Trending Topics:

Guardians of the City: An interview with Neturei Karta’s Rabbi Meir Hirsh

Israel/Palestine
on 69 Comments
meirhirsh
Meir Hirsh (Photo: Palestine Monitor)

Last week I interviewed Rabbi Meir Hirsch, leader of Neturei Karta Palestine, at his home in the Orthodox neighborhood of Mea Sharim in Jerusalem. Mea Sharim is a tight, crowded maze of a neighborhood with windy, dirty, dimly lit streets. Walking down a cobblestone pathway at night, with Orthodox men, women and children hurrying by on all sides, with cats scurrying in and out of dumpsters, with a yeshiva to the left and a kosher slaughterhouse to the right, one can sometimes get a flashback to a past life in an 18th-century Russian shtetl.

In the few blocks around Rabbi Hirsch’s home, the Neturei Karta stronghold in the center of Mea Sharim, one starts to see Palestinian flags scrawled on the walls, with slogans like ‘No Zionists Allowed’, ‘Zionism is Dying’ and ‘Arabs are Good’ graffiti’d in Yiddish, then crossed out, then graffiti’d again. Rabbi Hirsch’s doorbell reads ‘A Jew Not a Zionist’.

When did your family come here?

Meir Hirsch: I am the fifth generation in this land. My family came 150 years ago from Russia. Then, Aliyah as a term, like Zionism, did not exist. People outside of Israel aspired to get to Israel in order to better worship God. When Mea Sharim was made 145 years ago, it was a wilderness at first! There were animals roaming around, people had to lock their doors!

grafitti
Grafitti near Rabbi Hirsch’s home. (Photo: Ben Lorber)

When the Orthodox community saw waves of European secular Zionists coming, how did they feel?

The Balfour Declaration of 1917 made the people here, especially the orthodox families, very upset. There was an objection from the ultra Orthodox community, which was the majority, specifically in Jerusalem but in other parts as well. Jacob Israel de Haan was a secular Jew who became religious, and came here from Poland. He came to Palestine and at first he went to the Mizrahi movement, but was not content with their version of religion and connected with the Chief Rabbi of the ultra-Orthodox. Because of his diplomatic connections he almost got the Balfour Declaration canceled- he had connections with Arabic leaders and British leaders. The Zionist leaders, because they saw that he was about to succeed, decided to assassinate him. When he was coming back from Maariv (evening) prayer, they shot and killed him. That led to the foundation of the Neturei Karta movement to continue to resist the Zionist movement.

De Haan was trying to make a bi-national state?

He was trying to undo Zionist aspirations towards statehood. The Zionists were progressing with their project and the Arabs were very much worried that the Zionists were trying to take their land. He met with King Abdallah of Jordan who promised him that Jews would have no problems living in Jordan or wherever he may rule, as long as they didn’t have any aspirations for political dominance.

Could you call de Haan a cultural, rather than a political Zionist?

He was anti-Zionist! He was completely detached from Zionism. All along Neturei Karta has been completely detached from Zionism in any form.

Where does the name come from?

Neturei Karta means ‘Guardians of the City’, it is an Aramaic term from the Talmud. It basically means to guard the city from Zionism entering the culture.

I lied to you, I actually know where the name comes from! [Taken from www.nkusa.org- Neturei-Karta is the Aramaic term for “Guardians of the City. The name Neturei-Karta originates from an incident in which R. Yehudah Ha-Nassi (Rabbi Judah the Prince) sent R. Hiyya and R. Ashi on a pastoral tour of inspection. In one town they asked to see the “guardians of the city” and the city guard was paraded before them. They said that these were not the guardians of the city but its destroyers, which prompted the citizens to ask who, then, could be considered the guardians. The rabbis answered, “The scribes and the scholars,” referring them to Tehillim (Psalms) Chap. 127. (Jerusalem Talmud, Tractate Hagiga. 76c).] So the Zionists in this metaphor are the armed guards of the city, and Neturei Karta represents the scribes and scholars who keep the truth alive?

Well in the passage, the armed guards were the Romans who had conquered Jerusalem, so they actually were the ‘destroyers’. 

A (Hirsch’s wife, who wished not to be named): This passage is referring to the time of the destruction of the Second Temple. Then, the scribes and the scholars literally were the guardians of the city in that, through the merit of their Torah learning, they watched over the city. But the name ‘Neturei Karta’ does not mean they are guarding over the city physically, but ideologically- they are guarding the city of Jerusalem from the ideas of Zionism.

