Those Funny Anti-Semites
TRANSCEND MEMBERS, 9 May 2016
Uri Avnery – TRANSCEND Media Service
7 May 2016 – ANTI-SEMITES make me laugh. They are so funny.
I know that many will consider this statement frivolous, if not obnoxious, considering all the terrible things committed by anti-Semites throughout the ages, including the Holocaust. But nowadays, they are just ridiculous.
The things they believe in. The things they say. Ridiculous.
TAKE THE ex-mayor of London, Ken Livingstone. The things he says are ridiculous indeed. Even for a politician.
For example, he said the Adolf Hitler was a Zionist, or a lover of Zionists.
Hitler? Zionist?
Adolf Hitler was a pathological hater of Jews and everything Jewish. Indeed, his anti-Semitism was so central to his beliefs, that it overcame everything else.
Staring into the face of final military defeat, he still diverted trains from essential military tasks in order to transport Jews to the annihilation camps.
Some believe that he lost the war (and world domination) because of his anti-Semitism. If the Jewish scientists – like Albert Einstein – had remained in Germany as German patriots, Hitler may well have got the atomic bomb before the Americans. This would have changed world history.
No one knows where his hatred for Jews came from. He liked the Jewish doctor of his adored mother. When he was nursing his dream of becoming a great painter, he had a Jewish friend and visited him at his home. Somewhere on his way he became an abysmal Jew-hater. Theories abound, but there is no definitive answer. But it happened early on, when he was still in Vienna.
The idea that this person could, at any stage, be a lover of Zionist Jews is absurd beyond imagination.
LIKE MANY absurdities, this one contains a kernel of truth.
Before the Holocaust, anti-Semites wanted to drive the Jews out of Europe. The essence of Zionism is to get the Jews from all over the world to Eretz Israel (Palestine). So these two extremely opposite movements had something in common.
Theodor Herzl, the founder of the Zionist movement, realized this right from the beginning. He went to anti-Semitic Czarist Russia to convince leading politicians there to help him, promising to relieve them of their Jews.
In the course of time, many such efforts were made. A little-known one was made on the eve of World War II, when the right-wing Zionist Irgun underground (full name: National Military Organization) came to an agreement with the anti-Semitic leadership of the Polish army. Military training centers for young Jews were set up in Poland, with the idea of preparing them for an invasion of Palestine, so that Polish Jews could go there. The war cut these efforts short.
At the same time, the notorious Adolf Eichmann was busy in Vienna “solving the Jewish Question”. He robbed the Jews of all their property and allowed them to emigrate. Later, near the end of the war, he made the absurd offer to Zionist leaders in Budapest: if the Allies send ten thousand trucks to Nazi Germany, he would stop the extermination of Hungarian Jews (ten thousand Jews a day). My opinion is that this was in reality a part of a camouflaged effort by Heinrich Himmler to make a separate peace with the Western allies.
After he was kidnapped in Argentina, Eichmann sat in his Israeli prison and wrote a fascinating autobiography, in which he said that he had always preferred the Zionists to other Jews, because they represented the more positive biological substance of the Jews.
The most direct connection between Nazis and Zionists came about very early on. When the Nazis came to power in Germany, in early 1933, American Jews declared a boycott of German goods. The Nazis responded with a day-long boycott of Jewish businesses in Germany. (I remember it, because my father kept me home that day.)
At the same time, an official treaty was signed between Nazi Germany and the Zionist leadership. It was called “Transfer” (Ha’avara in Hebrew). Under it, wealthy German Jews were allowed to “transfer” part of their money to Palestine in the form of German goods. This broke the anti-German boycott, but was a big boost for the struggling Jewish economy in Palestine.
This remains a controversial historical chapter to this very day. Right-wing Zionists condemned the agreement, though they themselves were called “fascists” by the left-wing leaders who ruled Zionist society in Palestine. The agreement certainly helped the Zionist economy to survive, until World War II broke out and the large British army in Egypt desperately needed all the products we could produce.
ALL THESE events did not come close to a conciliation between the Zionists and the Nazis. The very idea is, well, ridiculous.
Until world-war II, Hitler could not dream of killing the Jews en masse. It was unthinkable. He had to be satisfied with driving the Jews out of Germany, or out of Europe, as had happened several times before – in Spain, in England and in many other places.
The obvious destination was Palestine, but Palestine was ruled by Great Britain, which let only a handful of Jews in, for fear of Arab reactions. At the time another possibility gained popularity with the Nazi leadership: transport all the Jews to Madagascar, which was part of the French empire. Nothing came of that.
