Danny Cohn-Bendit comes out as a Zionist - like Albert Langer in
Australia

(1) Israel and the Empire: Jon Elmer interviews Jeff Halper

(2) Al-Qaeda, the Mythic Enemy, by Richard Labeviere

(3) IAEA chief urges Israel to scrap nuclear weapons

(4) [shamireaders] your responses to Marxists and the Lobby

(5) [shamireaders] Danny the Blue-and-White, by Israel Shamir

(1) Israel and the Empire: Jon Elmer interviews Jeff Halper

Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2003 14:31:41 -0800 From: Jeff Blankfort
<jblankfort@earthlink.net>

Jeff Halper is an anthropologist and the Coordinator of the Israeli
Committee Against House Demolitions, ICAHD.

Jon Elmer is currently reporting from Israel-Palestine and is the editor
of FromOccupiedPalestine.org.

Jon Elmer, FromOccupiedPalestine.org : You use the term 'matrix of
control' to describe the Israeli occupation. Can you explain exactly
what that is and how it functions ?

Jeff Halper : The Israel-Palestine conflict is often framed in terms of
territory : ending the occupation, a viable Palestinian state, and what
that means in terms of territory. But two states and a complete end of
the occupation, even in the best scenario, is not really the best
solution. The whole Palestinian state would be on only 22% of the
country, divided between the West Bank and Gaza. The State of Israel
today, within the 1967 borders, represents 78% percent of the country.
So even in the ideal situation, if the entire occupation ended and
Israel pushed back to 1967 borders, the Palestinian state would be in
only 22% of the country. Israel can't compromise on any more than that -
even that is a question mark.

But Israel does want a Palestinian state because it needs to get rid of
the three and a half million Palestinians currently living in the
Occupied Territories. If it can't send them out of the country, it at
least wants to enclose them in a little Bantustan-type state. And so,
the issue is framed in terms of territory, and what gets lost is the
issue of control.

The issue is this : will the Palestinians in the end have a state that
has potential for economic development, that has real political
sovereignty, that has control of its borders, that has control of its
resources, like water ? Will Palestinians have a state that is a
coherent territory that people can move freely within ? Is it a real
state, even if it's a small one, or is it really a Bantustan controlled
by Israel ?

And so, the matrix of control talks about how Israel controls the
Palestinians : through incorporating the West Bank into Israel-proper
with roads, through connecting electrical systems, water systems, urban
systems, and so on. It talks about Israel keeping military control,
about Israel keeping control of parts of the country like Jerusalem and
parts of West Bank, which in the end will leave the Palestinians with
non-viable islands.

The matrix of control talks about the use of planning and law, and
administration bureaucracy to control the movements, building, and
commercial activity of the Palestinians. In other words, what the matrix
of control says is that besides the issue of military control, and
besides the issue of territory, Israel exerts a lot of control over
Palestine. It controls the water, it controls the borders, it controls
Jerusalem, it controls their army, it controls their freedom of
movement. And unless we dismantle the matrix of control, we haven't
really done anything. The difference between a real Palestinian state,
even if it's small, and a Bantustan, is the matrix of control.

Now, I don't think we can dismantle the matrix of control. I think it
has gone too far, and that the occupation is permanent. We are in a
state of apartheid. But not everybody agrees with me - Uri Avnery
doesn't agree with me, the people who are in favour of a two-state
solution still think that we can end the occupation, or that we can roll
it back enough that a Palestinian state will emerge. But the danger in
being for a Palestinian state is that if you don't understand the
control dimensions, then you are actually agitating for a Bantustan. I
mean, Sharon also wants a Palestinian state ; he wants a state that is
completely controlled by Israel. So if you only look at territory and
you don't look at the issue of control, you end up advocating a
Bantustan.

Elmer : Do you see a long-term political plan within Israel ? Or is it
just reacting ?

Halper : Well, Sharon is accused of not having a political plan, and
just blindly hitting out against the 'infrastructure of terror,' as they
call it. But I think there is a very definite political plan -
apartheid. Sharon calls this plan cantonization : a Palestinian state on
about 42% of the West Bank in three or four islands, all controlled and
surrounded by Israel.

The plan involves making the Palestinians submit by getting a weak
Palestinian leadership that will sign off on this Bantustan, this
cantonization. It involves getting rid of the Palestinian middle class
that would oppose it by what we call 'quiet transfer' - forcing them out
of the country with bad housing, bad education and no economic life, in
order to create a very malleable Palestinian mass that would then simply
passively accept a Bantustan. Sharon is not saying that explicitly, he
is leaving things deliberately vague, but that is where he is going.

Elmer : Would a move toward a one-state solution, as you've suggested,
increase the likelihood of traditional ethnic cleaning ? As Sharon has
said, there is already a Palestinian state : Jordan.

Halper : It depends on how threatened Israel becomes. It doesn't need
ethnic cleansing at this stage, because Israel is in a situation where
it controls the whole country. A Palestinian state is necessary for
Israel, because unless you can place the Palestinians into a state of
their own, then Israel really does have existential dangers.

There are three and a half million Palestinians in the Territories, and
almost a million in Israel, that threaten the Jewish majority. So the
only way to keep a Jewish majority is to control the whole country. It
is to take the Palestinians, put them into these little islands, and
call it a state. That's what Israel will try to do.

Now, to the degree that this does not work, because, for example, the
international community doesn't accept the Bantustan - as in the case of
South Africa - or because of continued Palestinian resistance, or a
movement towards one state develops, or the refugees show signs of
wanting to return - namely, in a situation where Israel feels
demographically threatened, and therefore existentially threatened, it
could resort to transfer as a last resort.

Elmer : Commenting on the expulsion option, David Ben-Gurion wrote in
the 1930s, "What is inconceivable in normal times is possible in
revolutionary times ; and if at this time the opportunity is missed and
what is possible in such great hours is not carried out - a whole world
is lost."

Are the assassinations that Israel is conducting right now an attempt to
create the pretext for "revolutionary times," in much the same way that
they used the bombing raids on Southern Lebanon in 1981 and early 1982
to provoke the inevitable retaliation that provided the pretext for the
war on Lebanon in 1982 ?

