Archive for the ‘Antisemitism’ Category

Israel hatred for the complete idiot

Thursday, July 9th, 2009

Ben WhiteRacially and ethnically based hatred is universally excoriated today. Even the worst Israel-haters often try their best to distance themselves from antisemitism. For example, here’s a statement from Ben White, a British author and journalist (h/t, Jonny Paul):

I do not consider myself an anti-Semite, yet I can also understand why some are. There are, in fact, a number of reasons. One is the state of Israel, its ideology of racial supremacy and its subsequent crimes committed against the Palestinians. It is because Zionists have always sought to equate their colonial project with Judaism that some misguidedly respond to what they see on their televisions with attacks on Jews or Jewish property.

One of his other reasons is “the widespread bias and subservience to the Israeli cause in the Western media”. Funny, I hadn’t noticed that — particularly in the British media. Have you?

White has written a book with the clever title “Israel Apartheid: A Beginner’s Guide“. Although I haven’t read it, I presume its purpose is to help newbies get started in the hating game. I’d prefer “Israel hatred for the complete idiot” which has the advantage of spelling out the true nature of its audience in the title.

The book is published by Pluto Press, which also publishes political works by Noam Chomsky, Joel Kovel, Mazin Qumsiyeh, Israel Shahak, Jeff Halper, Edward Said, and other anti-Israel superstars. Pluto Press was recently under fire from Jewish groups for publishing a particularly offensive book by Kovel.

White himself is a professional hater.  His blog is a primer on anti-Israel talking points. For example, an article he wrote during the Gaza war is called “Israel wanted a humanitarian crisis” and repeats every lie, exaggeration and context-free fact he could find in support of his hateful contention that the whole aim of the war was to “deliberately target… Palestinian civilians and the very infrastructure of normal life, in order to – in the best colonial style – teach the natives a lesson.”

Nice. A perfect example of how to use what I call the Four Tools of Delegitimization. But why I mention this undistinguished example in a sea of similar examples is that it’s clear that for him and many others Israel-hating meets a need for which there are few acceptable outlets.  If he were writing before WWII, or even today if he were living in Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, etc. he could simply come out as a Jew-hater. But in today’s Western society — as yet, anyway — that’s not an option for a ‘respectable’ intellectual (or even an auto racing official).

The degree of  passion exhibited by the Ben Whites of the world, the way they zero in on this particular cause when there are so many worthy ones, and the sheer negativity of their energy — read a few of White’s posts and note how they are so much more about hating Israel than about caring for Palestinians — show us that there is something very special about this issue and its devotees.

Although I could argue that extreme Israel-hatred is either identical with or grounded in antisemitism, I would prefer to suggest that hating a nation is no better than hating a race or an ethnic group, and should be condemned with equal vehemence.

As for White, he’s a young man (BA, Cambridge, 2005). He should ask himself if a career in hate is really what he wants in the long run.

Technorati Tags: , ,

My own ‘Holocaust experience’

Monday, May 11th, 2009

Last week, the Cornerstone Church in downtown Fresno presented a ‘Holocaust experience’, to try to convey the horror of the almost incomprehensible evil of that time to the uninformed.

I didn’t go, but some of those who did said it was effective, accurate and very disturbing.

It made me think a little about my own personal relationship to the Holocaust. Born in America in 1942, I was kept safe by several thousand miles and the armed forces of the USA. But there is a connection.

Here is a photo of my maternal grandmother, Milke (Mollie) Bondermann, with her siblings in Nemyriv, Ukraine around 1912, the year she emigrated to America.

Bondermann siblings, 1912

Bondermann siblings, 1912. Mollie is second from right.

Mollie was aged 16 or 17 in this picture. She already had a profession, listed as ‘dressmaker’ on the manifest of the SS Laconia which brought her to New York on November 4, 1912. One of her sisters also emigrated, settling in Canada. She looks remarkably like my daughter who is named after her, and the handsome elder brother standing next to her looks a bit like my son.

Now imagine that it is 1946. My family – with the exception of my father, who is still on his way home from naval service in the Pacific – is gathered around the radio (we will not have a TV for several years), listening to some kind of news program. I don’t understand what they are talking about, but even as a 4 year old, I know to keep my mouth shut at times like these. I hear the word “Nazis” a lot (my grandmother pronounces it “nat-sees”). The radio announcer says something, and she says, quietly, “mein Gott, mein Gott.”

