chomsky/shahak talk
Seth Kulick
Chomsky & Israel Shahak about Israeli policies and Jewish fundamentalism?
Any comments?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Seth Kulick "There are no kings inside the
University of Pennsylvania gates of Eden" - Bob Dylan
sku...@linc.cis.upenn.edu
JonHaber
Who is Noam Chomsky?
Partly because of the originality of his work in linguistics, there is a
tendency to think of Chomsky’s political thinking as also original or
revolutionary. This is reinforced by the fact that he and most of his
most ardent admirers hail from academia, an environment where the
professorial class tends to exist in splendid isolation in time and space.
Of course, a visit to any decent academic library would reveal that NC
does have a political lineage -- that of the anti-Stalinist Left.
The myriad of left-wing political factions in Europe and (to a lesser
extent) the USA is a subject little understood by Americans who developed
their political consciences in the post-WWII era during which left-wing
politics had been marginalized in the US (thanks to McCarthyism and the
left’s own fratricidal tendencies). While Marxist and other Socialist
parties were able to garner over 20% of the popular vote during the
depression, multiple fissures split the left including the break between
those Communist parties allied with the Soviet Union vs. the anti-Stalin
parties which often flew under the banner of Leon Trotsky. Over the years,
Trotsky followers factioned along a multitude of ideological and political
lines while Soviet-allied Marxists also splintered, especially after the
Hitler-Stalin pact of the 1930s and Kruschev’s denunciations of Stalin’s
crimes in the 1950s.
Today’s political left tends to consist of competing “movements” and
“tendencies,” whose small memberships spend much of their time publishing
and distributing tracts and fighting amongst themselves. In the United
Kingdom, for example, the Socialist Party of Great Britain (SPGB) spend
most of their time condemning The Workers’ Revolutionary Party, the
Communist Party of Great Britain, the Militant Tendency and other damn
splitters for betraying the working classes. In the US of A, this
factionalism manifests itself in competing left-wing bookstores within
walking distance of one another in cities like Cambridge and New York
City.
The anti-Stalinist Left have had the advantage of never holding real
power, thus freeing them from the accusation of having abused it. At the
same time, the behavior leftist groups have displayed within their own
ranks: the lack of democracy, political judgment, cults of personality,
misogyny, and general “ends-justify-the-means” ideologies found within
these various splinters leaves one with the impression that if no worse
than the Marxists who actually came to power, they are certainly no
better.
Paging through the literature of the anti-Stalinist left would give
Chomsky readers a heavy case of deja vu. On the plus side, the
Trotskyites tended to slaughter sacred cows with a good deal more flair
and verve than their dreary Stalinist counterparts. At the same time, all
of Chomsky’s arrogance, his pseudo self-depreciation, his distortion of
history, fabrication or selective use of facts, and over footnoting of
questionable source material -- all trademarks of the anti-Stalinist left
-- are on display. So too is the use of Stalin’s name (and the names of
Stalin’s apparachiks) to condemn one’s critics. Indeed, one is more
likely to be condemned as a Stalinist if one disagrees with the theories
of Noam Chomsky, than be accused of being a Nazi (although both slurs are
possible -- as are accusations of racism, sexism, genocidal tendencies and
mental illness -- overheated rhetoric being another trademark of the
militant left).
Chomsky tips his hat to some of the left-wing thinkers and parties that
influenced the development of his ideas in “The Chomsky Reader.” What is
not discussed is the trajectory some (but by no means all) of these
left-wing groups took from fighting the Nazis in World War II to defending
them today.
Of course, the overlap between the extreme left and extreme right in
politics has been well documented. Mussolini began his career as a
socialist, the Soviets and the Nazis found enough common cause to ally
themselves in the dismemberment of Poland, in the post-war world many
Eastern European fascists made a smooth transition to Marxism.
For much of the Soviet-allied and anti-Soviet left, however, the big slide
came in 1967. After Israel’s victory in the Six Day War, the Soviet Union
threw its weight behind the Arab cause and unleashed a torrent of
anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic propaganda through its allies and Marxist
support organizations around the world. The Trotskyites, rather than
opposing this explosion of Jew hatred as a way to distinguish themselves
from the Soviet Marxists, instead tried to top it. This was just one of
many issues in which Trotskyites and other anti-Soviet Marxists tried to
show that they could be “more Catholic (or in this case more anti-Semitic)
than the Pope.” Suddenly Israelis were no longer just “tools of
imperialism” in left-wing propaganda, but usurers. Suddenly (and ever
since) it was not just the capitalist Israelis who were the problem, but
all Israelis and all Jews everywhere.
How bad have things gotten? Well we have finally come to the point in
1994 when the mad writer Israel Shahak can publish a book like “Jewish
History, Jewish Religion” which finally reveals that it is the Talmud that
teaches Jews such anti-social tendencies like cursing when they pass a
Christian cemetery, and washing their hands twice before eating (once for
God and once for the devil). And not only does this contemporary
defamation of the Talmud feature an introduction by Mr. Gore Vidal, but a
cover quote commending Shahak’s “remarkable insight and depth of
knowledge” from Mr. Noam Chomsky.
A Chomsky debunker on the Internet very wisely said that it is not Chomsky
he dislikes so much as his worshippers. After all, other partisan writers
and thinkers are treated with perspective by critical thinkers. When one
reads something intelligent or (more frequently) stupid by Pat Buchannan,
one understands that this is the work of a reactionary who has problems
with blacks and Jews and judges his opinions accordingly (without
dismissing them out of hand). For Chomsky ditto-heads, however, NC’s is
not delivering a left-wing partisan, economic-deterministic, filtered view
of the world, but the world as it really is.
While it may be that it is Chomsky’s supporters who have turned him from a
run-of-the-mill leftist polemicist to the sage of East Cambridge, there is
a bone to pick with the man himself. As we reach the 21st century,
anti-Semitism -- that ever-morphing, but ever-existing ideology -- seems
to be ready to enter the new century with us, only this time cloaked in
the vocabulary of left-wing humanism, rather than right-wing xenophobia
and hatred. And who is responsible for breathing new life into the oldest
hatred? Not Noam Chomsky alone, but Noam Chomsky certainly.
Any comments?
Dsepst
I would like to warn people about a Mr. Jon Haber who posted that long
diatribe
on Noam Chomsky, the left etc.
Haber's raison d' `etre and number one obsession appears to be attacking
Chomsky. He hangs out in the NY Times and New Republic folders
in America Online and is ever ready to squelch any discussion with a
flood of invective.
Haber claims he is currently writing a book on the so-called "Faurisson
affair"
where he, I presume will attempt to prove the "neo-Nazi connections" of
"the professor." (Jon Haber's words).
Just a sampling of Haberesque ranting is below. Note this is an extremely
mild version. He decided to add this to an AOL folder after I posted the
Manufacturing Consent videotape information along with a review of
the film by the Nation.
Dan Epstein
Dse...@aol.com
.
Subj: Another plug for Man. Consent
Date: 94-11-12 21:35:58 EST
From: JonHaber
Dan My Man -- No time to reply to my challenges for the last several
months, yet suddenly you find yourself with valuable on-line minutes to
shill for your guru? Well, I can only add my two cents also encourage
people to see Manufacturing Consent.
You see, it was viewing this film in a theatre full of Chomsky ditto-heads
in Cambridge, MA that I came to realize what a dishonest, crackpot Mr.
Chomsky is and how his non-stop ranting over the last thirty years has
helped turn the left from a respectible political position into a
boobie-hatch of mediocre conspiracy theorists. Folks who watch the film
on home video will have two advantages over me: (1) You will not have to
watch row after row of nodding bafoons hang on every word of Mr. C. and
(2) You will be able to use your fast-foreward button to speed through the
countless minutes of goofy film-school schtick that infests this amateur
bit of hagiographic movie making.
Since Dan has been so kind to provide you with one film review of
Manufacturing Consent, let me give you another. The following was written
by yours truly and appeared in The Cambridge Chronicle last year:
CHOMSKY: AMERICA'S NUMBER ONE INTELLECTUAL (FRAUD) -- JON HABER
Question: What contains more white faces? A. The role call of experts on
ABC News' Nightline B. Manufacturing Consent, a three-hour documentary
chronicling the thoughts of MIT academic Noam Chomsky or C. The audience
for that documentary last week at Cambridge's Brattle cinema.