Halper : The assassinations are partly an attempt to destroy a real
Palestinian leadership. Israel needs a quisling, a collaborator-type
leader - like in South Africa in the Bantustans - in order to make its
apartheid plan work. I asked a Palestinian fellow the other day, 'look,
Abu Mazen [Mahmoud Abbas] didn't work, Abu Ala [Ahmed Qureia] doesn't
seem to be working, aren't there any strong Palestinian leaders ?' He
said, "Israel killed them all." Like Abu Jihad [Khalil al-Wasir, head of
the military wing of the PLO killed in Tunis in 1988], the strong
Palestinian leaders were killed by Israel. And now they are threatening
Arafat. You eliminate the leaders that could really stand up to you, and
you only allow leaders who will sign off on this Bantustan to emerge. I
think it's a part of Israel's strategy. Israel thinks that if it can
defeat the Palestinians militarily, it can make them submit. It has to
break the Palestinians militarily.

Elmer : Is there a military solution ?

Halper : Sharon believes very much that there is a military solution.
The Israeli government and the army are working on the assumption that
this is a win-lose situation : we can win and they can lose. As a matter
of fact IDF Chief of Staff Moshe Ya'alon told Yedioth Ahronoth a couple
months ago that we won, and now we're just mopping up. Assassination is
part of the war to defeat the Palestinians, and it is also part of the
political process of eliminating leaders who won't agree to the
Bantustan option.

Elmer : Can you describe what you have called the "paradigm panic"
within Israeli society - how Rabin shaking hands with Arafat in Oslo
disturbed the "Arabs are our enemy" paradigm ?

Halper : From the 1920s until 1993, every generation of Israelis were
educated into the notion that "Arabs are our enemy." We're the good guys
; they are the bad guys, they are terrorists, they just want to kill us,
they just want us to "throw us in the sea" - there is no political
solution. After Oslo there starts to be a little bit of a change.

In Oslo the whole world turned around. On every Israeli television,
there it was, Yitzhak Rabin, a soldier, shaking hands with Yasser
Arafat. Maybe there will be a Palestinian state, maybe no occupation,
maybe no refugee problem· And you have a paradigm panic. For example,
there was a popular bumper sticker in Israel after Oslo saying, "This is
a nightmare peace." But in 1994 and 1995, there was a small window where
it looked like the old paradigm might be changing, but it was closed
down again with the election of Benjamin Netanyahu in 1996.

The Hamas bus bombings in 1996 did enough to give Netanyahu that
fraction of a percentage point electoral advantage in which he beat
Peres in the election - and that of course led to the collapse of the
whole Oslo process. With Netanyahu, you have a return to the old
paradigm, and Israelis are even further into that mindset today.

Elmer : Norman Finkelstein has commented that the Israelis have always
bided their time, waiting for "a miracle". He cites several examples :
i) The Balfour Declaration of 1917, which nobody could have predicted,
ii) The USSR and USA agreeing in the United Nations in 1947 on the
founding of a Jewish State, iii) during a serious economic crisis in the
1960s came the "miracle" of the June '67 war, and iv) the "miracle" of
the immigration of one million Soviet Jews, right at the time that the
'demographic bomb' was at its most threatening. Can you comment on this
?

Halper : It's true, we're waiting, but waiting from a position of power.
In all these instances, even though we had problems, we were still the
strong party. Today we are also waiting, because Israelis don't believe
there is any solution. And Israelis are also very disenfranchised ; we
have a system of government here that is really a rule by political
parties. You vote for parties, you don't vote for candidates in Israel,
so there is a huge distance between the parties and the people. No
political party in the history of Israel has ever gotten a majority in
the Knesset, so there has always had to be coalition governments, with
partners that your own voters wouldn't necessarily agree to.

As Avi Shlaim [pointed out] in the Iron Wall, when Nasser approached
Ben-Gurion in 1954 with a famous negotiation, Ben-Gurion turned him
down. He said that the Arabs will always make peace with us, because we
are strong. The Arabs will always sue for peace, so we can't do it too
early. First, lets get everything we want. So it is not a passive
waiting. You create a situation where you pick your opportunities, and
you are ready to spring.

The June '67 war was a miracle in a sense - it was unpredictable. On the
other hand, when it happened, Israel was right there ready and knew
exactly what to do. Within two weeks you had the Dayan Plan [settling
Jews in densely populated Arab areas, ie Hebron], Alon Plan
[establishing settlements as territorial buffers in strategic areas] and
Israel had already taken half of the West Bank.

Israelis today say that there is no solution, but we have American
support, European support, we're strong militarily, so something is
going to give, at some point, in someway. And when it does, we are
primed to take advantage of it. For now, we can wait.

Elmer : Noam Chomsky has said that Israel is essentially an offshore
American base. What strategic role does Israel play in the American
empire, and what does that mean for activism within the United States,
in terms of ending the occupation ? Does it make activism in the United
States just as important, or more important than in Israel, or in even
in Palestine ?

Halper : I don't completely agree with Chomsky - I think he
underestimates the proactiveness of Israel, and how Israel manipulates
the United States. In a way, if you did a rational analysis, you would
say that [America's support of Israel] is counter-productive for the
United States. It is messing up the whole Muslim world, it is messing up
oil, and now there is occupation of Iraq and its comparison to here. The
alliance of America and Israel made sense in the Cold War - we used to
have a joke within Israel that we were America's largest aircraft
carrier. Maybe then it made sense, but today ?

The key that everyone is missing, though Chomsky has picked up on it
because this is what he studies, is that Israel has located itself very
strategically right in the centre of the global arms industry. Israel's
sophisticated military hardware and military software are very important
to weapons development in the United States. Israel has also become the
main subcontractor of American arms. Just last year, Israel signed a
contract to train and equip the Chinese army. It signed another
multi-billion dollar contract to train and equip the Indian army. What
is it equipping them with ? It is equipping them with American weapons.

Israel is very important, because on the one hand it is a very
sophisticated, high-tech, arms developer and dealer. But on the other
hand, there are no ethical or moral constraints : there is no Congress,
there are no human rights concerns, there are no laws against taking
bribes - the Israeli government can do anything it wants to. So you have
very sophisticated rogue state - not a Libyan rogue state, but a high
tech, military-expert rogue state. Now that is tremendously useful, both
for Europe and for the United States.

For example, there are American Congressional constraints on selling
arms to China because of China's human rights problems. So what Israel
does is it tinkers with American arms just enough that they can be
considered Israeli arms, and in that way bypasses Congress.

