeffrey Steinberg commented in EIR: “ Of course, Shamir does not have the picture precisely right. The Bronfman-centered Mega Group is but one component of an insane and desperate element within the transatlantic financial establishment that is now pressing for a "Clash of Civilizations". But, as far as the Mega puzzle is concerned, Shamir has solved the mystery. No wonder Mossad boss Yatom scolded his Washington-based underling with the warning, "This is not something we use Mega for." (EIR) 129 Brenda, Le Jeunesse d’un clerc, Paris 1936, quoted by Lindemann, Esau’s Tears, Cambridge University Press 1997 p. 91 130 THE JEW WITHIN: self, family and community in America, Indiana University Press, 2001 131 It was collaborated by Scott Thompson (EIR) who wrote: The following are brief biographical profiles of some of the leading known members of the "Mega" group; notable, is the pattern of alleged organized crime ties. 
Charles Bronfman: On Feb. 19, 1999, Charles Bronfman was elected chairman of United Jewish Communities (UJC). This $4 billion cash cow subsumes 189 Jewish Federation contributors and 400 Jewish communities in North America. At a Nov. 9-13 UJC General Assembly in Washington, Bronfman will pass the chairmanship to James A. Tisch, son of Mega member Laurence Tisch. 
Charles Bronfman had been co-chairman of Seagrams, until its merger with Vivendi. He is today chairman of Koor 
 	240
Industries Ltd., which is a high-tech holding company at the heart of the Israeli military-industrial complex. He is also chairman of Claridge-Israel, Inc., which took over Bank Hapolim, when the Israeli government privatized it. This deal was brokered by Ted Arison, an Israeli who, in the United States, built the Carnival Cruise Lines into a billion-dollar business. Arison got his financing to start Carnival from Meshulim Riklis, one of junk-bond manipulator Michael Milken's major clients, and a close ally of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. 
Leslie Wexner: This co-founder of Mega is closely aligned with some of the top British-American-Commonwealth institutions. However, Wexner's main business is The Limited, Inc.— a holding company for such firms as Intimate Brands, Victoria's Secret, and Bath & Body Works— which he founded in 1963. Wexner is a board member of Conrad Black's Hollinger International, Inc. and of Hollinger International Publishing Inc. Lady Margaret Thatcher is chairman of Hollinger's International Advisory Board, which also includes Henry Kissinger, William F. Buckley, and Richard Perle. Hollinger owns the leading Israeli English-language daily, the Jerusalem Post, which has become a mouthpiece for Sharon and the radical right. 
Wexner is also on the board of the Aspen Institute, an important Anglo-American world federalist think-tank. Leonard Abramson: Abramson was the founder of the murderous health maintenance organization, U.S. Healthcare. He sold it to Aetna Insurance for $990 million. Now, apart from a stake in Israel's Bank Hapolim, Abramson owns the Maine Merchant Bank in Portland, which is a $20 million non-deposit institution, whose ostensible purpose is to make high-risk, venture-capital investments. 
Edgar Bronfman: Bronfman has been president of the WJC since 1981, and has been a director of the Anti-Defamation League for many years. 
The Bronfman family fortune was built by the father of Edgar and Charles, Sam Bronfman, who during Prohibition merged his Distillers Corp. in Montreal with Joseph E. Seagrams & Sons, Ltd. to supply "bootleggers" with top brand booze, becoming what Israel Shamir (writing on Mega) called a "Mafia boss." Under the successor co-chairmanship of Charles and Edgar Bronfman, Seagrams took a 24% controlling interest in DuPont. But soon after Edgar's son, Edgar Bronfman, Jr., became CEO of Seagrams, he sold off the holding, purchasing Universal Pictures and the world's largest record distributor, Polygram Records. On June 19, 2001, the Bronfmans sold Seagrams to former Lazard Frères partner Jean-Marie Messier, owner of media and communications conglomerate Vivendi, for $34 billion. 
Through Seagrams and the WJC, Edgar Bronfman was a top business collaborator of some of the most prominent figures in the former Soviet Union and East Germany. Just months before the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of East Germany, Bronfman was given the highest civilian award by the East German Communist Party, for his efforts to salvage the communist state. 