The number of white males dominating Ted Koppel's rolodex (85-90%) is one
of the factoids brought up in Manufacturing Consent in support of
Chomsky's theories of collusion between the media and the status-quo power
elite. Answers B and C (which tie for correct) show the questionable
value of such discrediting statistics in support of a Chomskian
hypothesis.
The fact that this documentary, designed to expose the propaganda tactics
of the power elite, is itself a bit of quaint agitprop is another irony
seemingly lost on both the film makers and their subject. On display at
the Brattle were all of the pre-MTV propagandizer's tricks: quotes taken
out of context (a comment by Daniel Patrick Moynihan during his tenure as
America's U.N. ambassador was particularly egregious), manipulative
background music, the camera held a bit too long on a particularly
buffoonish challenger.
Fair is fair, one might say. If Chomsky and his allies can use the
propagandist's tools against the media moguls and their government
masters, then more power to them. But like Chomsky's books, essays and
speeches, the Chomsky movie leaves a bad taste in the mouth, a feeling
that "America's most important intellectual" (a New York Times accolade
brought up many times throughout the film) may be suffering from chronic
intellectual and moral bankruptcy.
Take the case of East Timor, the most moving story in the film and a
subject of Chomsky books and essays for many years. At the same time the
Communist Khmer Rouge were decimating the population of Cambodia,
non-Communist Indonesia, an American ally, was visiting similar
destruction on their island neighbors, the East Timorese. During this
period the New York Times (the ultimate barometer of American interest)
was giving Communist Khmer Rouge atrocities ten times the coverage it gave
the sufferings in Timor. This is illustrated in Manufacturing Consent by
a side-by-side unfurling of column-inch counts (one of the movie's
countless filmic shticks) and offered as positive proof of the media's
fealty to those in power.
Subj: Review - Continued
Date: 94-11-12 21:36:53 EST
From: JonHaber
Manufacturing Consent Review (Continued)
But wait a minute. Was exceptional coverage of the Khmer Rouge at the
expense of Timor, or did it simply reflect the proximity of Cambodia to
that part of the world where America had so recently waged a brutal war?
And come to think of it, those who read accounts of the Cambodian tragedy
(rather than simply measuring column length) may remember that media
coverage of the killing fields was quite critical (rightly so) of
America's responsibility for the Cambodian catastrophe. Does this prove
that the media is actually challenging those in power, rather than
marching in lockstep with them? In typical hit-and-run fashion,
Manufacturing Consent moves on to the next subject.
Those who publicly criticize Chomsky (rather than simply disagreeing with
him) tend to focus on his playing fast and loose with footnotes and facts,
as well as on his peculiar connections with European, neo-Nazi,
Holocaust-denial movements. (To its credit, Manufacturing Consent devotes
considerable time to the subject of Chomsky's relationship with these
French revisionists, although anyone familiar with the details of the case
will know that Chomsky's defense - that his connections go no further than
defending their free speech - is somewhat disingenuous.)
But these are criticisms of symptoms. The disease is a massive schism
between the theorizing of a ideologist and those who must live with the
consequences.
"When we consider the responsibility of intellectuals, our basic concern
must be their role in the creation and analysis of ideology." This famous
1966 Chomsky quote was excerpted by the Arab writer Kanan Makiya in his
recent book Cruelty and Silence. The cruelty described in Mikiya's work
is the horror and violence visited on the Arab people by their homicidally
dysfunctional rulers. (The first half of his book is a long and moving
account of the suffering of his fellow Iraqis.)
Mikiya blames this suffering not on Western Imperialism or on Israel
(although he is no friend to either), but on the silence of Arab
intellectuals, on their unwillingness to confront the cruel truth of Arab
politics, and their tendency to blame all problems on "the other," be that
Zionist, Yankee or Iraqi author.
It is in this moral vacuum, where intellectuals apologize for tyranny,
then dance away from responsibility (eloquently claiming they have done
nothing of the kind) that Mr. Chomsky keeps company. In this
morally-equivocating free-for-all, why not a Saddam Hussein fighting for
Arab and Muslim honor? Or a Yassir Arafat or a Slobadon Milosovich
battling for national self-determination? When the thinkers have so
polluted the language of politics, can the thugs be far behind?
Those familiar with Noam Chomsky's extraordinary life know that he is a
brilliant linguist, a skilled debater and a passionate public figure.
There are two possibilities, then, for his current state of intellectual
affairs: (1) His wisdom as the man who codified language gives him unique
political insight into the ways of people and nations, justifying his
reputation as a seer or (2) He is a sophist whose posturing simply reflect
great rhetorical skills applied to bankrupt ideas.
If he is a prophet, then his critics are bad men or dupes and we will
suffer our fate when this house of cards we have built comes crashing
down. But if he is a fraud, then the liberalism which so many of us hold
dear should rid itself of his brand of snake oil for good.
Seth Kulick
>I attended the meeting where the following was handed out:
[long text deleted]
well, I was actually asking for comments about the talk. I was curious
about what the two speakers had to say. If you spent that much time
typing that in, then why not a word or two about the talk? Who was it
who handed out that text, by the way? Somebody who might have already
had it in electronic form?
So once again, did anybody reading this attend the Chomsky/Shahak talk who's
interested in a discussion? I heard Shahak speak in NY, with Edward Said
introducing him. I was curious as to any additional comments Chomsky had
about this topic.
whatever
misc.activism.progressive. Also, all the stuff on a.p.r-l isn't
Stalinist, just the guy posting the PCP/Sendero Luminoso (no, Maoists,
just as bad) and the MIM posting convoluted crap about how there is no
white proletariat (tell the miners in Poland, I'm sure they'll be
relieved to find out they're solidly part of the bourgoisie.
--
je...@teleport.COM Public Access User --- Not affiliated with TECHbooks
Public Access UNIX and Internet at (503) 220-1016 (2400-14400, N81)
whatever
: Of course, a visit to any decent academic library would reveal that NC
: does have a political lineage -- that of the anti-Stalinist Left.
Let's look at this for what it is: Stalinist propaganda. You can run on
over to misc.activism.progressive to find excellent examples of this
once-endangered species making a comeback. It's important for everyone
part of the REAL non-Stalinist Left: anarcho-syndicalist, Trotskyist,
socialist, and social democrat to fight together this antidemocratic
sophistry.
: The anti-Stalinist Left have had the advantage of never holding real
: power, thus freeing them from the accusation of having abused it. At the
One distinguishing characteristic of Stalinists is the fact words mean
different things to them. For instance, most people would consider
Social Democrats, Socialists, and Labor parties part of the
"anti-Stalinist Left", and they have held considerable "real power".
However, the "anti-Stalinist Left" means one thing to these people:
Trotskyists. Let's get one thing clear here. Chomsky is certainly part
of the non-Stalinist left. He is not a Trotskyist. It's just that simple.
: -- are on display. So too is the use of Stalin’s name (and the names of
: Stalin’s apparachiks) to condemn one’s critics. Indeed, one is more
: likely to be condemned as a Stalinist if one disagrees with the theories
This would appear to be a textbook example of "the pot calling the kettle
black".
: How bad have things gotten? Well we have finally come to the point in
: 1994 when the mad writer Israel Shahak can publish a book like “Jewish
: History, Jewish Religion” which finally reveals that it is the Talmud that
: teaches Jews such anti-social tendencies like cursing when they pass a
: Christian cemetery, and washing their hands twice before eating (once for
: God and once for the devil). And not only does this contemporary
: defamation of the Talmud feature an introduction by Mr. Gore Vidal, but a
: cover quote commending Shahak’s “remarkable insight and depth of
: knowledge” from Mr. Noam Chomsky.
How dumb have things gotten? Well, we have finally come to the point
where when even Jews like Noam Chomsky are not allowed to criticize the
idiocies (by no means exclusive) of fundamentalist Judaism. Suddenly, even
Chomsky is an anti-Semite for attacking the right-wing religious
fanatics that have been a large part of Israel since its founding.
John Elfrank (SMA)
: I attended the meeting where the following was handed out:
Was this a JDL meeting?
: Who is Noam Chomsky?
: Partly because of the originality of his work in linguistics, there is a
: tendency to think of Chomsky’s political thinking as also original or
: revolutionary. This is reinforced by the fact that he and most of his
: most ardent admirers hail from academia, an environment where the
: professorial class tends to exist in splendid isolation in time and space.
: Of course, a visit to any decent academic library would reveal that NC
: does have a political lineage -- that of the anti-Stalinist Left.