MH: There were also ‘destroyers’  of the city who were not Roman. In the time of the 2nd temple’s destruction, there were a group of Jews called Beriyonim, the ‘Bullies’, the family of Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai. They resisted the Romans, they decided not to surrender to the Romans at all. They were called Haruvei Karta, the Destroyers of the City. While everyone else accepted the Romans, they were adamant about not surrendering. And that is why the Romans destroyed the Temple, because of this resistance.

There’s a growing movement of reform and secular Jewish opposition to Zionism, in Israel and around the world. What is the relationship between this movement and Neturei Karta’s Orthodox opposition to Zionism?

The difference is that secular Jews are opposed to Zionism for humanitarian ideals which are basically Gentile, while Neturei Karta’s objection to Zionism, though it is also because of the humanitarian ideas, is drawn from religious commands. This is why our objection is much stronger, because it is based on religion.

The secular and reform anti-Zionist movement shares with Orthodox opposition a valorization of diasporic Judaism, but for different reasons- secular Jews feel happy and productive in their various countries, whereas for the Orthodoxy diaspora is our God-given lot until the coming of Messiah….

There is a similarity, but there is a fundamental difference because again, the Orthodox argument is based on a divine command to stay in the diaspora, while the secular Jewish ideas are based on humanitarian values.

What’s the difference between humanitarian moral ideas and divinely commanded moral ideas?

In Syria people are resisting the totalitarian regime. A humanitarian person would object to what’s going on, and would care about what’s going on there. However, in Israel the state is using religious symbols to justify oppression. For example its name, Israel, is the name given to Jacob in the Torah. Whereas anyone would care about humanitarian catastrophes going on in Syria, this is the basis of Neturei Karta’s objection to the religious aspect of Israel’s crimes.

Would you compare the State of Israel to the Jewish people’s sin of worshipping the Golden Calf?

It is much worse than worshipping idols, because while you are worshipping the Golden Calf, you are a Jew who worships wrongly, who worships other Gods. But Zionism comes in order to fundamentally remove the roots of Judaism, it aims to destroy the Jewish people.

A: Zionism claims the Jews need a nationalistic state, they need a land and a language like all other countries. Jews are not based on a land and a language, they are based on following God’s commandments, whether they live in Russia or England or anywhere.

I want to ask about the Three Oaths. (Talmudic passage cited by religious Jews as forbidding a Jewish state in Palestine)

One of them is ‘do not rebel against the nations of the world’- when the Jewish people are in diaspora, they should not rebel against the powers-that-be. The second one is ‘do not go up the wall’. ‘Go up’ is ‘aliyah’. There is no problem with living in the land of Israel, but Jews should not make a pilgrimage, we should not go there en masse. The third one is do not hurry the end- there should be redemption at the end of days, but there is nothing we can do to rush it.

I am curious – many revolutionary Communists, socialists, anarchists, etc. of the 19th and 20th centuries were Jewish. Were they violating the Oath by rebelling against states?

That is true, but the ones who did that were not Jews. They were fully secular, and therefore not part of the Jewish people anymore. So it was not against the divine command anymore, because they did not do it as Jews.

It is often said that the Messiah will come only and exactly when the world falls completely to pieces. Is the existence of Israel and its effects upon the world a sign that, because things are getting so bad, the Messiah will come soon?

We are not prophets, so we do not know! According to the Torah, the Zionist State of Israel should not exist, so it will be unmade.

The Book of Joshua details the migration of the Jewish people out of the desert into the land of Israel, and their slaughter and expulsion of the land’s inhabitants. What do you think of those who justify the modern-day creation of the state of Israel by citing this biblical precedent?

Because Zionism is coming to destroy the Jewish people, they have no right to do this. Attempting to come and use a Biblical ideal to justify their actions is blasphemous, it is like mixing light and dark.

Some religious Zionists say that Palestinians are descended from Amalek, the so-called eternal enemy of the Jewish people. What do you say to this? [Deuteronomy 25.17-19- “Remember what Amalek did to you on the way as you came out of Egypt, how he attacked you on the way when you were faint and weary, and cut off your tail, those who were lagging behind you, and he did not fear God. Therefore when the Lord your God has given you rest from all your enemies around you, in the land that the Lord your God is giving you for an inheritance to possess, you shall blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven; you shall not forget.”]