The darkness of this memory is palpable more than 60 years later.

Although there is still a town of Nemyriv, the Jewish population of less than 10,000 was wiped out. Jews were hunted down and shot by German soldiers, Ukrainian paramilitaries and police. Less well-known than the gas chambers of Auschwitz, this has been called the “Holocaust by bullets”. Of the family in the photograph, only the two sisters who escaped to North America survived.

Nemyriv was already no stranger to murderous antisemitism. In 1649, Chmielnicki’s Cossacks are said to have killed 6000 Jews there in one day. My grandfather, who met and married Mollie in America, came from a tiny shtetl in the same region which – to borrow a phrase from Mr. Ahmadinejad – was simply wiped off the map by the Germans.

Today Mollie Bondermann’s  great-grandchildren and their children live in Israel, where Jews can be responsible for their own destiny.

Technorati Tags: ,

Testing Zionist ideas

Tuesday, April 21st, 2009

Still not convinced that Iran must be prevented — by any means necessary — from becoming a nuclear power?

Watch as a member of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s entourage abuses Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel:

If you can see this, then you might need a Flash Player upgrade or you need to install Flash Player if it's missing. Get Flash Player from Adobe.

Words are not an adequate response to the gutter trash that is Ahmadinejad and his cohorts. And Ahmadinejad is not the only one. The same sewer rhetoric — or worse — can be heard in the mouths of Palestinians of both the Hamas and Fatah varieties, and even from ‘progressive’ activists here in California.

Ahmadinejad has done us a favor by showing the world that antisemitism is real, Jews are not ‘obsessed with the Holocaust’, and it’s not just ‘Jewish paranoia’. They do hate us and want to wipe us out.

The Zionist idea that a Jewish state can prevent another Holocaust is about to be tested as severely as it has ever been since the end of WWII. Another Zionist idea, whose truth was firmly established then, is that the Jewish people needs to defend itself — nobody, not the US, not any other nation or international organization, will do it for them.

I’m confident that Israel will defend herself and the Jewish people yet again, and Ahmadinejad’s place in history will be assured — not as the destroyer of Israel he aspires to be, but rather as one who brought catastrophe onto his own people.

Technorati Tags: , , , ,

Is the Pope still missing the point?

Wednesday, March 11th, 2009

News item:

VATICAN CITY (Reuters) — Pope Benedict has written an “anguished” letter to Church leaders admitting the case of a Holocaust-denying bishop was mishandled and warning the Church risked “devouring itself” with internal squabbles.

In the letter addressed to the world’s bishops, which the Vatican will release on Thursday, the pope also says he was pained by Catholics’ criticism of him and that the Vatican could have foreseen problems if it had used the Internet more…

The Vatican said at the time it did not know that Williamson was a Holocaust denier but critics said a simple Internet search would have found he had made such statements.

“Doesn’t the Vatican know about Google?” one prominent Catholic critic said at the time.

In the letter, the pope says he was told after the crisis exploded that better use of the Internet would have revealed some of the problems. He says he “draws the lesson” and adds that in the future the Vatican must “pay more attention to this source of information.”

The pope says he could not have foreseen that the Williamson affair would overshadow his intention of bringing unity back to the Church by lifting the excommunications of the bishops who belong to the Society of St Pius X [SSPX].

The Pope’s letter will be released tomorrow, but from the details in the Reuters article it appears that he is still missing the point. The real problem is not that Williamson is a Holocaust denier and antisemite, as evil as he may be. The real problem is the SSPX.

As I wrote before (“Pope’s judgment on Williamson flawed“), the SSPX did not even attempt to hide its clearly antisemitic doctrines. They claim that they are simply remaining faithful to ‘traditional’ Catholicism, but, for example, the statement — which appeared until recently on the SSPX website — that

The heads of [international] Jewry have for centuries conspired methodically and out of an undying hatred against the Catholic name and the destruction of the Catholic order, and for the construction of a world wide Jewish empire.

has nothing to do with religious belief, and everything to do with inciting hatred of Jews.