They're off to a bad start. Only his linguistic work is recognized by
academe, his political stuff is ignored generally.
"Anti-Stalinist Left?" This appears to be some ambiguous attempt at
pidgen-holing. Not as effective as presenting quotes in context of Chomsky
with critques and analysis.
: The myriad of left-wing political factions in Europe and (to a lesser
: extent) the USA is a subject little understood by Americans who developed
: their political consciences in the post-WWII era during which left-wing
: politics had been marginalized in the US (thanks to McCarthyism and the
: left’s own fratricidal tendencies). While Marxist and other Socialist
: parties were able to garner over 20% of the popular vote during the
: depression, multiple fissures split the left including the break between
: those Communist parties allied with the Soviet Union vs. the anti-Stalin
: parties which often flew under the banner of Leon Trotsky. Over the years,
: Trotsky followers factioned along a multitude of ideological and political
: lines while Soviet-allied Marxists also splintered, especially after the
: Hitler-Stalin pact of the 1930s and Kruschev’s denunciations of Stalin’s
: crimes in the 1950s.
Sounds like a Reader's Digest, quickee history, of Euro-Communism.
: Today’s political left tends to consist of competing “movements” and
: “tendencies,” whose small memberships spend much of their time publishing
: and distributing tracts and fighting amongst themselves. In the United
: Kingdom, for example, the Socialist Party of Great Britain (SPGB) spend
: most of their time condemning The Workers’ Revolutionary Party, the
: Communist Party of Great Britain, the Militant Tendency and other damn
: splitters for betraying the working classes. In the US of A, this
: factionalism manifests itself in competing left-wing bookstores within
: walking distance of one another in cities like Cambridge and New York
: City.
Yea, so tell us something we don't already know.
: The anti-Stalinist Left have had the advantage of never holding real
: power, thus freeing them from the accusation of having abused it. At the
: same time, the behavior leftist groups have displayed within their own
: ranks: the lack of democracy, political judgment, cults of personality,
: misogyny, and general “ends-justify-the-means” ideologies found within
: these various splinters leaves one with the impression that if no worse
: than the Marxists who actually came to power, they are certainly no
: better.
I don't know if it is worth it to continue since this notion of
"anti-Stalinist Left" seems too obscure to determine if Chomsky falls within
its category.
: Paging through the literature of the anti-Stalinist left would give
: Chomsky readers a heavy case of deja vu. On the plus side, the
: Trotskyites tended to slaughter sacred cows with a good deal more flair
: and verve than their dreary Stalinist counterparts. At the same time, all
: of Chomsky’s arrogance, his pseudo self-depreciation, his distortion of
: history, fabrication or selective use of facts, and over footnoting of
: questionable source material -- all trademarks of the anti-Stalinist left
: -- are on display. So too is the use of Stalin’s name (and the names of
: Stalin’s apparachiks) to condemn one’s critics. Indeed, one is more
: likely to be condemned as a Stalinist if one disagrees with the theories
: of Noam Chomsky, than be accused of being a Nazi (although both slurs are
: possible -- as are accusations of racism, sexism, genocidal tendencies and
: mental illness -- overheated rhetoric being another trademark of the
: militant left).
Wow, now were getting somewhere. But no citations to back-up what they
claim, no examples to illustrate. It looks so far like a smear sheet.
: Chomsky tips his hat to some of the left-wing thinkers and parties that
: influenced the development of his ideas in “The Chomsky Reader.” What is
: not discussed is the trajectory some (but by no means all) of these
: left-wing groups took from fighting the Nazis in World War II to defending
: them today.
I guess they think if one is critical of the Israeli government they are
therefore anti-semitic. This is an intellectually dishonest approach.
: A Chomsky debunker on the Internet very wisely said that it is not Chomsky
: he dislikes so much as his worshippers. After all, other partisan writers
: and thinkers are treated with perspective by critical thinkers. When one
: reads something intelligent or (more frequently) stupid by Pat Buchannan,
: one understands that this is the work of a reactionary who has problems
: with blacks and Jews and judges his opinions accordingly (without
: dismissing them out of hand). For Chomsky ditto-heads, however, NC’s is
: not delivering a left-wing partisan, economic-deterministic, filtered view
: of the world, but the world as it really is.
And they don't think they have the view of the world "as it really is?"
BTW, anarchists don't want followers. Those who follow don't get it.
: While it may be that it is Chomsky’s supporters who have turned him from a
: run-of-the-mill leftist polemicist to the sage of East Cambridge, there is
: a bone to pick with the man himself. As we reach the 21st century,
: anti-Semitism -- that ever-morphing, but ever-existing ideology -- seems
: to be ready to enter the new century with us, only this time cloaked in
: the vocabulary of left-wing humanism, rather than right-wing xenophobia
: and hatred. And who is responsible for breathing new life into the oldest
: hatred? Not Noam Chomsky alone, but Noam Chomsky certainly.
Again, another undocumented, unsupported smear of NC.
--
Eric Schissel
net, but misc.activism.progressive is not one of them.
don't take my word for it- go look for yourself.
-eric schissel
--
1.The most common mistake of young thieves is stealing complimentary copies.
2.Read misc.activism.progressive. (Std disc).
es...@crux2.cit.cornell.edu Eric Schissel, at least once in a while.
Eric Schissel
the only counter-example/exception to this i've seen recently is that
some Cornell professors do assign his books... maybe people see my posts
and figure that 'cause my userid says @...cornell.edu i represent academia :)
i'm an ex-student... well... that should clear that up...
(many smilies if that's not obvious)
i fear the burden is on Mr. Haber to convince me, and others, that the
quote from Mr. Moynihan .is. an out-of-context quote, i.e. a misrepresentation
of intent and/or fact; that his "over"footnoting doesn't pan out (i
challenged someone who claimed this a month ago and have yet to receive an
answer; he'd better answer quickly (private email) 'cause i lose this account
Nov. 30th), i.e. he quotes sources that aren't there or say something he claims
they don't; etc.
the claim that u.s. accounts of the crimes of the Khmer Rouge were honest
about the u.s. bombing and devastation that formed its background
seems a tad ridiculous, but i can only encourage my reader to look it
up on microfilm in a good library, since anything i post would be under
suspicion of bias and lying/distortion because i am obviously in agreement
with Chomsky. still, i'll see if i can't dig some of that up next time
i have an account (you haven't seen the last of me :) )...
JonHaber
was a bit anxious to get started in this forum. The details of the MIT
Chomsky/Shahak talk are as follows:
The event drew a crowd of about 4-500 folks. Noam gave a 45 minute
introduction to Shahak. It was pretty much the same post - “Handshake”
talk I have heard him give once live and once on Pacifica Radio. You can
get the gist of what you missed by reading the relevant Middle East
passages from “Prosperous Few and Restless Many” and “Keeping the Rabble
in Line,” two of Chomsky’s most recent Odonion interview books.
Shahak (a fairly dry speaker) was surprisingly constrained that evening,
choosing to underplay some of his more unusual assertions from his latest
book “Jewish History, Jewish Religion,” (the thesis of which is that it is
the Talmud, and not Zionism, which makes the Jews such anti-social and
dangerous beings). While he touched on these religious topics here and
there (particularly with regard to “redeemed” vs. “unredeemed” land) he
seemed to focus mostly on straightforward
human-rights-for-the-Palestinians issues.
It took a Q&A session to liven things up. One questioner asked Mr. Shahak
how the audience was supposed to believe the “truths” he was presenting
when his new book begins with an accusations against the Jews (that
religious law forbids a Jew to intervene to save the life of a non-Jew on
the Sabbath) a lie which he had been forced to confess fabricating way
back in 1966. (John Elfrank take note -- the SOURCE for this information
is Immanuel Jakobovits, chief rabbi of Great Britain in the Vol. 8, No. 2,
1966 edition of “Tradition” magazine.) The questioner asked Shahak to
assure us of the veracity of his claim (and thus his truthfulness) by
naming either the Orthodox Jew who had refused to use of his telephone to
save the life of a non-Jew or one of the rabbis who had supposedly
explained to him the Talmudic injunction against saving non-Jewish life.
Rather than name either, Mr. Shahak turned purple and declared the
questioner a “Jewish Nazi” (to the appalling applause of at least half the
audience). When others in the audience persisted in demanding an answer,
the group who sponsored the event -- champions of free speech and veterans
of the “no platforms for racists” heckling campaigns of years gone by --
did what comes naturally: they called the cops.