Max Fisher: In 1985 Max Fisher, a top adviser on Jewish affairs and Middle East policy to every Repubican President since Eisenhower, founded what is now known as the Republican Jewish Coalition, of which Fisher, 93, remains honorary chairman. A March 11, 1998 Jerusalem Post article reports that Fisher is looking for a replacement, and among those being considered are Mega co-founder Leslie Wexner, suspected Mega member Ronald S. Lauder, and Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz. 
Fisher amassed his fortune as a bagman for the "Purple Gang" that smuggled Sam Bronfman's booze from Canada into the speakeasies of the Midwest. Fisher made his "legitimate" fortune in the oil retail business, through Keystone Oil, Aurora Oil, and Marathon Oil. Fisher later became chairman of United Brands (a.k.a. United Fruit), a firm accused of major narcotics smuggling from South America. 
Harvey M. Meyerhoff: Meyerhoff made his money in real estate in Baltimore, Maryland, and was one of the chief architects of the transition of that city from an industrial and port center into a tourist attraction. Its port has been transformed into an Aquarium and site for a Disney Museum that features a Harvey Meyerhoff Gallery. 
Steven Spielberg: One of the newest known members of Mega is Hollywood billionaire Steven Spielberg, whose Dreamworks Studio has produced such films as Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan. Spielberg's Shoah (Hebrew for "Holocaust") has gathered a video archive of testimony from 50,000 Jewish Holocaust victims. Being late to Jewish Philanthropy, one wonders just how much Spielberg knows of the subject, as one Mega educational project for Jewish schools across the country teaches both Kabbala and Buddhist meditation. 
Michael Steinhardt: Steinhardt made his fortune running a series of hedge funds. Steinhardt has been apparently dubbed the "public relations" man for Mega, as all other published interviews have been with him, although he did not return EIR's calls. 
Steinhardt was chairman, for a decade, of the Democratic Leadership Council. He resigned from the organization in protest over President Bill Clinton's appointment of Lani Guinier to a top Justice Department post, and refused to support Clinton's reelection in 1996, even though Clinton had succeeded him as DLC chairman. 
The hedge fund Steinhardt Partners was formed by Michael Steinhardt in 1967. He boasts that one dollar invested in his firm then would be worth $462 today. Like George Soros, Steinhardt's fund suddenly lost 29% of its value in 1996, during the onset of the global financial crisis. After recouping in part with a 20% return in 1997, he closed the firm, took the money, and ran. 
Steinhardt is another offspring of the Prohibition-era "Jewish Syndicate" of National Crime Boss Meyer Lansky. His father, Sol Frank "Red" Steinhardt, was a bigtime gambler and convicted jewel fence, who worked with Meyer Lansky. "Red" Steinhardt was sent to Sing Sing on a five- to ten-year sentence, a fact that Michael kept off of his resume, in order to get his start on Wall Street with the "Our Crowd" firm, Loeb Rhodes. Like father, like son—
 	241
Steinhardt Partners came under SEC and Justice Department scrutiny in the early 1990s, along with Salomon Brothers, for cornering the market in short-term U.S. Treasury bond sales. To avoid jail, Steinhardt settled the case with a $50 million fine. 
Laurence Tisch: Called "The King of Cash," Tisch built his fortune one step at a time. On his return from World War II, where he served in the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), precursor to the Central Intelligence Agency, Laurence Tisch joined his family's small hotel business. 
Tisch, with his brother Preston "Bob" Tisch, built a major hotel chain, forming the holding company Loews Corporation, that also included a chain of movie theaters. And, Loews acquired Lorillard Tobacco in 1960, which produced Kent cigarettes. 
By the 1980s of the "Predator's Ball," Laurence Tisch worked with convicted inside-trader Michael Milken, who originated junk bonds, through which Tisch gained fame for his 1986 takeover of the Colombia Broadcasting System. In 1995, Tisch had to sell off CBS to Westinghouse. 
Loews Corp. today also owns CNA Financial Corp., as well as having a controlling share in an offshore oil and gas drilling firm, Diamond Offshore Drilling, Inc., and a controlling interest in Bulova Watch Company.
132 Galatians, 3 
133 Lana Turner , the reply to Ali and Hussein 134 http://shamir.mediamonitors.net 
135 http://www-personal.umich.edu/~hfc/mideast/iscritic.htm. 