All this changed completely when the war broke out. A new reality took over. With the invasion of the Soviet Union by Nazi Germany in 1941, life became cheap. The Geneva Conventions about civilized warfare were thrown overboard. Hundreds of thousands, and then millions, slaughtered each other.
For Hitler, this created an opportunity which perhaps he had not dared to think about before. Don’t transfer the Jews, kill them. That was the beginning of the Holocaust by mass shootings, starvation, disease, and then the gas chambers.
He did not need the urging of anyone. The story floated recently that Hitler was prompted by the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Hadj Amin al-Husseini, an honest-to-Allah Semite, is as ridiculous as all the others.
HITLER HAD no original mind. There was nothing really new in his outlook.
Anti-Semitism is as old as Christianity. It was for long an integral part of it, and perhaps it still is.
Jeshua Ben-Josef, known as Jesus, was a Jew. When he was crucified for blasphemy, a small group of followers in Jerusalem held on to his teachings. They were persecuted by the Jewish establishment in Jerusalem, and a fanatical hatred between the two sides was born.
This would have remained a historic bagatelle, if something extraordinary had not happened. With the help of another Jewish rabbi, Saul, who changed his name to Paulus, the followers of Jesus became a world religion. The old culture of many gods was breaking down. The abstract Jewish religion attracted many patricians, but the masses of slaves and proletarians were enchanted by the story of the crucified son of God and his virgin mother. Christianity won out, and with it the hatred of the Jews.
It is my belief that no Christian boy and girl who has been exposed in his or her childhood to the blood-curdling story of the Jews crying out for the blood of the gentle Jesus can ever completely rid themselves of their hatred of the Jews.
And indeed, Jew-hatred has been a mark of Christianity throughout the ages. Mass expulsions, the slaughter of Jews by the crusaders in Germany and Palestine, the Spanish inquisition, the Russian pogroms, the Holocaust and innumerable other manifestations accompany Jewish history. (Sadly, they did not make the Jews in modern Israel immune from manifesting hatred against others.)
I want to stress again that nothing of this sort happened in Muslim countries. When I mentioned this recently, some professors of Oriental Jewish origin attacked me furiously. They brought up some half a dozen instances of Muslim rulers mistreating Jews – half a dozen in 1400 years! It seems that some Orientals envy the European Jews for their suffering and want to compete with them in this, too.
Pogrom is not an Arabic word. It is Russian.
BACK TO today’s anti-Semites.
One could have hoped that after the Holocaust, they would just disappear. But now they are here again, in several guises and disguises.
It is not so much what they say. It’s the tone which makes their music.
One can argue with their arguments. Sure. There are some unpleasant facts around. Sure. But it’s the music that matters. Ah, the music.
One can be anti-Israeli. Why not? One can condemn the policy of successive Israeli governments. I do. One can be anti-Zionist. Though one has to make clear what sort of Zionism one dislikes. But all that has nothing to do with real, honest-to-God, anti-Semitism.
Somebody endowed with a genuine conspiratorial turn of mind – which I sadly lack – could argue that today’s anti-Semites are financed by the devious Zionists, in order to drive the Jews from where they are to Israel.
From hearing French today on Tel Aviv’s seashore, I guess they must be succeeding.
_______________________________
Uri Avnery is a member of the TRANSCEND Network for Peace, Development and Environment. He is an Israeli journalist, writer, peace activist, a former Knesset member, and the founder of Gush Shalom.
Go to Original – uriavnery.com
DISCLAIMER: The statements, views and opinions expressed in pieces republished here are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of TMS. In accordance with title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. TMS has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is TMS endorsed or sponsored by the originator. “GO TO ORIGINAL” links are provided as a convenience to our readers and allow for verification of authenticity. However, as originating pages are often updated by their originating host sites, the versions posted may not match the versions our readers view when clicking the “GO TO ORIGINAL” links. This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
What is it to be “Anti-Israel”?
If that is ok, is it then equally ok to be “Anti-Iran”? And if it is ok to be Anti-Zionist, isn’t it then equally ok to lament the pronounced Islamic nature of- say – Iran and a host of other muslim-dominated countries?
Why isn’t it then that all the “anti-zionists” never argue those latter points-
You know why? Becaue despite all the roundabout nonsense, anti-zionism is in its nature nothing but anti-semitism.
Very clever, but surely the anger of many people against Israel is NOT because the dominant people there are Jews, but because of their shameless and continuing destruction, robbery, humiliation, hatred and murder of the Palestinians who have been displaced ever since the Zionist expansion of Israel took place. Israel’s only desire is to take over the whole land of Palestine by force. Never is any attempt made to have peace with any fair treatment of Palestinians, or with neighbours such as Lebanon or Syria. Suggestions such as a nuke-free zone, which every other country in the area wants, are not even considered.