Let me know if you need any more details.
Dan Epstein -- I’m sure everyone here appreciates your dire warnings, but
I suspect that folks like Seth, Jeff and John can handle themselves.
In fact, you may want to learn a lesson from them. Unlike you who has
flitted from one forum to another, trying to find a place where your
non-stop postings of Chomskyana will you universal praise (and fleeing
when the kitchen gets too hot), these folks are willing to stand up for
what they believe in and to react to my challenges. This is something I
can appreciate even as I prepare my own spirited rebuttals.
This is where you and I split Dan. I make it a point to drop myself into
forums (either the Shahak/Chomsky meeting or this newsgroup) where I will
be a minority. And acting as (God forbid) a dissident voice, I choose to
take on opponents points directly. You, one the other hand, continue to
wander the ether endlessly hunting excuses for ignoring the points your
critics bring up. Maybe it’s time you take up MYST and leave the
political fights to people who stay in the ring.
JOHN>> Let’s look at this for what it is: Stalinist propaganda.
JEFF>> Was it a JDL meeting?
Now which one of you accused me of pigeonholing? Could we perhaps be
dealing with the “Who-Whom?” strand of polemics where every utterance of
an opponent must be decoded to determine WHO the writer is representing
and WHOM the writing benefits. Jeff smells a Stalinist in my work, while
John smells a Jewish right-winger.
JEFF>> It’s important for everyone part of the REAL non-Stalinist Left:
anarcho-syndicalist, Trotskyist, socialist, and social democrat to fight
together this antidemocratic sophistry.
Well if you are all going to join forces to let me have it, you’d better
decide between the two (or three or four) of you whether I am a Stalinist
or a Kahanite. Remember, of course, that neither of you know the
slightest thing about me save one posting and the rantings of Dan Epstein.
Does the fact that I walked a little old lady across the street in
Somerville make me a Stalinist apparachik or a Nazi? How about my
fondness for the Red Sox? WHO? WHOM?
JOHN>> ...no examples to illustrate. It looks so far like a smear
sheet...Again, another undocumented, unsupported smear of NC.
So, can I take it then that if I provided documentation for my assertions
you would believe me? Or (as I suspect) is any piece of evidence I can
possibly produce by the nature of its presenter tainted beyond use.
Jose Luis Vivas
|>
|> I would like to warn people about a Mr. Jon Haber who posted that long
I wonder if it's necessary. It took me 5 seconds and 3 lines to proceed to the
next message.
JLV
Dsepst
Some comments on Jon Haber's message seem appropriate along with
requests for clarification.
In article <3ahhbu$m...@newsbf01.news.aol.com>, jonh...@aol.com (JonHaber)
writes:
> Seth -- Sorry for using your simple request to hang my essay on. Guess I
> was a bit anxious to get started in this forum. The details of the MIT
> Chomsky/Shahak talk are as follows:
>
> The event drew a crowd of about 4-500 folks. Noam gave a 45 minute
> introduction to Shahak. It was pretty much the same post - "Handshake"
> talk I have heard him give once live and once on Pacifica Radio. You
can
> get the gist of what you missed by reading the relevant Middle East
> passages from "Prosperous Few and Restless Many" and "Keeping the Rabble
> in Line," two of Chomsky’s most recent Odonion interview books.
>
> Shahak (a fairly dry speaker) was surprisingly constrained that evening,
> choosing to underplay some of his more unusual assertions from his
latest
> book "Jewish History, Jewish Religion," (the thesis of which is that it
is
> the Talmud, and not Zionism, which makes the Jews such anti-social and
> dangerous beings).
Haber is deploying an old trick which is to overlook the fact that there
are diverse views among Jews about the meaning of the Torah, the
Talmud, and about Zionism as well as diverse views regarding how they
should--and do--manifest themselves in everyday life. Haber assumes
"the Jews" are monolithic and that Shahak doesn't differentiate
fundamentalist Jews from the rest.
So when Haber claims Israel Shahak states that "the Jews" are "anti-social
and dangerous" let him back up his claim with a precise quote and
appropriate context.
> While he touched on these religious topics here and
> there (particularly with regard to "redeemed" vs. "unredeemed" land) he
> seemed to focus mostly on straightforward
> human-rights-for-the-Palestinians issues.
Please tell us more. What is the religious aspect of "redeemed vs.
unredeemed land" that Israel Shahak "touched on"?
>
> It took a Q&A session to liven things up. One questioner asked Mr.
Shahak
> how the audience was supposed to believe the "truths" he was presenting
> when his new book begins with an accusations against the Jews (that
> religious law forbids a Jew to intervene to save the life of a non-Jew
on
> the Sabbath) a lie which he had been forced to confess fabricating way
> back in 1966.
Where did Shahak "confess fabricating" this "lie"? Please present a
reference.
>(John Elfrank take note -- the SOURCE for this information
> is Immanuel Jakobovits, chief rabbi of Great Britain in the Vol. 8, No.
2,
> 1966 edition of "Tradition" magazine.)
Is Haber stating that the chief rabbi of Great Britain documents this
"confess[ion]" by Shahak?
> The questioner asked Shahak to
> assure us of the veracity of his claim (and thus his truthfulness) by
> naming either the Orthodox Jew who had refused to use of his telephone
to
> save the life of a non-Jew or one of the rabbis who had supposedly
> explained to him the Talmudic injunction against saving non-Jewish life.
Perhaps the following is what excites Haber so. From a review of
Israel Shahak's _Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three
Thousand Years_ by Edward S. Herman in the August 1994 _LOOT_,
Herman
writes:
Even though it is clear that only a fanatical minority of
Jews consciously adhere to the doctrines of classical Judaism
that Shahak reviews, such doctrines will shock readers
unfamiliar with this material. In the authoritative religious
texts *only Jews count* (chap. 5, "The Laws Against
Non-Jews"). A Talmud maxim is that "Gentiles are neither to be
lifted [out of the well] nor hauled down [into it]." The
12th-century Jewish philosopher and Talmud commentator
Maimonides explained: "As for Gentiles with whom we are not
at war...their death must not be caused, but it is forbidden
to save them if they are at the point of death; if, for
example, one of them is seen falling into the sea, he should
not be rescued, for it is written: neither shall thou stand
against the blood of thy fellow--but [a Gentile] is not thy
fellow." Shahak offers an extensive and disturbing account of
many other Orthodox rules on desecrating the Sabbath, sexual
offenses, status, money and property, and the role of Gentiles
in the land of Israel. The essence of these rules is that
Gentiles are not quite human or deserving of any Jewish concern
or largesse, but accommodations must be made to avoid incurring
a possible anti-Jewish backlash. But if Jews are powerful
enough, they may properly operate on the principle that only
Jews have rights. Shahak says that these rules are regularly
cited by Israeli rabbis and their followers, "and are rarely
contested by the Zionist 'left'" (p. 91).
Given the times the words under discussion were authored and in light
of the history and suffering of the Jews as an oppressed minority, the
interpretation by Maimonides is not at all surprising. Of concern is if
they are taken seriously now that Israel is an oppressor. Haber's
attempt to ridicule this with some comments about a phone call is not
worthy of discussion.
Herman's review begins with a description of the book:
[Shahak's book] centers on the "Talmudic and Rabbinical
legal corpus of orthodox Judaism" known as the Halakhah...[In
the book] a central issue stands out: Shahak's concern that in
a country whose identity is inseparable from its definition as
a "Jewish state," there are chauvinistic and racist aspects of
Jewish religious tradition and practice toward non-Jews that
maintain a dangerous hold. He contends that unless these
obnoxious features are exposed and discussed they will continue
to poison Israeli policies as they have in the past.
Herman also quotes Shahak as saying "[t]o oppose both anti-Semitism
and Jewish chauvinism is widely regarded among Jews as a
'self-hatred,' a concept which I regard as nonsensical" (p. 4).
Since I have personally encountered this epithet I know precisely what
Shahak refers to.
Herman quotes Shahak from his book:
The support of democracy or of human rights is...
meaningless or even harmful and deceitful when it does not
begin with self-critique and with support of human rights when
they are violated by one's own group. Any support of human
rights in general by a Jew which does not include the support of
human rights of non-Jews whose rights are being violated by the
"Jewish state" is as deceitful as the support of human rights
by a Stalinist...
Note that this is from the "mad writer Israel Shahak" (to use Jon
Haber's description).
Israel Shahak , born in Poland in 1933 , is a Holocaust survivor who
was interned during his childhood in the Bergen Belsen death camp.