For the most part, Israel is the subcontractor for American arms to the
'Third World.' There is no terrible regime - Columbia, Guatemala,
Uruguay, Argentina and Chile during the time of the colonels, Burma,
Taiwan, Zaire, Liberia, Congo, Sierra Leone - there is not one that does
not have a major military connection to Israel. Israeli arms dealers are
there [acting as] mercenaries - the guy behind Noriega was Michael
Harari, an Israeli, who got out of Panama. Israeli mercenaries in Sierra
Leone go around the UN boycotts of what are called blood diamonds, same
in Angola. Israel was very involved in South Africa, of course, during
the apartheid regime. Now Israel is developing missile systems with
England, developing a new jet aircraft for Holland, and it just bought
three sophisticated submarines from Germany. So Israel is playing with
the big boys.

Israeli arms dealers are at home, they're like fish in water in the
rough and tumble countries that eat Americans alive : Uzbekistan,
Kazakhstan, Russia, China, Indonesia, these countries where Americans
just cannot operate, partly because of business practices, and partly
because they have [Congressional] constraints and laws.

So this is the missing piece. If you read the American Israel Public
Affairs Committee ( AIPAC ) website, the main pro-Israel lobby in the
US, there's one piece called "Strategic Cooperation." The United States
and Israel have a formal treaty, a formal alliance, which gives Israel
access to almost all of American military technology.

When AIPAC sells Israel to Congress, it doesn't go to Congressmen and
ask them to support Israel because it is Judea Christian, or because it
is the 'only democracy in the Middle East,' which it also does. It sells
it on this basis : 'you are a member of Congress and it is your
responsibility to support Israel, because this is how many industries in
your state have business links to Israel, this is how many military
research people are sitting in universities in your district, this is
how many jobs in your district are dependent on the military and the
defence industry·' and they translate it down to the extent to which
your district is dependent on Israel. Therefore, if you are voting
against Israel, you are voting against the goose that lays the golden
egg.

In most of the districts in the United States, members of Congress have
a great dependence on the military. More than half of industrial
employment in California is in one way or another connected to defence.
Israel is right there, right in the middle of it all. And that is part
of its strength.

And then we ( the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions, for
example ) come to a member of Congress, we talk about human rights,
about occupation, about Palestinians, and he says : 'look I know, I read
the papers, I'm not dumb, but that is not the basis on which I vote. The
basis on which I vote is what is good for my constituents.'

So in terms of activism, when you are thinking of an international
campaign, an important part of it must be to expose Israel's links to
the defence industry, the arms industry, Israel's support of terrible
regimes and their violations of human rights, and what that is doing to
the world.

If you want to talk about Empire, although it is a tiny country, Israel
is a key member of the Empire. If you look at the AIPAC website they'll
say in black and white that the job of Israel is to protect American
economic interests in the Middle East. They say we are developing laser
weapons from outer space to protect American interests. It's all
upfront. Israel sees itself, and is proud of being a part of the
American Empire. Where Israel has a great PR advantage is that it
presents itself as a victim. It a country surrounded by a sea of Arabs,
and Arabs are all terrorists, and Muslims are fanatics.

Elmer : And playing the victim becomes a political tool, much like
anti-Semitism.

Halper : Yes. Anti-Semitism feeds on the idea that Israel is a victim.
The Foreign Ministry of Israel invented a new form of anti-Semitism in
the last few years called the 'New anti-Semitism,' and they then found
some professors willing to give it some academic credibility. The New
anti-Semitism that is now being spread all over says that any criticism
of Israel is anti-Semitism, period. And it has been very effective.

A member of Congress will say, 'besides voting for my constituents, I
also have to get re-elected, and the last thing I need is someone saying
I'm an anti-Semite.' This complex is very powerful, it allows Israel to
avoid accountability - you can't apply international law to Israel, you
can't apply human rights obligations, you can't hold it responsible for
its actions, because we are the victims, we are the weak party, we are
just defending ourselves. You can't criticize us, we are Jews, and you
persecuted us. This complex is impenetrable, and this is why Israel can
thumb its nose at everybody.

For example, [19 September 2003] the United Nations General Assembly
voted 133 to four against Israel's threat to remove Arafat. The four are
Israel, the United States, Micronesia and the Marshall Islands. That's
happened for years. It happened back in the '70s and Israelis said
'Micronesia ? Where is Micronesia ?'

And so they sent a journalist from Yediot Ahronoth to get out a map and
go to Micronesia. And he went and he found this little country that
doesn't even have a newspaper, and he said, 'why do you support Israel
?' And he was told, '100% of our national budget comes from the United
States, so we do what the US tells us - there is no issue here.' So
that's Israel's great Pacific ally, Micronesia. That's the point. The
entire world can be against the United States on these issues, and it
doesn't care, because that one United States vote more than equals the
other 133.

So we need to change the image that Israel is the victim. In other
words, we have to reframe things. Israel presents the conflict in a
certain way, and if we are just left to rebut them all the time, we will
never win. Whoever frames the conflict wins, whoever frames the
discussion wins, because conclusions follow from the way you frame
things. We need to expose Israel as the regional superpower and
[necessary component in the American Empire] that it really is. Its
economy is three times larger than Egypt, Palestine, Jordan, Syria and
Lebanon put together. Israel is not the little David of the area, but
actually the Goliath.

. This interview was conducted in Jerusalem, 20 September 2003.

(2) Al-Qaeda, the Mythic Enemy, by Richard Labeviere

Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2003 02:37:45 +1000 From: "makichris"
<chrispaul@netpci.com>

Al-Qaeda, the Mythic Enemy

By Richard Labeviere

Le Figaro

Monday 24 November 2003

http://truthout.org/docs_03/112603C.shtml

There's no terrorist attack in the world today that is not automatically
attributed to al-Qaeda, an organization considered operational at the
transnational, if not at the planetary level, and, in consequence,
necessitating a planetary response: the war against terror, dear to
American neo-conservatives. Bad analyses very obviously invite bad
responses. This is so true that ever since this global war on terrorism
has been launched, it has not really improved either world peace or
world security. On the contrary, the precipitate action supplied by the
American-British occupation of Iraq and the calamitous management of the
Israeli-Palestinian confrontation only reinforce the Muslim-Arab world's
menace and resentment against the new "Crusaders" of a West that decides
the standard of good for all civilizations.