Read the new book “War Against the People” by Jeff Halper to find out about Israel. Jews in general are NOT at any stage the target.
@rosemerry
That may certainly be so, but that – in no way – can be an excuse for anti-zionism or anti-semitism. Just as criticising Iran for its countless crimes shouldn’t lead to anti-Iran’ism or denying Iran’s right to exist. Or exist as a islamic republic.
But for Israel there seem to be other rules. There it is ok to deny its very existence or its right to exist as a jewish state.
So anti-zionisme is therefore either blatant hypocracy and/or anti-semitic by nature.
There are so many good points in this piece, Uri, that I hesitate to find fault, especially as I’ve read and valued your views on issues concerning Israel. But there are two things I feel compelled to say, and hope I don’t cause offence by doing so:
Firstly, while I think Livingstone chose his words badly, I personally don’t believe he intended them to be taken literally, as in ‘Hitler was a Zionist’. Rather I think he meant, exactly as you have explained, that Hitler and the Zionist leaders collaborated for their own separate reasons to transfer Jews out of Germany. The UK media, together with various Jewish advocacy organisations and opinion-makers, have – for their own separate reasons – read into it what they wanted Livingstone to mean. One reason for the furore, I suggest, is that various factions are bent on exacerbating division in the Labour Party in order to bring it to the point of collapse. I further suggest that it began around the time that Ed Milliband supported the Palestine right to seek statehood. Then he was stupid enough to eat a bacon sandwich!
Secondly, on a more personal issue, you write: “It is my belief that no Christian boy and girl who has been exposed in his or her childhood to the blood-curdling story of the Jews crying out for the blood of the gentle Jesus can ever completely rid themselves of their hatred of the Jews.” Whoa! That’s a heck of a big claim to make. Certainly, horrible acts of antisemitism have over the centuries come out of the ‘Christ-killer’ accusation against Jews but that kind of antisemitism has so many theological flaws in its medieval thinking that it would be a digression to go into here – except to agree with you that he was indeed a Jew – he was a strong man (he’d been a carpenter), and he was not without powerfully expressed convictions, hence the overturning of the money-changers’ tables in the Temple. Mild? According to the gospels, he made a knotted scourge with to chase them out! So in terms of your statement about ‘gentle Jesus’ and the stories Christian children are brought up on…that’s a preposterously sweeping claim! It’s misleading at best to suggest that all (true) Christians teach their children to hate Jews for the crucifixion – they’re more likely to be taught (whether they believe it or not) that Jesus laid down his own life on the cross for a purpose, as explained in John 3 v.1. In saying what you believe in this regard feeds into a suspicion of Christians as Jew-haters by definition, which just isn’t true. In fact I think it’s worse than Ken Livingstone clumsily relating historical truths about Hitler using Zionism for his own ends, in a way that offended Jewish sensibilities about the Holocaust.
Uri, I always find your articles interesting, but agree with Jane on both points. I was brought up a Catholic and we were NEVER taught this attitude in Catholic schools in Australia in the 1940s and 1950s. It is decades since the Church “absolved “Jews of the death of Jesus.
As for hatred of Jews, many trace this to the very close and inclusive relationship Jews are alleged to have, keeping them from other groups by choice. Of course many other sects do this, and there is prejudice everywhere.
I find the Israeli pretence that “Arabs teach their children to hate us” quite the reverse. The hatred from the Israeli side, shown in textbooks as described by Miko Peled’s sister in her recent study, and of course the “settlers” and their violence, dwarfs any (justified?) reaction among Palestinians to their jailers.
I suppose you have read Jeff Halper’s book, “War against the People”.
Once and for all:
Antisemitism = racism = In my opinion: disgusting behaviour. Based on prejudices imputed to phenotypical and imputed genotypical attributes. The practical implication of antisemitism may culminate in pogroms and extermination, the micro-version of this is spitting insults or spit at jews. Antizinoism = stupid word.
Zionism = various forms of Nationalism for a jewish homeland = In my opinion can be civilized, or not. Galtung distinguishes between soft and hard zionism with Uri Avnery and himsel being soft Zionists in the Martin Buber, Einstein and Leibowitz tradition, and Netanyahu being a hard zionist on the Vladimir Jabotinsky and Ben Zion Netanyahu line. Then there are the ultra hard zionists with people like the rabbi Kahane whose party was in the Knesset once and has been prohibited in Israel for being too radical. If my memory is correct, they’re even on the Israeli terrorist list.
Now, to be Anti-Iran is very different from the even more stupid term Anti-Israel. It makes no sense. One is anti-something specific! Israel or Iran are not SPECIFICITIES. They aare generalizations.
Think more before you taype!