Perhaps he has learned some lessons for the rest of us to heed...
> Rather than name either, Mr. Shahak turned purple and declared the
> questioner a Jewish Nazi (to the appalling applause of at least half the
> audience).
What is the exact quote? Did he say "You are a Jewish Nazi!"? Was
the question put precisely as you represented it above? Was that the
only incident, a question?
> When others in the audience persisted in demanding an answer,
> the group who sponsored the event -- champions of free speech and
veterans
> of the "no platforms for racists" heckling campaigns of years gone by --
What is the name of this group that you characterize above?
> did what comes naturally: they called the cops.
Merely because of a question and nothing else?
>
> Let me know if you need any more details.
>
> Dan Epstein -- I’m sure everyone here appreciates your dire warnings,
but
> I suspect that folks like Seth, Jeff and John can handle themselves.
I'm sure they can. However, I thought Haber's posting of
a pamphlet which (obvious to me) he himself had actually written while
inferring otherwise, was, perhaps a bit disingenuous, especially after
publicly
proclaiming that he is authoring a book on Noam Chomsky's alleged
"neo-Nazi connections"; I felt that readers of the diatribe should be
presented
with the information that I had about the "dispassionate" poster.
> In fact, you may want to learn a lesson from them. Unlike you who has
> flitted from one forum to another, trying to find a place where your
> non-stop postings of Chomskyana will you universal praise (and fleeing
> when the kitchen gets too hot), these folks are willing to stand up for
> what they believe in and to react to my challenges. This is something I
> can appreciate even as I prepare my own spirited rebuttals.
>
> This is where you and I split Dan. I make it a point to drop myself
into
> forums (either the Shahak/Chomsky meeting or this newsgroup) where I
will
> be a minority. And acting as (God forbid) a dissident voice, I choose
to
> take on opponents points directly. You, one the other hand, continue to
> wander the ether endlessly hunting excuses for ignoring the points your
> critics bring up. Maybe it’s time you take up MYST and leave the
> political fights to people who stay in the ring.
I will respond to this in another message.
> Flame away boys.
>
> Jon Haber
I thought I would encounter some content, but the signal to noise ratio
has reached zero. Perhaps I'll turn on the radio. Is that the Twist I
hear?
Dan Epstein
Dse...@aol.com
Dave Rodriguez
>Mr. Shahak['s] ... new book begins with accusations against the Jews ...
>which he had been forced to confess fabricating way back in 1966.
Assuming your account is accurate it would indicate that Mr. Shahak has a
clear bias against the religious. It would then follow that what Mr. Shahak
writes on religious issues should be examined carefully and in this light.
Indeed, it's always a good idea to carefully examine what *anyone* writes
on political or religious matters. It is not, however, grounds to immediately
dismiss whatever he has to say. People being human, we all have our own biases
and prejudices. One should not attempt to strive to achieve some unattainable
goal of perfect objectivity but rather to simply make clear to ourselves and
others what our own individual biases and prejudices are.
As far as Mr. Shahak is concerned, his attitude is not particularly uncommon
among secular Israelis. There is a depth of animosity between many in the
secular/religious segments of Israeli society that is not well know outside of
Israel.
>When others in the audience persisted in demanding an answer,
>the group who sponsored the event ... called the cops.
I sympathize with your position, Mr. Shahak's response was clearly un-called
for. To be fair however, one should point out that while the audience is
perfectly within its rights to ask such a question, to "persist in demanding
an answer" borders on harassment. Mr. Shahak, or any speaker, is within their
rights in refusing to answer a question. Thus while I would tend to agree that
calling the police was an over-reaction, I would not view it as an outrage.
>I make it a point to drop myself into forums (either the Shahak/Chomsky
>meeting or this newsgroup) where I will be a minority. And acting as (God
>forbid) a dissident voice,
Fine. Unfortunately, the most telling criticisms of Chomsky that I've
seen have been made by Chomsky supporters. Most "critics" tend to babble
on about Chomsky's (admittedly sometimes shrill) style or focus on one or
two of his more inflammatory remarks or about dead horses such as Pol Pot,
Faurrisson, etc.
>So, can I take it then that if I provided documentation for my assertions
>you would believe me?
If you provide documentation for your assertions it would at least serve
as a basis for discussion.
David Rodriguez
Lamont Granquist
>This is where you and I split Dan. I make it a point to drop myself into
>forums (either the Shahak/Chomsky meeting or this newsgroup) where I will
>take on opponents points directly. You, one the other hand, continue to
>wander the ether endlessly hunting excuses for ignoring the points your
>critics bring up. Maybe it’s time you take up MYST and leave the
>political fights to people who stay in the ring.
John, welcome to Usenet where this kind of ego-gratification will wind
up getting you associated with Joel Furr. You might have a point about
Shatak and Chomsky's support of him, but i couldn't tell from what you
wrote. You've got one clear case of fucking up, and have then drawn the
conclusion that it is all worthless and have glossed over the rest of the
what he has written and relied on personal attacks. Try again.
And actually i'm really surprised to see that Chomsky would support
someone ranting about religion driving politics rather than religion
being used by politics. But, if true, it doesn't logically follow from
Chomsky's main theses on the structure of politics and can't really be used
to contradict them -- it would be like saying his political views could
invalidate his linguistic ones. Unless you've got a compelling evidence
that they're somehow connected that does not rely on arguments-by-
psychology...
And i'd love to hear what "those close to the issue" know about Chomsky's
support of holocaust detractors that those of us who are mere paeons have
been protected from. Coughing up some evidence of the media disussion of
the US role in the cambodian slaughter instead of merely asserting that
it happened would also be nice...
--
Lamont Granquist (lam...@u.washington.edu)
Q: How many economists does it take to change a light bulb?
N: None! If it needed fixing, the market would take care of it!
whatever
: Seth -- Sorry for using your simple request to hang my essay on. Guess I
: was a bit anxious to get started in this forum. The details of the MIT
: Chomsky/Shahak talk are as follows:
: The event drew a crowd of about 4-500 folks. Noam gave a 45 minute
: introduction to Shahak. It was pretty much the same post - “Handshake”
: talk I have heard him give once live and once on Pacifica Radio. You can
: get the gist of what you missed by reading the relevant Middle East
: passages from “Prosperous Few and Restless Many” and “Keeping the Rabble
: in Line,” two of Chomsky’s most recent Odonion interview books.
: Shahak (a fairly dry speaker) was surprisingly constrained that evening,
: choosing to underplay some of his more unusual assertions from his latest
: book “Jewish History, Jewish Religion,” (the thesis of which is that it is
: the Talmud, and not Zionism, which makes the Jews such anti-social and
: dangerous beings). While he touched on these religious topics here and
: there (particularly with regard to “redeemed” vs. “unredeemed” land) he
: seemed to focus mostly on straightforward
: human-rights-for-the-Palestinians issues.
: It took a Q&A session to liven things up. One questioner asked Mr. Shahak
: how the audience was supposed to believe the “truths” he was presenting
: when his new book begins with an accusations against the Jews (that
: religious law forbids a Jew to intervene to save the life of a non-Jew on
: the Sabbath) a lie which he had been forced to confess fabricating way
: back in 1966. (John Elfrank take note -- the SOURCE for this information
: is Immanuel Jakobovits, chief rabbi of Great Britain in the Vol. 8, No. 2,
: 1966 edition of “Tradition” magazine.) The questioner asked Shahak to
: assure us of the veracity of his claim (and thus his truthfulness) by
: naming either the Orthodox Jew who had refused to use of his telephone to
: save the life of a non-Jew or one of the rabbis who had supposedly
: explained to him the Talmudic injunction against saving non-Jewish life.
: Rather than name either, Mr. Shahak turned purple and declared the
: questioner a “Jewish Nazi” (to the appalling applause of at least half the
: audience). When others in the audience persisted in demanding an answer,
: the group who sponsored the event -- champions of free speech and veterans
: of the “no platforms for racists” heckling campaigns of years gone by --
: did what comes naturally: they called the cops.
: Let me know if you need any more details.
: Dan Epstein -- I’m sure everyone here appreciates your dire warnings, but
: I suspect that folks like Seth, Jeff and John can handle themselves.
: In fact, you may want to learn a lesson from them. Unlike you who has
: flitted from one forum to another, trying to find a place where your
: non-stop postings of Chomskyana will you universal praise (and fleeing
: when the kitchen gets too hot), these folks are willing to stand up for
: what they believe in and to react to my challenges. This is something I
: can appreciate even as I prepare my own spirited rebuttals.