136 http://www.counterpunch.org/avnery07152003.html 137 http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/ley3.htm 138 http://sm.org/exegesis
139 http://www.g0lem.net/PHP/phpnuke/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=15
140 See Heather Cottin, `George Soros, Imperial Wizard’,by CovertAction Quarterly, No 74, Fall 2002. 
141 Good collection of data on Jews in Ukraine is available in chapter 7, A Closer Look At Poland And Eastern Europe, in the www.jewishtribalreview.org 142 Mar. 19, 2003 The secret conspiracy to conquer the world, By Shmuely Boteach 143 The long reach of Leo Strauss William Pfaff IHT Thursday, May 15, 2003http://207.44.245.159/article3391.htmNeoconservatives 144 The Divine Wind, by Israel Shamir 145 The Russian Orthodox Church teaching on the Jews. 146 Kevin MacDonald, Culture of Critique 147 J.Israel, European Jewry in the age of mercantilism, Oxford 1985 148 See Bill and Kathleen Christison, the CIA analysts, on Counterpoint site, for wealth of sources. 149 New York Sun , March 19, 2003: 150 http://www.newsmaxstore.com/a/boycottad
151 http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31725  
152 http://evatt.labor.net.au/news/201.html  
153 http://www.newtimesbpb.com/issues/2002-09-26/norman.html/1/index.html 154 http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/275621.html
155 Kathleen and Bill Christison, `A Rose By Another Name: The Bush Administration's Dual Loyalties’, Counterpunch, Dec. 13, 2002).
156 http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2003/628/op2.htm 157 Here is enough sampling to indicate that it is not: 
First of all, Sumner Redstone ( né Murray Rothstein) owns $8 billion dollars worth of Viacom, which gives him the controlling interest in CBS, Viacom, MTV worldwide (Brian Graden, president), and most recently he bought Black Entertainment Television and proceeded immediately to cut down its public-affairs programming. The president of CBS is Leslie Moonves, the great nephew of David Ben-Gurion.
Michael Eisner is the major owner of Disney-Capitol Cities, which owns ABC. David Westin is the president of ABC News. Although it has lost viewers, Nightline host Ted Koppel is a strong supporter of Israel. Lloyd Braun is chair of ABC Entertainment. And there is the perennial Barbara Walters.
Neil Shapiro is the president of NBC News. Jeffrey Zucker is the head of NBC Entertainment and Jack Myers has some important post there, as well.
Although Rupert Murdoch of Fox is not Jewish, Mel Karamazin, the president of the corporation is, as is Peter Chernin, the second in command at Murdoch's News Corps.  
Sandy Grushow is chairman of Fox Entertainment, and Gail Berman is president. Murtdoch has received numerous awards from various Jewish charities.
Jamie Kellner is chair and CEO of Turner Broadcasting.
Walter Issacson is the News Director of CNN which also has Wolf Blitzer, host of Late Edition, Larry King of Larry King Live, Paula Zahn, and Andrea Koppel, Ted's daughter.  
Jordan Levin is chairman of Warner Bros. Entertainment. Howard Stringer is chair of Sony Corp. of America.
 	242
Robert Sillerman is the founder of Clear Channel Communications, Ivan Seidenberg is chair of Verizon Communications Terry Semel, former co-chair of Warners is CEO of Yahoo.
Barry Diller, former owner of Universal Entertainment, is the chair of USA Interactive.
Joel Klein is chair and CEO of Bertelsmann's American operations, the largest publishing conglomerate in the world. 
Mort Zuckerman, the Chair of the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish American Organizations, owns US News and World Report and the NY Daily News.
Arthur Sulzberger, Jr. publishes the NY Times, the Boston Globe and a host of other publications. Marty Peretz publishes the New Republic, which is unabashedly pro-Israel, as is William Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard.
Donald Graham, Jr. is the chair and CEO of Newsweek and the Washington Post. Michael Ledeen, of Iran-Contra fame, edits National Review.
Ron Rosenthal is the Managing Editor of the SF Chronicle and Phil Bronstein is the Executive Editor. David Schneiderman owns the Village Voice and a number of other "alternative" weeklies. 
Columnist William Safire, Tom Freidman, Charles Krauthammer, Richard Cohen, Jeff Jacoby, are among the most widely syndicated columnists.