Catholic doctrines concerning the language of the Mass don’t concern me, obviously. Neither do Good Friday prayers which ask God to “illumine [my] heart” or even “lift the veil” from it (although I admit to being bothered a little by “perfidious Jews”). The critical piece of Vatican II for me is the Papal declaration of Nostra Aetate, which insists that while Catholicism is the true religion, nevertheless a Catholic must respect non-Christian religions, which represent other approaches to spiritual truth.

So, for example, the traditionalist Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter [FSSP] which was founded in 1988 by SSPX priests who were unwilling to separate from the Church also uses pre-Vatican II Latin liturgy and holds relatively conservative positions on other issues. But the FSSP does not reject Nostra Aetate and its doctrines are not antisemitic.

SSPX represents a sizeable number of priests and adherents, with over 100 chapels in the US alone and a presence in numerous countries. I’m sure it’s quite uncomfortable for the Pope to have such large organization in a schismatic position, especially since he is something of a ‘traditionalist’ himself.

In my opinion, reconciliation with the SSPX should require an explict statement that they accept Nostre Aetate. Judging by what I’ve read on their site and from their friends and apologists, I don’t think it’s going to be easy to obtain this. But we will learn a lot about the Pope — and the future of Jewish-Catholic relations — from how firmly he stands on this issue.

Update [11 Mar 2009 1604 PDT]: The full text of the Pope’s letter is available here. It includes this, I think, encouraging remark:

I intend to connect the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei”, which since 1988 is responsible for those communities and individuals who, coming from the Fraternity of Pius X or similar groups, want to return into full communion with the Pope, in the future with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. This shall make it clear that the problems now being treated are essentially doctrinal in nature, especially those concerning the acceptance of the Second Vatican Council and the postconciliar Magisterium of the Popes.

Technorati Tags: , , ,

Pope’s judgment on Williamson flawed

Monday, February 23rd, 2009

'Bishop' Richard WilliamsonFollowing the flap about the Good Friday prayer, we have another ‘crisis in Catholic-Jewish relations’ as a result of the actions of the Pope, Benedict XVI. This is old news which has been beaten to death in many forums, but nevertheless…

On January 21, the Pope lifted the decree of excommunication on Richard Williamson, a Holocaust denier and anti-Semite. Williamson (seen on video here) claimed that “not one Jew had been killed in gas chambers” and that only 200,000-300,000 Jews perished in Nazi concentration camps.

Williamson and four other members of the ultra-conservative Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) were excommunicated by Pope John Paul II in 1988 when the society’s leader, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre consecrated them as bishops in defiance of the Vatican. He also declared the society in schism with the church (they dispute this, but see Pope John Paul II’s letter).

Lefebvre was quite a guy. He disapproved of the French Revolution, preferring absolute monarchy. He supported the Nazi puppet Vichy regime in WWII, and expressed unhappiness  at the liberation of France, calling it an “invasion of barbarians without faith or law”.  He bitterly opposed  the reforms of Vatican II (1962-65), including the encyclicals Nostra Aetate, which called for religious tolerance and declared that the Jews of today do not bear guilt for the death of Jesus, and Dignitatis Humanae, which condemned civil coercion of religious belief. In his view, much of Vatican II constituted heresy.

In 1969 Lefebvre formed the Society of St. Pius X (St. Pius X was Pope from 1903-14 and also opposed modernism). He established a seminary in Switzerland, denounced the Vatican II reforms as heretical and celebrated the traditional Latin Mass. Ordered by Pope Paul VI to close his seminary in 1976, he refused and his right to perform sacred functions was suspended.

After the 1988 excommunication of Lefebvre and his ‘bishops’ the SSPX continued to exist, although its status with the Church remained as a schismatic sect. Since then, it has flourished. In the US, the SSPX has chapels in 37 states, schools in 13, and four retreat centers. There are numerous seminaries and headquarters around the world (Lefebvre himself died in 1991).

Although Williamson’s Holocaust denial is extreme even for the SSPX, there is no doubt that SSPX doctrine is anti-Semitic. Here’s an excerpt from a 1959 letter from Lefebvre associate Bishop Gerald de Proenca Sigaud which appeared — with approval — on the SSPX website until very recently:

C.  INTERNATIONAL JEWRY

1.    We condemn all persecution of Jews for their religion or for ethnic reasons. The Church is against “anti-Semitism”.