: This is where you and I split Dan. I make it a point to drop myself into
: forums (either the Shahak/Chomsky meeting or this newsgroup) where I will
: be a minority. And acting as (God forbid) a dissident voice, I choose to
: take on opponents points directly. You, one the other hand, continue to
: wander the ether endlessly hunting excuses for ignoring the points your
: critics bring up. Maybe it’s time you take up MYST and leave the
: political fights to people who stay in the ring.
: JOHN>> Let’s look at this for what it is: Stalinist propaganda.
: JEFF>> Was it a JDL meeting?
: Now which one of you accused me of pigeonholing? Could we perhaps be
: dealing with the “Who-Whom?” strand of polemics where every utterance of
: an opponent must be decoded to determine WHO the writer is representing
: and WHOM the writing benefits. Jeff smells a Stalinist in my work, while
: John smells a Jewish right-winger.
I was reacting to the pamphlet you transcribed. You said you "got it at
the meeting". All I can say is: I think the JDL didn't write it. If
they did, they have reason plenty to dislike Chomsky. As for your own
aims, I cannot guess.
: JEFF>> It’s important for everyone part of the REAL non-Stalinist Left:
: anarcho-syndicalist, Trotskyist, socialist, and social democrat to fight
: together this antidemocratic sophistry.
: Well if you are all going to join forces to let me have it, you’d better
: decide between the two (or three or four) of you whether I am a Stalinist
: or a Kahanite. Remember, of course, that neither of you know the
Again, attacking the pamphlet, not you. I was not impressed by your AOL
postings, but they were not blatantly Stalinist.
John Elfrank (SMA)
: hrm, as to Chomsky being ignored by academe...
My impression has been that political science departments don't assign his
books. Any department associated with linguistics must. It would be like
requiring Einstein in a physics program. But, it is rare to see his
political work adknowledged.
elf
: the only counter-example/exception to this i've seen recently is that
--
JonHaber
means you are planning an imminent return to actual debate on America
On-Line as well. (If so, let me know and I will have AOL remove your face
from those milk cartons.)
For the sake of this thread, I was pleasantly surprised that you chose to
focus on Shahak for the majority of your response. Let’s take on this
issue chronologically, starting with Shahak’s 1966 libel that a Jew will
not intervene to save the life of a non Jew on the Sabbath (based on an
event he supposedly saw with his own eyes and had backed up by a
rabbinical council).
>> Is Haber stating that the chief rabbi of Great Britain documents this
“confess[ion]” by Shahak?
Since documentation seems to be so vital to you and others in this forum,
it should be noted that Shahak’s original accusation is NEVER DOCUMENTED
even when he choose to bring it up again in his latest book. (Nor did he
back it up at last week’s meeting at MIT, which he could have done by
simply stating the name of a single person involved in the incident.) Now
it strikes me that you are comfortable with the validity of Shahak’s
rather unlikely accusation since you have placed the burden of proof on me
and Rabbi Jakobovits to prove that it DIDN’T happen, rather than the more
rational approach -- asking (or helping) Shahak to prove that it did.
I’ll tell you what -- I will continue to look up more references to
Shahak’s “confession,” but I think it only fair that you also undertake an
investigation to prove that such an event DID take place. I realize that
this will take time away from your reading, re-reading and inputting
Chomsky and Ed Herman articles, but you may want to start with the
Jakobovits article in “Tradition Magazine” (Vol. 8, No. 2, 1966) since it
contains a scholarly explanation of the *opposite* of Shahak’s conclusion,
that according to the Talmud the life of a non-Jew MUST be saved, just as
would the life of a Jew. You may also want to look at the work of Jacob
Katz, probably the world’s most respected scholar on Christian Jewish
relations in the Middle Ages. In his works (which are all quite
readable), Katz does not deny the existence of anti-Christian statements
throughout the ages, but he puts them into the context of a constantly
changing relationship between the two communities and the continually
evolving nature of Talmud and Jewish law.
Both Katz and another scholar, Sander Gilman, also put Mr. Shahak into his
proper historical context. Throughout history there have always been that
small minority of Jews who have internalized the hatred directed against
them, rather than fight it. (As you probably know, this is a problem that
affects all minority communities subject to racism and oppression.) In
the past, such Jews would normally convert to Christianity, bringing with
them the “secret” Jewish language and the “hidden” evils of the Talmud to
support the anti-Jewish pronouncements by Christian leaders and help
insight the mob. Shahak has chosen a late 20th century variant on this
formula, keeping (even flaunting) his identity as a Jew, an Israeli and a
Holocaust survivor while carrying on the tradition of Talmud defamation
from the fringes of radical politics.
>>So when Haber claims Israel Shahak states that “the Jews” are
“anti-social and dangerous” let him back up his claim with a precise quote
and appropriate context.
Well here are some quotes Dan. Why don’t you explain to me what possible
context they can be placed in or how they can be explained as anything
other than old fashioned Jew hating:
“Do you know what the Talmud says about Christ? It says that he was born
on a dung heap -- yes -- and it says that he was the son of a whore...”
“According to a majority of talmudic authorities, it is a religious duty
to take as much interest as possible on a loan made to a gentile.”
“Anyone who wants to become well known in the world need only touch on the
Jewish question. Anyone who wants to write about the Chinese or
Japanese... that world would not interest anyone in the world. That is
proof that there is Jewish problem, because there is an immediate
reaction if anyone says a word about the Jews.
I hope it will not be another six months before we hear from you.
John Elfrank (SMA)
: Seth -- Sorry for using your simple request to hang my essay on. Guess I
: was a bit anxious to get started in this forum. The details of the MIT
: Chomsky/Shahak talk are as follows:
: It took a Q&A session to liven things up. One questioner asked Mr. Shahak
: how the audience was supposed to believe the “truths” he was presenting
: when his new book begins with an accusations against the Jews (that
: religious law forbids a Jew to intervene to save the life of a non-Jew on
: the Sabbath) a lie which he had been forced to confess fabricating way
: back in 1966. (John Elfrank take note -- the SOURCE for this information
: is Immanuel Jakobovits, chief rabbi of Great Britain in the Vol. 8, No. 2,
: 1966 edition of “Tradition” magazine.)
I know nothing of Mr. Shahak. I made reference to undocumented
generalizations against Chomsky in the previous post.
It was me (John) and it was an honest question based on the ideas in the you
presented in the post. It is certainly plausible in my mind, because it
reminded me of the Kahanites I knew when I lived in Brooklyn, i.e. to
criticize the government of Israel is to be anti-semetic (unless you are a
follower of Mayer Kahane).
: JEFF>> It’s important for everyone part of the REAL non-Stalinist Left:
: anarcho-syndicalist, Trotskyist, socialist, and social democrat to fight
: together this antidemocratic sophistry.
Itneresting how we can all be lumped into one convienient category, yet they
can make direct criticisms that think we all think the same way.
: Well if you are all going to join forces to let me have it, you’d better
: decide between the two (or three or four) of you whether I am a Stalinist
: or a Kahanite. Remember, of course, that neither of you know the
: slightest thing about me save one posting and the rantings of Dan Epstein.
: Does the fact that I walked a little old lady across the street in
: Somerville make me a Stalinist apparachik or a Nazi? How about my
: fondness for the Red Sox? WHO? WHOM?
: JOHN>> ...no examples to illustrate. It looks so far like a smear
: sheet...Again, another undocumented, unsupported smear of NC.
: So, can I take it then that if I provided documentation for my assertions
: you would believe me? Or (as I suspect) is any piece of evidence I can
: possibly produce by the nature of its presenter tainted beyond use.
I can investigate the charges, which is the purpose of documentation.
Without documentation, how do I know that your statments are verifiable?
I don't know if you went to college. But, where I went the professors
required these things called footnotes and bibliographies.
elf
whatever
: affects all minority communities subject to racism and oppression.) In
: the past, such Jews would normally convert to Christianity, bringing with
: them the “secret” Jewish language and the “hidden” evils of the Talmud to
: support the anti-Jewish pronouncements by Christian leaders and help
: insight the mob. Shahak has chosen a late 20th century variant on this
: formula, keeping (even flaunting) his identity as a Jew, an Israeli and a
: Holocaust survivor while carrying on the tradition of Talmud defamation
: from the fringes of radical politics.