The misunderstanding, or contradiction, goes back to the interpretation
of the September 11, 2001 attacks, which some thought it right to
analyze as an historic rupture as important as the end of the Cold War:
the old world ended, a new one began.To this optical illusion, a
correction of perspective must be opposed. In September 2001, while the
aerial attacks were taking place on New York and Washington,
fundamentalist-inspired jihadist groups (influenced by the Egyptian
Muslim Brotherhood and Saudi Wahabites) had already been slaughtering
people for over a decade in Algeria, Egypt, the Horn of Africa, and
South East Asia. The first attack against the World Trade Center dates
to February 1993; sixty-three Western tourists were slaughtered in Luxor
in November 1997; August 1998 attacks pulverized the American embassies
in Kenya and Tanzania. In response to American soldiers' continued
stationing in Saudi Arabia in the vicinity of Islam's holy sites,
fundamentalist groups attack Western interests and advocate the
restoration of a mythic Caliphate and the establishment of a universal
ummah1. Revived by an old sectarian and satanic filiation, the Bin Laden
movement incarnates the ultimate face of this activism that came to a
head in the September 2001 attacks. Those attacks are all the more
indicative of the end of a cycle in that the Taliban regime which
sheltered and armed Bin Laden was destroyed in December 2001.

The Afghanistan campaign opens a second period during which the Bin
Laden movement and its Arab Afghans reconstitute and find sanctuary in
the Afghani-Pakistani cauldron, especially in the harbor metropolis of
Karachi. The fundamentalist groups profit from several welcoming
structures there: some 300 madrassahs (Koranic schools) which daily
teach hatred of the West to several hundred thousand "students",
numerous Islamist parties recruiting for holy war in Kashmir, and the
ISI, the Pakistani army secret services, who have protected and trained
the Arab Afghans since the Afghanistan War against the Russians
(1979-1989). Nearly all the attacks committed since December 2001,
notably the assassination of the Journalist Daniel Pearl in Karachi
(January 2002), the attack against the Djerba synagogue (11 April 2002),
then against the French technicians of the Naval Construction Management
(DCN) May 8 2002 go back one way or another to the Karachi epicenter.

Finally, a third phase sees a new generation of activists emerge.

Educated and trained by Arab Afghans, these neo-fundamentalists, who
have never set foot in either Afghanistan nor in Pakistan, are recruited
from the Islamist movements that incarnate the opposition to the
families and the regimes in place in Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Indonesia,
and now, Turkey. For them, Osama Bin Laden has become an icon and
al-Qaeda, a symbolic, if not political, reference point. The authors of
the Bali attack (October 2002) were trained by the Indonesian army.
After the East Timor episode when they had not obtained the realization
of the economic and political promises the Indonesian generals had
dangled in front of them, they turned against their former leaders.
Those responsible for the murderous May 2003 explosions in Morocco, all
came from the slums of Casablanca or Tangiers, where over half the
population is a victim of illiteracy, and where an exponentially growing
and ever less controllable lumpen-proletariat demands a better
distribution of tourist revenues. In Saudi Arabia, the authors of the
May 2003 attacks, as well as of those perpetrated two weeks ago against
the al-Mohaya residential complex, are, for the most part, sons of Saudi
bourgeois families of Yemenite origin, a group that makes the country
function and aspires to responsibility. These new activists are careful
not to aim at Saudi targets, thus prudently avoiding setting off local
or tribal vendettas.

With regard to the latest attacks in Istanbul, the Turkish police almost
immediately arrested about twenty local activists duly known to the
intelligence services, even if it is politically more profitable for the
Turkish Prime Minister to condemn the ancestral Arab enemy and foreign
plots.

From then on the demonization of al-Qaeda is very practical. A superb
media invention, security haute couture label, consensual poster for the
bounty-hunters of another age, a crude, but effective, propaganda: if
al-Qaeda didn't exist, it would have to be invented. Since September 11,
2001 the al-Qaeda label has surreptitiously slid from designating a
criminal band with Bin Laden at their head, to specifying a high-tech
organization, to finally qualifying a planetary network: al-Qaeda has
"CNNized" itself, like the al-Jezira channel which serves its
communications. Al-Qaeda is everywhere, therefore, nowhere. Just as the
hidden Imam, Bin Laden, simultaneously dead and alive, is behind every
unexplained bomb explosion. Fortunately, his organization is there to
give sense to all the world's disorders.

The phantasm of a planetary, pyramidal al-Qaeda, that of a new
orchestration or of an International similar in all respects to
Comintern's, is in the process of justifying the biggest American
military-strategic redeployment effected since the end of the Second
World War. The endless war against terror has replaced the war against
the Communist monster. Consequently, it's not surprising to see old
U.S.S.R. experts redeploying their old scholasticism on the pretext of
an Islamist violence about which they know nothing, applying
anachronistic Kremlinology schemas to it. These American
neo-conservative ideological go-betweens stand guard on the old
continent. For the American Empire, it's important that the al-Qaeda
mythology persist. To survive, the empire needs an enemy to its measure
and to make war on: endless war.

*Editor-in-Chief and Editorialist at Radio France Internationale (RFI).

His latest book to come out: Les Coulisses de la terreur (Behind the
Scenes of Terror), Grasset, 2003.

(3) IAEA chief urges Israel to scrap nuclear weapons

Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2003 22:09:05 +0500 From: "Qasim KZ"
<qasim@jumeirahbeach.com> Sent: Friday, November 28, 2003 9:47 PM
Subject: IAEA to Israel, get rid of nukes

I wonder what Israel thinks of this? Peter Z

IAEA chief urges Israel to scrap nuclear weapons

Thursday, November 27, 2003 By Reuters

http:// www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L26671637.htm

VIENNA, Austria - The head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog said Wednesday
he wanted Israel to dismantle its nuclear weapons arsenal and he
believed all Middle Eastern states would benefit from ridding the region
of nuclear weapons.

Israel has not signed the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and has never
officially admitted to having the bomb. But nonproliferation analysts
estimate Israel has between 100 and 200 nuclear weapons.

Asked about a meeting with Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom last
week, International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei hinted
Israel should sign the NPT, the global pact designed to stop the spread
of nuclear weapons.

"We obviously discussed ... efforts to try to move forward toward
application of safeguards (on) all nuclear activities in the Middle
East, including in Israel, and the possibility of moving forward toward
establishing a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East," he told
reporters.