There are a number of widely syndicated talk show hosts such as Michael Savage (ABC) on more than 100 stations, Michael Medved, 124 stations, and Dennis Prager who has an Israeli flag on his website. Others include Ron Owens, Ben Wattenberg, and former ZOA official Jon Rothman, all in San Francisco on ABC.
In Hollywood, which was founded by Jews, there is of course, Stephen Spielberg, David Geffen, and Jeffrey Kranzberg of Dreamworks, Eisner of Disney, Amy Pascal, chair of Columbia, and many, many more.
For the intellectuals, we have NPR, with pundit Daniel Schorr and weekend hosts Scott Simon and Liane Hansen, Robert Segal, Susan Stanberg, Eric Weiner, Daniel Lev, Linda Gradstein (a well-known speaker at pro-Israel events) covering Jerusalem, Mike Schuster (whose soft-ball interview with Ariel Sharon after Sabra and Shatila should have brought him before the court of Hamarabi). Brook Gladstein. 
And that's just for starters. From the boss to the delivery it's an impressive list. While they certainly can't be put in the same box when it comes to Israel, they more or less guarantee that there will be limits to any criticism they may make of Israel”. 
158 NY Post 22.02.03 
159 November 12, 2002 The New Haven Register 160 Michael Lind: New Statesman, April 7, 2003 161 http://www.yellowtimes.org/print.php?sid 55 162 February 21, 2003 Executive Intelligence Review
163 Jerusalem Post, 'No place in new Iraq for Palestinians' By Douglas David Apr. 10, 2003  
164 clay, homer was the term Zionists used to describe Jewish Arabs during the 1950s. The same word, homer, is used in Hebrew liturgy at describing creation of Man 165 "Occupied Territory" - Congress, the Israel Lobby and Jewish Responsibility by Jeffrey Blankfort, City Lights Review, "War after War”, 1992, City Lights Books 166 http://laetusinpraesens.org/docs00s/assmeta.php 167 http://www.yellowtimes.org/print.php?sid=1155  168 Jewish dietary law 169 The Nation, April 21, 2003 http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030421&s=alterman 170 quoted by Bar Zohar, in his biography of Ben Gurion. 171 See his works at www.arctogaia.com 172 Why Most Christian Evangelicals Favor War by C. E. Carlson www.whtt.org/articles/02080.htm 173 http://virginiawater.org.uk/christchurch 174 Rf Lev Gumilev, Russia and the Great Steppe 175 For instance, http://www.slip.net/~wolf/vad/satan/cos/ayn_rand.txt 176 Leah Garchik, "Oh, the romance of it," San Francisco Chronicle, November 7, 2002 177 hypothetical intelligent being (or a functionally equivalent device) capable of detecting and reacting to the motions of individual molecules. It was imagined by James Clerk Maxwell in 1871, to illustrate the possibility of violating the second law of thermodynamics. Essentially, this law states that heat does not naturally flow from a cool body to a warmer; work must be expended to make it do so. Maxwell envisioned two vessels containing gas at equal temperatures and joined by a small hole. The hole could be opened or closed at will by “a being” to allow indivi dual molecules of gas to pass through. By passing only fast-moving molecules from vessel A to vessel B and only slow-moving ones from B to A, the demon would bring about an effective flow from A to B of molecular kinetic energy. This excess energy in B would be usable to perform work (e.g., by generating steam), and the system could be a working perpetual motion machine. By allowing all molecules to pass only from A to B, an even more readily useful difference in pressure would be created between the two vessels. About 1950 the French physicist Léon Brillouin 
 	243
exorcised the demon by demonstrating that the decrease in entropy resulting from the demon's actions would be exceeded by the increase in entropy in choosing between the fast and slow molecules. (EB) 178 based on his Jews in Russia and USSR, 1967, published 2001. 179 ‘The Last Days of Born-Again History’ on CounterPunch site 180 Blankfort also mentions: “Israel has always been Landau's weak point as it has to most, but happily not all, Jewish leftists. Twenty years ago he wrote that the two old Palestinian women who were shown (in a documentary) crying for their destroyed homes and the killing of their loved ones in Gaza did not seem genuine. I wonder what he would say if someone wrote that about Jewish survivors of the WW2 Jewish Holocaust?”  
 	244