The evil aspect of Judaism in the 20th Century is the effective campaign
against dissentors. Someone dares to criticize religious fanatics?
They're not true Jews, but anti-Semites, self-haters. Would you swallow
it if Christian fundamentalists applied the same standards to their more
enlightened brethren? Or would you see it for what it is, the
repression of truth?
Face facts: the Talmud, just like any other religious work, contains
folly. Otherwise it wouldn't be religious. Some of the statements in the
Talmud are downright scary. However, attacking the Talmud doesn't
mean you hate Jews.
: Well here are some quotes Dan. Why don’t you explain to me what possible
: context they can be placed in or how they can be explained as anything
: other than old fashioned Jew hating:
: “Do you know what the Talmud says about Christ? It says that he was born
: on a dung heap -- yes -- and it says that he was the son of a whore...”
Again, Jon, CRITICISM OF THE TALMUD DOES NOT EQUAL CRITICISM OF NON-FANATIC
JEWS. Most of the Jews I know aren't even kosher. However, there is a large
enough faction of Jews who are fanatical, just like there are
enough Christian loonies to worry about. The Kahanists and others of
their ilk are not allowed to be hateful and intolerant simply because of
anti-Semitism.
JonHaber
writes:
: >The evil aspect of Judaism in the 20th Century is the effective
campaign
: >against dissenters. Someone dares to criticize religious fanatics?
: >They’re not true Jews, but anti-Semites, self-haters.
: This is not the first place where people protesting the supposed Jewish
: campaign against dissent has left me bewildered. I subscribe to a
number
: of Jewish and Israeli publications and follow Jewish politics both
locally
: and internationally for years and never have I encountered such
: self-critical, navel gazing and second guessing national dialog. The
: Jewish world’s tolerance for dissent certainly outstrips most debates I
: have ever taken part in -- including (I should say especially) this one.
>Certainly there is a large amount of dissent among Jews - perhaps
>"effective" was a bad choice of words. What is fairly effective about it
>is portraying a unified face to us Gentiles.
While you may have to read the Jewish press to expose yourself to the full
breadth of discussion within the Jewish community, obscure publications
like “The New York Times” probably give more play to this debate than they
do to ones going on within any other ethnic group. So, if you only see a
“unified face” presented to you, I suspect that you are not looking that
hard. If by a “unified face” you mean that the majority of Jews share a
consensus to fight against discrimination and for support of Israel and
have organized themselves politically to achieve these goals, I don’t see
why you feel this is “the evil aspect of Judaism in the 20th century” as
you called it. When African Americans or other minority groups similarly
organize to fight racism or lobby against apartheid, I suspect you join me
in celebrating those efforts. Why is it then that Jews asking for similar
political rights are seen as a threat?
>You won't read much about Israeli doves or Chomsky and other dissenting
>American Jewish intellectuals in Time or your local newspaper.
What I have discovered over the years is that the notion of an organized
Jewish hierarchy ready to label any critic of Israel an “anti-Semite” or a
“self-hater” is a red herring. In truth, people like Noam Chomsky and
Israel Shahak resent being criticized themselves as they heap scorn on
Israel as a criminally degenerate society and lackey to the United States.
Thus they brand any criticism of their sacred personages as a reaction by
a cabal of Jewish zealots.
>You will see ex-terrorists like Rabin pitted against current terrorists
in the
>"framed" debate.
Oh, by the way, you got your Middle East cliches wrong. It is Menachem
Begin, Israeli prime minister in the late 1970s and early 1980s, who
radical chicdom labeled a “former terrorist” because of his activity in
the Irgun Jewish underground in the 1930s and 1940s. Your posting is the
first time I have heard this calumny spill over to Rabin.
>The example you give (of race-based IQ theories) best illustrates the
>statement "Criticism of the Talmud *probably* equals criticism of Jews",
>which is hardly what I said. Criticism is criticism and hatred is
>hatred, and history is necessary for your argument that Shahak and
>Chomsky are anti-Semites, not to tell the two apart.
>I guess it boils down to this: what is anti-Semitism? Is it a hatred of
>Jews as an ethnic group or dislike for Jews as a religious group? If it
>is religious, I must plead guilty; I consider Judaism and all other
>religions a blot on the human race. If it is ethnic, Shahak, Chomsky,
>and I come clean. Which is it? It can't be both.
I think you have missed the point of what bigotry is all about. It is not
the object of hate who bears responsibility for racism, but the hater.
Thus it makes no difference whether someone hates me because of my Jewish
religion, or because he feels my Jewishness is a racial characteristic.
In fact, it is exactly the type of glib hair splitting you present here
that opens the door to either an apology for hatred or the full-blown
thing. Consider the following:
:Well here are some quotes Dan. Why don’t you explain to me what possible
:context they can be placed in or how they can be explained as anything
:other than old fashioned Jew hating:
:“Do you know what the Talmud says about Christ? It says that he was born
:on a dung heap -- yes -- and it says that he was the son of a whore...”
:“According to a majority of talmudic authorities, it is a religious duty
:to take as much interest as possible on a loan made to a gentile.”
:“Anyone who wants to become well known in the world need only touch on
the
:Jewish question. Anyone who wants to write about the Chinese or
:Japanese... that world would not interest anyone in the world. That is
:proof that there is Jewish problem, because there is an immediate
:reaction if anyone says a word about the Jews.
>Again, Jon, CRITICISM OF THE TALMUD DOES NOT EQUAL CRITICISM OF
>NON-FANATIC JEWS. Most of the Jews I know aren't even kosher. However,
>there is a large enough faction of Jews who are fanatical, just like
there are
>enough Christian loonies to worry about. The Kahanists and others of
>their ilk are not allowed to be hateful and intolerant simply because of
>anti-Semitism.
You will notice that I did not say that these three quotes were all from
Shahak’s book. In fact, only one is. The other two (including the one
you claim “DOES NOT EQUAL CRITICISM OF NON-FANATIC JEWS”) are from Julius
Streicher, editor of Nazi Germany’s number one Jew-hating publication “Der
Stuermer.” It is interesting enough that Shahak’s and Streicher’s words
are so indistinguishable. But I find it more interesting that your
ideology allows you to blind yourself to the existence of anti-Semitism
even when it comes from the mouth of one of history’s greatest haters, a
man who made no distinction between Jews as a religious identity or Jews
as a race.
Think about that long and hard Jeff.
Jon Haber
Dsepst
It has been over a week so far and Jon Haber has yet to document
any of the charges he makes in a slew of messages. In addition,
he has not presented any of the information requested -- about
the Shahak/Chomsky talk for which he organized a disruption -- or
about his "review" of "Manufacturing Consent." What are we to
make of this?
Will Haber answer the questions or not?
In my previous message in this thread I stated that I would
address Haber's charge of my past ducking of "debate" with him.
At first I thought I would add to this discussion group a full
explanation of my "ducking" including documentation indicating
otherwise but I believe that Haber has presented right before our
eyes an excellent case study of his type of "debate" -- ignore
inconvenient facts, twist others, and introduce a never ending
torrent of personal invective. (Recall Haber's astonishment in
discovering that, in his words, "documentation seems to be so
vital to you and others in this forum...", 19 Nov.).
I will gladly forward my response on AOL to which Haber refers
but the discussion took the same general direction as this one --
obfuscation, ignoring inconvenient facts and twisting the record
on the part of Haber and his allies in such bastions of
radicalism as the NY Times and New Republic discussion groups,
where Haber "act[s] as (God forbid) a dissident voice" and
"take[s] on opponents directly".
I apologize to those who find this exercise a waste of time and I
would urge others before engaging in "debate" with Haber and his
ilk to make them substantiate their charges before engaging in
endless "discussion."
Let me repeat my questions for Mr. Haber, and I'll even number them
for him (1-9).
While Haber is at it, perhaps he can ponder Israel Shahak's quotes
below.
Dan Epstein
Dse...@aol.com
[snip]
> Shahak (a fairly dry speaker) was surprisingly constrained that evening,
> choosing to underplay some of his more unusual assertions from his
latest
> book "Jewish History, Jewish Religion," (the thesis of which is that it
is
> the Talmud, and not Zionism, which makes the Jews such anti-social and
> dangerous beings).
Haber is deploying an old trick which is to overlook the fact that there
are diverse views among Jews about the meaning of the Torah, the
Talmud, and about Zionism as well as diverse views regarding how they
should--and do--manifest themselves in everyday life. Haber assumes
"the Jews" are monolithic and that Shahak doesn't differentiate
fundamentalist Jews from the rest.