The U.N. General Assembly and IAEA General Conference have adopted 13
resolutions since 1987 appealing to Israel to sign the NPT and all have
been ignored.

"In my view every country in the Middle East, including Israel, will
benefit from establishing a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East
as part and parcel of a comprehensive peace in the region," ElBaradei
said.

Since the 1991 discovery and later dismantling of Iraq's secret nuclear
weapons program, Iran is the only Middle Eastern country suspected of
developing nuclear weapons - apart from Israel.

Pakistan and India have nuclear weapons and have not signed the NPT.
North Korea is suspected of having built at least one atom bomb and
withdrew from the NPT on New Year's Eve last year.

Source: Reuters

(4) [shamireaders] your responses to Marxists and the Lobby

Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2003 19:24:57 +0200 From: "Israel Shamir"
<shamir@home.se>

From: Mazin Qumsiyeh, PhD to the Socialist Viewpoint

Ref: http://www.socialistviewpoint.org/sum_03/sum_03_08.html

Nat Weinstein states that " those that claim that the "Jewish Lobby"--a
small group of pro-Zionist Jews--could dictate foreign or domestic
policy to the hard-nosed, quintessentially-pragmatic American capitalist
class, is absurd. In fact, those that make such a charge are either
simple-minded fools or unmitigated anti-Semitic scoundrels."

I urge you to read the most authoritative text on this matter titled
"Jewish Power: Inside the American Jewish Establishment," by J. J.
Goldberg (Addison-Wesley 1996). Goldberg is an editor of the Forward and
is not anti-Zionist so can't be labeled "self hating Jew". He and I are
neither anti-semitic scoundrels, nor supportive of Buchanan/Larouche,
nor "fools."

On this matter, would the magazine publish something on this issue from
a different perspective? Below is an article by Israel Shamir you may
consider. Even though I myself may disagree with some parts of it, I
think open discussion is imperative if we are to move beyond the labels.
Another good article on the subject could come from Jeffrey Blanckfort,
a Jewish intellectual who dissagrees with attempts to minimize and hide
the Zionist influence on American foreign policy. ... ------

From: Abraham Weizfeld, Canada In reply to unfounded anti-Jewish
allegations in the guise of anti-Zionism;

Since Israel Shamir prefers to remain ignorant of the nature of the
Jewish People I am obligated to critique his diatribe, following here,
for the sake of the readers who are obliged to follow this very serious
debate.

In error mention is made of 86% of the Jewish people who support the
State of Israel (without giving references) while the Jewish Open Letter
to the Palestinians cites the studies that show only a minority that
identity with Israel and a majority that oppose the occupation.

To begin with his references to Marx 'On the Jewish Question', one is
obliged to dissociate from this Marxist view of the Jewish People
because it leads to his presumption that;

"For him, the Jews were the original capitalists of pre-capitalist
society; people who preferred to fulfil antisocial function of
money-lenders and tax-collectors. Naturally, such a 'people-class' does
not deserve our support."

since such a view ignores the contradictions of the Jewish people of the
time who were forbidden to own land and were obliged to become urbanized
with a portion thus led to mercantile capitalism (which was considered
progressive at that time by Marx notwithstanding his objections to
capitalism). All in all, Marx was less than brilliant when it came to
the Jewish People then and his essay should be laid to rest.

The reference to Lenin which follows also reveals the faulty Marxist
position on Jewish People which was embellished by Stalin to define
nations in such terms as to exclude the Jewish People. Lenin endorsed
this work of Stalin although he came to break with him over the Georgian
nationalities question, which he lost to Stalin. This set up the Soviet
Union to fall into the mould of the Czarist empire which eventually
fractured into all the various visible Nations today, and the collapse
of the so-called Soviet State.

Next, the reference to Trotsky is simply incorrect;

"Leon Trotsky denied any connection to the Jews and rejected appeals of
the Jews."

while Trotsky (Bronstein) himself stated,

"...a workers' government is duty bound to create for the Jews, as for
any nation, the very best circumstances for cultural development."
(October 1934, On the Jewish Question, Pathfinder Press, NY, 1973, p.
18-19)

and on Zionism,

"One must therefore reckon with the fact that the Jewish nation will
maintain itself for an entire epoch to come. ... Zionism is incapable of
resolving the Jewish question. The conflict between the Jews and Arabs
in Palestine acquires a more and more tragic and more and more menacing
character." (The Social and Political Thought of Leon Trotsky, Baruch
Knei-Paz, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1978, p. 550-551)

It is no wonder that Israel Shamir does not know the actual views of
Trotsky, before having evoked his pseudonym , he would not have received
the opportunity, in his Stalinist party.

However it's not a matter of Trotsky or Stalin here.. after all Gustav
Landauer also considered the Jewish People an oppressed Nation, while
opposing Zionism.

(in The Mystical Anarchism of Gustav Landauer, Charles Maurer, p. 79)
"Landauer left no doubt about his dedication to the concept of Nation.
His letters contain numerous references to it. In one he wrote that he,
as a German, a south German, and a Jew, belonged to three Nationen or
races ..." ['Sind des Ketzergendanken? / Heretical Thoughts?']
"Landauer, although he staunchly proclaimed his own Jewishness, used
this essay to castigate the overweening zeal of Zionists. ... 'Strong
emphasis on one's own nationality, even when it does not lead to
chauvinism, is weakness.'"

How does this compare to what Israel Shamir has to say;

"The Left, and in particular the Marxist Left, strives to overthrow the
ruling classes and create the society of equality. There is no way to
achieve it without a concerted anti-Jewish effort." IS

Considering the analysis available there is no need for what the right
populist current has to say. One may be permitted to say that there are
no distinguishing differences with the writings of a neo-nazi Zundel on
the subject for Israel Adam Shamir.

Just as we say that there are reasons to not adapt to the the Zionist
left current which refuses Palestinian solidarity in the anti-war
movement, we are just as justified to reject the anti-Jewish current in
the current Palestinian solidarity movement. Their replication of
Zionist concepts claiming to represent the Jewish People does not negate
Zionism, it perpetuates it, with racism.

This is then a racist current has led to the war against the Jewish
People per se during the last two years of the Intifada in the hands of
Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Al-Aqsa Brigade, not to mention Al-Quada's
attacks in Djerba and Istanbul as well as the numerous fire-bombings in
Europe and North America.