2.    But the Church can not ignore the facts of the past and the clear affirmations of international Jewry. The heads of this Jewry have for centuries conspired methodically and out of an undying hatred against the Catholic name and the destruction of the Catholic order, and for the construction of a world wide Jewish empire. This is what Masonic sects and the communists stand for.

Money, the media, and international politics are for a large part in the hands of the Jews. Although the Jews are the biggest capitalists and should on that account be the greatest adversaries of the Russians and the communists, they do not fear them, but on the contrary, they help them to win. Those who have revealed the atomic secrets of the USA were: Fuchs, Golds, Gringlass, and Rosemberg: all Jews. The founders of communism were Jews. They are the promoters, organizers and bankers.

This is the reality. Should this foster hatred? No! But with vigilance and clear-sightedness we should launch a systematic and methodical opposition to the equally systematic and methodical onslaught of “the enemy of man”, whose secret weapon is “the leaven of the Pharisees which is hypocrisy”.

D.  THE REVOLUTION
International Judaism wants to radically defeat Christianity and to be its substitute. Its chief armies are the masons and the communists. This process of the Revolution began at the end of the Middle Ages, developed itself by pagan Renaissance, jumped forwards by leaps and bounds with the Reformation, destroyed the political and social basis of the Church by the French Revolution, tried to overthrow the Holy See with by an attack on the Papal States, emptied the Church’s resources on the occasion of the secularization of the goods of religious [orders] and dioceses, was the cause of a very grave internal crisis with the advance of Modernism, and finally, with communism, it invented the decisive instrument to delete the name of Christian from the very face of the earth.

Much anti-Semitic material has now been removed from the site, but this letter is still available in Google’s cache. And on the website there remains a 1985 letter to the Pope from Lefebvre and Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer which counts Jews among “declared enemies of the Church”.

The lifting of the excommunication does not include a full reconciliation with the doctrines of the SSPX. But its purpose was to open the door for a rapprochement between the Church and the SSPX, which would take place when certain “open matters” had been resolved.

On the one hand, it can be argued that since the four priests were not excommunicated because of anti-Semitism or historical revisionism — these are highly unlikely to be subsumed under the specified actions that can be punished by excommunication under canon law — but rather because of their part in Lefebvre’s forbidden consecration of them as Bishops, their readmittance does not imply acceptance of their pernicious ideas. This is the line that the Vatican has taken, and the Pope himself has taken pains to denounce anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial. The Vatican even said that the Pope was unaware of Williamson’s statements about the Holocaust.

But on the other hand, the intention of the Pope’s action was to heal the breach between the Church and the SSPX. Given the anti-Semitic bent of the SSPX, should not more have been demanded — both of the society and the ‘bishops’  — before beginning the process of reconciliation?

Certainly Pope Benedict holds traditionalist views about ritual, and for example has relaxed restrictions on priests who want to use Latin liturgy. He is also not likely to call for liberalization of doctrine prohibiting abortion or euthanasia. And in these areas he has beliefs in common with SSPX. But I would like to think that he has strong differences with them regarding religious tolerance — the principles set forth in Nostra Aetate (he was the first Pope to visit a US synagogue, when he was present at a service — something that would be anathema to SSPX). He should have made this clear — and gotten agreement from SSPX — at the outset.

The timing was also quite unfortunate. Anti-Semitic attitudes and expressions around the world today are possibly greater than at any time since the end of WWII, as the virulent anti-Israel propaganda that has been flooding the media from Arab, Iranian and left-wing sources becomes more and more overtly anti-Semitic.

Personaly I don’t doubt Pope Benedict’s commitment to the principles of Nostre Aetate, I don’t doubt his understanding of history, and I don’t think he has an antisemitic bone in his body. But I do think that his decision to seek to bring the SSPX back into the fold without first obtaining an unambiguous recantation of their anti-Semitic (and in the case of Williamson, ahistorical) point of view was a serious failure of judgment.

Technorati Tags: , , , , ,