1. So when Haber claims Israel Shahak states that "the Jews" are
"anti-social and dangerous" let him back up his claim with a precise
quote and appropriate context.
> While he touched on these religious topics here and
> there (particularly with regard to "redeemed" vs. "unredeemed" land) he
> seemed to focus mostly on straightforward
> human-rights-for-the-Palestinians issues.
2. Please tell us more. What is the religious aspect of "redeemed
vs. unredeemed land" that Israel Shahak "touched on"?
>
> It took a Q&A session to liven things up. One questioner asked Mr.
Shahak
> how the audience was supposed to believe the "truths" he was presenting
> when his new book begins with an accusations against the Jews (that
> religious law forbids a Jew to intervene to save the life of a non-Jew
on
> the Sabbath) a lie which he had been forced to confess fabricating way
> back in 1966.
3. Where did Shahak "confess fabricating" this "lie"? Please present
a reference.
>(John Elfrank take note -- the SOURCE for this information
> is Immanuel Jakobovits, chief rabbi of Great Britain in the Vol. 8, No.
2,
> 1966 edition of "Tradition" magazine.)
4. Is Haber stating that the chief rabbi of Great Britain documents
this "confess[ion]" by Shahak?
NOTE: To this question, Haber now claims that the
"fabriction" to which Israel Shahak "confessed" is not even
documented. Unless Haber presents some evidence to the
contrary, one should assume that Israel Shahak was never
"forced to confess fabricating" the "lie" as Haber
at first claimed. In addition, the excerpt I presented should
clear up
the matter as to Israel Shahak's point (completely ignored by
Haber). Perhaps Haber does not understand the interpretation
by
Maimonides to which Israel Shahak refers...
> The questioner asked Shahak to
> assure us of the veracity of his claim (and thus his truthfulness) by
> naming either the Orthodox Jew who had refused to use of his telephone
to
> save the life of a non-Jew or one of the rabbis who had supposedly
> explained to him the Talmudic injunction against saving non-Jewish life.
Perhaps the following is what excites Haber so. From a review of
> Rather than name either, Mr. Shahak turned purple and declared the
> questioner a Jewish Nazi (to the appalling applause of at least half the
> audience).
5. What is the exact quote? Did he say "You are a Jewish Nazi!"?
6. Was the question put precisely as you represented it above?
7. Was that the only incident, a question?
> When others in the audience persisted in demanding an answer,
> the group who sponsored the event -- champions of free speech and
veterans
> of the "no platforms for racists" heckling campaigns of years gone by --
8. What is the name of this group that you characterize above?
> did what comes naturally: they called the cops.
9. Merely because of a question and nothing else?
[snip]
whatever
: In article <3b16gp$6...@elaine.teleport.com>, je...@teleport.com (whatever)
: writes:
: >Certainly there is a large amount of dissent among Jews - perhaps
: >"effective" was a bad choice of words. What is fairly effective about it
: >is portraying a unified face to us Gentiles.
: While you may have to read the Jewish press to expose yourself to the full
: breadth of discussion within the Jewish community, obscure publications
: like “The New York Times” probably give more play to this debate than they
: do to ones going on within any other ethnic group. So, if you only see a
: “unified face” presented to you, I suspect that you are not looking that
: hard. If by a “unified face” you mean that the majority of Jews share a
: consensus to fight against discrimination and for support of Israel and
: have organized themselves politically to achieve these goals, I don’t see
: why you feel this is “the evil aspect of Judaism in the 20th century” as
: you called it. When African Americans or other minority groups similarly
: organize to fight racism or lobby against apartheid, I suspect you join me
: in celebrating those efforts. Why is it then that Jews asking for similar
: political rights are seen as a threat?
Again, another faulty analogy. You seem to specialize in them.
Generally, the Jewish demands I criticize are not present in the black
civil rights movement, and similar demands from black nationalist groups
I find fault with as well. Also, your point about Jews getting a
disproportionate share of media coverage is interesting - don't you think
that is a much more likely source of Anti-Semitic feeling than books by
Chomsky?
: >You won't read much about Israeli doves or Chomsky and other dissenting
: >American Jewish intellectuals in Time or your local newspaper.
: What I have discovered over the years is that the notion of an organized
: Jewish hierarchy ready to label any critic of Israel an “anti-Semite” or a
: “self-hater” is a red herring. In truth, people like Noam Chomsky and
: Israel Shahak resent being criticized themselves as they heap scorn on
: Israel as a criminally degenerate society and lackey to the United States.
: Thus they brand any criticism of their sacred personages as a reaction by
: a cabal of Jewish zealots.
This is certainly not true - your generalization shows little knowledge
of Chomsky's work. He deals with those who employ ad hominem attacks
separately from Jews like A.M. Rosenthal who criticize him differently.
There is no Chomsky, Shahak, Stone etc. equivalent of the sentiment that
"There is no difference between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism", a
popular Zionist argument.
: >You will see ex-terrorists like Rabin pitted against current terrorists
: in the
: >"framed" debate.
: Oh, by the way, you got your Middle East cliches wrong. It is Menachem
: Begin, Israeli prime minister in the late 1970s and early 1980s, who
: radical chicdom labeled a “former terrorist” because of his activity in
: the Irgun Jewish underground in the 1930s and 1940s. Your posting is the
: first time I have heard this calumny spill over to Rabin.
I am quite aware of that. I was also told by an Israeli who had claimed
to have lost a leg in Lebanon that Rabin was responsible an attack on the
battleship Altilena, which was controlled by Begin's faction, that killed
many Israeli fighters. Sounds like terrorism to me. In fact, the
epithet "terrorist" could be applied to many of the founders of
the Israeli state - take our buddy Yitzhak Shamir, who in a letter
offered Hitler his support if Der Fuerher would team up with him against
the British (in Chomsky's book "The Fateful Triangle").
: >The example you give (of race-based IQ theories) best illustrates the
: >statement "Criticism of the Talmud *probably* equals criticism of Jews",
: >which is hardly what I said. Criticism is criticism and hatred is
: >hatred, and history is necessary for your argument that Shahak and
: >Chomsky are anti-Semites, not to tell the two apart.
: >I guess it boils down to this: what is anti-Semitism? Is it a hatred of
: >Jews as an ethnic group or dislike for Jews as a religious group? If it
: >is religious, I must plead guilty; I consider Judaism and all other
: >religions a blot on the human race. If it is ethnic, Shahak, Chomsky,
: >and I come clean. Which is it? It can't be both.
: I think you have missed the point of what bigotry is all about. It is not
: the object of hate who bears responsibility for racism, but the hater.
: Thus it makes no difference whether someone hates me because of my Jewish
: religion, or because he feels my Jewishness is a racial characteristic.
: In fact, it is exactly the type of glib hair splitting you present here
: that opens the door to either an apology for hatred or the full-blown
: thing. Consider the following:
To be flip and paraphrase NOFX, you should accept responsibility for what
you've done, but not for who you are. If you believe in the Talmud and
act on its precepts in harmful ways - I have every right to look down on
you. If you don't do anybody any harm - your flawed heritage doesn't
count. That's all there is to it.
: You will notice that I did not say that these three quotes were all from
: Shahak’s book. In fact, only one is. The other two (including the one
: you claim “DOES NOT EQUAL CRITICISM OF NON-FANATIC JEWS”) are from Julius
: Streicher, editor of Nazi Germany’s number one Jew-hating publication “Der
: Stuermer.” It is interesting enough that Shahak’s and Streicher’s words
: are so indistinguishable. But I find it more interesting that your
: ideology allows you to blind yourself to the existence of anti-Semitism
: even when it comes from the mouth of one of history’s greatest haters, a
: man who made no distinction between Jews as a religious identity or Jews
: as a race.
I'm speechless, Jon. Only one phrase comes to mind: no shit.
I saw National Vanguard meatheads peddle "Talmud Bits" three years ago,
and I'm fully aware of their anti-Semitic potential. Again, it comes
down to: do Jews follow these parts of the Talmud? The Nazis would like
you to believe they all do. Chomsky thinks too many do. There's a
difference, and it's subtle but substantial.
: Jon Haber
Ronald Bleier
for quoting Ed Hermans' excellent review.
I wonder: is there any way to get an independent account of
what really happened at the talk. Maybe we should post this on lbbs.
ask chomsky and albert.
Ronald