Since the racist current has not responded let us ask once more, does
Israel Shamir represents the position of Zundel or not? And what of the
war being waged against Jews, including the 20 Neturei Karta killed in
Jerusalem August 19th, 2003 and a founding member of the Women in Black
previously; does this not merit a comment !

In conclusion I have not more to say than, get lost.

Abraham Weizfeld Montréal -------

From: Jeff Blankfort [mailto:jblankfort@earthlink.net] Sent: 21
novembre, 2003 03:01 To: Abraham Weizfeld Subject: The Marxists and the
Lobby, by Israel Shamir

Without getting into all of the historical details raised in your post,
it is a deceptive illusion to believe that the majority of Jews do not
support the continued existence of Israel as a Jewish state, their
opposition, such as it is, to the continuing occupation notwithstanding.
I write, "such as it is," because there is little evidence that any
significant number of Jews who oppose the occupation have done the
slightest thing to challenge that occupation and its funding source,
namely, US aid to Israel. This, along with acknowledging the power of
the pro-Israel lobby, seems to be taboo among "progressive" Jews whose
reticence to tackle both of those crucial issues have dominated all the
coalitions of the anti-war movement since its inception to this day and
rendered them ineffectual opponents of Israeli policies. If there is an
"anti-Jewish current" in the Palestinian solidarity movement, it might
be understandable for those reasons, but I have yet to see it. What is
your evidence for such a charge which, incidentally, mimics similar
complaints by Michael Lerner and Tod Gitlin?

I also find it presumptuous for you to accuse Palestinian resistance
organizations of waging a war against the Jewish people, given that
their attacks have occurred entirely with Israel and the occupied
territories and with few exceptions, the members of all of those
organizations have been born into a situation where they and their
family members have experienced for their entire life the destruction of
their homes and orchards, the killing and imprisonment of close family
members and daily humiliations at the hands of Jewish soldiers. One does
not have to agree with either their religion or social views to
understand their feelings. Do they have any less reason to hate Jews
than Jews had to hate Germans, a feeling which extended to Jews well
beyond those subjected to the horrors of the Nazi death camps?

Regarding Jews and capitalism, it is all very well to recount the fact
that since Jews were unable to own property they were forced into the
business of money-lending, but those prohibitions ended a long, long
time ago and have not applied for more than a century. It was the very
fact that a number of Jewish families such as the Rothschilds, the
Warburgs, etc. became the bankers of capitalism and imperialism that has
contributed to the political clout that Jews have today. So we cannot
have it both ways.

As for Jews constituting a nation, that has always part of an ongoing
debate as to "what is a Jew?". There is certainly an Israeli people that
did not exist before but that is not the same thing and does not answer
the question.

Jeff Blankfort, California ---------

From Fouzi Slisli

Mr Weizfeld has practically been policing people's thought, classifying
them in the pro-Jewish camp and anti-Jewish camp, ever since he joined
this list. I was just wondering if he is confused and probably thinks
this list is an affiliate of the ADL or something? If that's the case,
can someone enlighten him, please. I'm getting tired of this zionist
blackmail masquerading as progressive analysis.

Fouzi And I have already been placed in the anti-Jewish camp...
--------- ...

From Alex Ajay

Yes, Weinstein is wrong about the influence of the Neocons on current
American foreign policy. The Israeli connection is clear, from the OSP
in the Pentagon to the strategy spelled out in the New American Century.
This is a refutation also of Chomsky's mechanical theory of Israel as a
American client state., Mechanical because he cannot or will not see the
tail wagging the dog. But let us not commit the same error in
overlooking the power of the "dog". The pro-Israel agenda may be sell
able among the policy makers because it OVERLAPS with the Imperialist
one of the USA. Here we have all military and economic power of USA
being used for the general purpose of maintaining and expanding not only
colonies, read Iraq, but also the power to exact the superprofits from
the dependent countries, thru the means of IMF type loans. And thru this
process we see the shape of the monopoly groups that Lenin speaks, of,
the finance capitalists, using the state institutions in various ways
(the IMF again), to exact their pounds of flesh, eg.Soros. We see
Lenin's claim of the struggle of national groups of finance capitalists
thru the means of international cartels to redivide the booty of the
superprofits as being true in our time. In this context the Mideast
represents a huge opportunity for the expansion of capital. Privatize
and control the flow of capital, with the end goal of extracting profits
from loans, and establishing new markets for cheap labor, and the
purchasing of capital goods set up by the IMF type loans. This is what
Bush means by bringing "democracy" to the region. Now, I must disagree
with your position on the war as being "a disaster" for American
capitalists. As far as the finance capitalists, the ones that represent
the merged capital of industry and banking monies, into huge sums, they
act as Lenin, said for the end of monopoly domination. It would be nice,
for the "new colony" of Iraq to now after the war, to give up its oil in
the form of profits, BUT..... for the purpose of domination and
achievement of monopoly, it is enough for the US capitalist groups to
control the POTENTIAL source available in the future perhaps. Think
HEGEMONY. Think CHESS MOVE. And so, in my opinion, this is the
non-Zionist part of the overlapping agenda. This motive set up the
neocons, to use their Israeli connections and ties to the American
Jewish elite, to bring the US into the Iraqi war. Now, it is may be the
case that the consequences of the Iraqi imperialist adventure are
turning out not to be those outlined above. Iraq is turning into a
quagmire. And those who were paid to sell the policy are now renouncing
it. Example: the liberal democrats. What should our position be? Not to
argue that Jewish influence led to disaster. For if Jews are removed
from positions of power and influence, the finance capitalists will find
others to replace them. Here it is critical to not forget that Lenin's
point about Imperialism not being a policy. Jews or no Jews, La Rouche
is wrong as was Kautsky about reaction being a choice which can be
reversed in the context of the capitalist system. Lenin demonstrates
convincingly, that monopoly logically flows out of the development of
capitalism.... in the past, the present, and in the future. To
paraphrase the Clinton advisor's.... ITS THE SYSTEM STUPID. In the
Stuggle, Alex johnajay99@yahoo.com -------

From: "Michael Pugliese" debsian@pacbell.net

Perhaps I am misreading something, but according to my understanding of
Marx's "The Jewish Question", from which Shamir gets his quote, it was
in fact a DEFENSE of the Jews in opposition Bruno Bauer's argument
against their political emancipation. Marx points out that what was
signified in the "Jew" is actually universal in "Christian" society; it
in fact is an intrinsic part, if not the core of the society:

"Judaism reaches its highest point with the perfection of civil society,
but it is only in the Christian world that civil society attains
perfection. Only under the dominance of Christianity, which makes all
national, natural, moral, and theoretical conditions extrinsic to man,
could civil society separate itself completely from the life of the
state, sever all the species-ties of man, put egoism and selfish need in
the place of these species-ties, and dissolve the human world into a
world of atomistic individuals who are inimically opposed to one
another" (Marx: 1844)

It is through the externalizing and projecting onto the Jew, both on an
ideological level and in practice (where historically only
non-Christians could take interest payments and such), of the idea of
greed and the essence of commercialism, that the perception of social
cohesion is continued: Just as man, as long as he is in the grip of
religion, is able to objectify his essential nature only by turning it
into something "alien", something fantastic, so under the domination of
egoistic need he can be active practically, and produce objects in
practice, only by putting his products, and his activity, under the
domination of an alien being, and bestowing the significance of and
entity ("money") on them (Marx:1844)

Marx is saying that it is the designation and placement of " Jew" in the
symbolic matrix, which allows the system itself to function. The
naturalization of the egoistic man, and his codification through the
Rights of Man can be seen as functional on a social level only through
the expulsion of the dross onto something which is seen both as internal
and external to that society--in this case the Jew.

This reading of Marx is backed by his connection, on the one hand, of
Christianity and Judaism as merely two sides of the same coin, which are
really the same thing: "Christianity is the sublime thought of Judaism;
Judaism is the common practical application of Christianity". (Marx:
1844)

On the other hand, this can be seen in Marx's statement on the core
definition of Judaism (and here we have the quote from Shamir): "What is
the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the
worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God?
Money." (Marx: 1844)

Going back to the above statement, we now see the connection: in the
grip of religion [a man] is able to objectify his essential nature only
by turning it into something "alien". (Marx: 1844)

By projecting the materialist aspects of life onto the "Jew." And
further: "under the domination of egoistic need he can be active
practically, and produce objects in practice, only by putting his
products, and his activity, under the domination of an alien being, and
bestowing the significance of an alien entity--money--on them". (Marx:
1844) Again by externalizing these onto the "Jew."
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk

Michael Pugliese

(5) [shamireaders] Danny the Blue-and-White, by Israel Shamir

Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2003 20:16:07 +0200 From: "Israel Shamir"
<shamir@home.se>

When the Jews object to political correctness? Whenever it interferes
with their Muslim-bashing.

Danny the Blue-and-White

By Israel Shamir

For my generation, the name of Danny the Red, or Daniel Cohn-Bendit, is
forever connected to the glorious revolution of 1968, of Godard's La
Chinoise and Antonioni's Zabriski Point, of 'Defence de defence' signs
in universities, of hippies' long hair, of marijuana and free love, of
barricades in Paris and in Berkley, of sweet wind of freedom that swept
across the continents. Like its great predecessor, the Spring of Nations
1848, the revolution of 1968 failed, but it transformed Europe and the
United States. Danny the Red was a mover of the revolution, and a great
source of inspiration for us, who sought freedom and equality.

Years passed by, and Cohn-Bendit, now a respectable member of Euro
Parliament from the German Green Party, is visiting Jerusalem. Times
have changed, and he had changed with the times, not only his waist. He
is no zionist, he stresses, neither anti-zionist. Jews can live in
Europe, too; they do not have to move to Israel. He supports creation of
a Palestinian state, he says, he is against the occupation. He feels
that Sharon, too, is against the occupation ? maybe Sharon wants to have
a slightly Greater Israel, but not much greater. The Wall, inhuman as it
is, is a proof of Sharon's intention to limit Israeli expansion.

He tells of his meetings with the 'boys' ? his new friends, the War
party in Washington. Perle and Wolfowitz shared with him their plans for
the Middle East, he says. They want to give Iraq to a Hashemite ruler,
push Palestinians into Jordan and create a Palestinian state there.
Then, the Jews will get the whole of Palestine. They are Bolsheviks, he
says. 'Bolshevik' is a swear word for this new Danny. He has a better,
much better plan: give a state to Palestinians, and bring Israel into
NATO and into the European Union. Make Russia, China, everybody declare
their support for the Jewish state, the best and the only democracy in
the Middle East. If the Americans go along, he can deliver European
support for the American occupation of Iraq, he says. Even his hosts
from the liberal zionist Peace Now shudder uneasily.

Cohn-Bendit feels he can do it. He has many achievements behind him. He
promoted dismantling of Yugoslavia. He supported NATO's bombing of
Serbia into submission. But the Jewish cause occupies much of his time
and effort. He is proud that Germany supplied Israel with the
nuclear-capable submarines at the expense of the German taxpayer. 'This
gift is their payment for Holocaust', says this German parliamentarian.
Why a million of potential casualties (most probably Arabs) is the
desired atonement? Isn't he worried that Iran, or Syria can become a
target of the nuclear-armed missiles from these submarines? ? I ask him.
No, he is not worried. But the homicidal maniacs now ruling the Holy
Land consider 'taking the world down with them', in words of Martin van
Creveld of Hebrew University, I push him; his country is also liable to
suffer. - What country? ? Danny asks innocently. Born in France, serving
in Brussels and Strasbourg, loving Israel, he forgot he represents
Germany. Can't a Jew love his country? Yes, if he knows which one is his
country.

Still, he does not think Israel is always right. One may, on certain
conditions, criticize Israel. These conditions are rather rigorous and
hard to meet. March last year, a member of a German state assembly from
Cohn-Bendit's party, an immigrant from Syria, Jamal Karsli, called on
Germany to stop providing Israel with weapons of mass destruction and
referred to the 'strong Jewish influence in German media'. Cohn-Bendit
and his Parteigenossen practically lynched Karsli for 'antisemitism'.
Their attack was supported by Michel Friedman, 'the most eloquent Jewish
spokesman in Germany'; it was before this best friend of Belarusian
whores was apprehended while pushing cocaine.

Have you no qualms, I ask him, for invoking antisemitism like Bush and
Ashcroft, Friedman and Foxman? It is a Bolshevik attitude, he says. 'One
should be able to express a view even if a similar opinion is expressed
by some unpleasant folks'. Bravo, Danny! But why he did not think of it
when he expelled Karsli from the Party for 'repeating the Nazi canard of
Jewish control'? Why this brilliant thought did not stop him ? or other
Jews ? from forever appealing to the Protocols of Zion as to their best
defence: if the Protocols say the Jews take over the media, now no one
is allowed to notice the steady takeover of the European media by Jewish
interests. Why here the same maxim, 'One should be able to express a
view even if a similar opinion is expressed by some unpleasant folks'
can't be applied?

The reason is that as a rule, a Jew is unable to apply Kant's
categorical imperative, to make a universal rule. It could provide a
definition of a Jew: 'a person unable to make an objective moral
judgement', for the old religious or ethnic criteria do not apply
anymore. His judgement will be forever different whether it is good for
Jews or bad for Jews. WMD are bad if in Gentile hands, good if in Jewish
hands. Nationalism of a goy ? bad, devotion to the Jewish cause ? good.
Equal rights for Jew and non-Jew in Europe ? good, in Palestine ? bad.
Karsli was bad for Jews, so he had to go.

Expelled by Cohn-Bendit from the Green party, Karsli joined the FDP of
Juergen Moellemann, a brave German politician who objected to rearmament
of Israel and to the Jewish control of German media. In a short while,
Juergen Moellemann had met with a fatal accident: both his parachutes
did not open. (Practically in the same time, Anna Lindh, the Swedish
Foreign minister and steadfast supporter of the Palestinian cause was
assassinated in Stockholm.) Karsli's political career was stopped in
bud.

It was just the beginning of Cohn-Bendit's campaign against Arab
immigrants in Europe. Recently the European Union had commissioned a
research on antisemitism in Europe. A group of Zionist researchers took
the job, and produced a report that blamed anti-Semitism on Semites ?
more precisely, on Arabs.

It was an improbable suggestion. Ethnically and religiously
heterogeneous East never knew racism. Everyone with even a limited
knowledge of Arabs knows they have no racial prejudice against Jews. In
the past, as David Shasha, a Syrian Jewish researcher wrote, "Jews and
other ethnic minorities served within the Islamic polity as recognized
members of a cultured society and participated in an intimate way in the
evolution and development of that society". In the present, dozens of
Jews ? supporters of the Palestinian cause stay in Arab Palestinian
homes from Rafah to Jenin. Be it Norman Finkelstein or Jennifer
Loewenstein, they never experienced racial hatred. As for myself, I
always felt at home with the Arabs, with Maghribis in Marseille and
Saudis in London, with Egyptians in Cairo and Palestinians in my own
Jaffa.

In order to show the desired result, the researchers included
anti-Israeli activity within their scope and came to conclusion:
'Muslims and pro-Palestinian activists stand behind antisemitism in
Europe'. Rightly, the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and
Xenophobia (EUMC) shelved the report for it was "tainted by anti-Muslim
bias and the use of inappropriate research methods". Instead of
recognising their errors, the researchers went to complain to the
Israeli daily Haaretz, that the Europeans dismissed their report due to
"excessive political correctness".

When the Jews object to political correctness? Whenever it interferes
with their Muslim-bashing.

The European antiracist watchdog judged "the focus on Muslim and
pro-Palestinian perpetrators to be inflammatory" and liable to cause
"civil war in Europe". But a civil war in Europe against millions of
Arabs and other Muslims is a Zionist objective, a part and parcel of the
US-led War on Islam. Haaretz reported:

"Daniel Cohn-Bendit, a leader of the Greens party in the European
Parliament Tuesday strongly denounced the EUMC for shelving the report.
"The completely mad thing is that they didn't want to continue because
they were afraid to offend a certain Muslim opinion in Europe," he told
Israel Radio. "This is a completely crazy and wrong approach."
Cohn-Bendit, currently on a visit to Israel, said the decision to shelve
the study was a "big, big, error" and that his party would question the
move in the European Parliament at the first opportunity".

Apparently, Cohn-Bendit is not afraid to upset Muslim sensibility or
cause a civil war. Who cares? Anti-Arab and anti-Muslim propaganda pours
out of the Jewish-controlled media in Europe. While Cohn-Bendit spoke to
the students in the Hebrew university, in the other end of the city,
Ariel Sharon offered a photo opportunity to the visiting leader of
Italian fascists, Gianfranco Fini. The message was clear: right or left,
Green or Fascist, all are welcome to enter pro-Zionist entente against
Islam.

In Germany, after expulsion of Karsli and untimely death of Moellemann,
timid pro-Palestinian groups became even more fearful. They are
constantly attacked from the mainstream left and the mainstream right.
The malaise of German national psyche is best expressed by the rise of
crazy pro-Israel and anti-German 'Left'. Their hero is 'Bomber' Harris,
the British mass murderer who razed German cities and killed millions of
German civilians during WWII. Their love is given to Jews. My friend, a
pro-Palestinian activist Ingrid K. (German friends of Palestine are
afraid to be exposed in the media) wrote to me:

"The so-called Anti-Deutsche Antifa (anti-fascists) worship Bomber
Harris. They are a disastrous group, their main profession is to act as
hyper-Zionists, and attack the leftwing. They managed to divide the
small left in Germany with their focus on 'Antisemitismus'. (It's like
we Germans stop thinking when it comes to anti-Semitism.) The left have
come to a sad degree of powerlessness and disorientation. To stand up
for Palestinians is a kind of courage test as one risks to be cited as
an anti-Semite".

Germany is a much-needed member of Europe. Together with France, Germany
could be a stumbling block for the Zionists and Neo-Cons. Its support is
necessary for the Palestinians and the Iraqis. But this great country,
home to Hegel and Marx, Beethoven and Goethe, is sick, if it is
represented by the likes of Cohn-Bendit, a man who promotes strife
between the native Germans and the Muslim immigrants, who supplies
Israel with WMD to blackmail Germany in future, who befriends the
American and Israeli enemies of the international law, who stops the
pro-Palestinian voice in Germany by the antisemitism libel; in short, a
man who preferred the Jewish cause to the cause he upheld once, the
cause of freedom and equality.

--
Peter Myers, 21 Blair St, Watson ACT 2602, Australia
http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers          ph +61 2 62475187
to unsubscribe, reply with "unsubscribe" in the subject line