This is brainwashing propaganda by the Israeli Zionist media machine. It has nothing to do with Torah. Zionists are actually Amalek! The Chofetz Chaim said that he who goes against Judaism is from the seed of Amalek! And so therefore Zionists are from the seed of Amalek.

Something else I’ve heard is that the Arab world hates the state of Israel because of a deep-seated Muslim hatred of Jews, turning the Israel-Palestine conflict into a ‘holy war’ between Islam and Judaism.

This is a very big distortion of history. If you go throughout 3000 years of history, the big persecutions of Jews were always in Christian, not in Muslim countries. The classic example is the deportation from Spain, where Jews, deported from Christian Spain, found refuge in Muslim countries. But you don’t have to go that far- in the Holocaust time, Jews found safe havens in many Muslim countries.

How is Neturei Karta received by the rest of the Orthodox community?

Almost all Orthodox Jews reject Zionism, and this is why almost none of them enlist in the army. Although many receive funds from the government and involve themselves in the politics of the Zionist state, they reject Zionism’s ideals. The impression is that Orthodoxy supports Zionism but this is not true. They cooperate, they go hand in hand with it but they do not agree with it ideologically. They have gotten used to it. But the difference between them and Neturei Karta is that we desire to have contact with Muslim people and Palestinian leaders.

hirsh arafat
Yasser Arafat and Mosche Hirsh in 2002

How old were you when your father visited Yasser Arafat in Ramallah? What was it like?

I was 15 or 16. Even when Arafat was living in Tunisia my father went to him and explained that Judaism and Zionism are two opposite ideas, and that Neturei Karta aims to support the right of Palestinians to receive their national home in Palestine. I met Arafat in Ramallah and the Gaza Strip. It was very important for me, and a few days later, when Arafat spoke at the UN, he said he knew the difference between Judaism and Zionism. This was very important for me.

Were you or your father condemned by the Jewish community for this?

Of course there were objections, by settlers for example, to these meetings, but of course we don’t really care.

So you are carrying on your father’s message!

Yes.

Why is this important for you?

Zionist actions are creating a lot of hatred against the Jews, and it is important for us to make it very clear to Palestinian leaders that true Jews are anti-Zionist, to try to prevent as much as possible this misunderstanding.

There are some Orthodox Jews who simply ignore the State of Israel, refuse to pay taxes, etc. but Neturei Karta actively vocalizes and demonstrates opposition. What is the importance of this?

It is very important to be active against Zionist actions, because they are harming both Jews and the rest of the world. So it is important to maintain vocal opposition, to dispute the Zionist agenda and make it understood that the Zionists are not really the Jewish voice.

Do you go to the Kotel (Western Wall)?

Never.

Why not?

Because it has been occupied by the Zionist state, and I do not recognize this occupation.

It must be difficult for you, because it is one of the holiest places in Jerusalem!

It is hard, because it is only five minutes away from here by foot!

What do you think of international Neturei Karta members who refuse to even set foot in Israel for the same reason?

It is equally important, I believe, to be able to declare opposition from within here, to speak out against Zionist actions.

Do you think that the State of Israel will disappear and become another stain in Jewish history, like Sabbatai Tzevi or any other idol worship in the past?

Exactly.

freepaly
About Ben Lorber

Ben Lorber is a Jewish community organizer and activist living in Chicago, Illinois.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

69 Responses

  1. pabelmont
    pabelmont
    November 28, 2011, 9:26 am

    Thank you so much for this wonderful history, Ben Lorber. I learned about Neturei Karta in 1980s, but haven’t seen much about them recently. In those days, I heard it said that it was a religious principle of Jews (alluded to above, but in different words) that the project of the return of Jews to Zion was so very much a divine project that human beings (Jews) were (religiously) forbidden to exert themselves toward it in any way, however small, and were not even allowed to pray for it to happen.

  2. ehrens
    ehrens
    November 28, 2011, 10:24 am

    While NK’s ideas reflect mainstream Orthodox views of long ago, unfortunately they do not reflect current thought and they are a quirky sideshow whose antics have done little to change things. That doesn’t mean they’re wrong, but they are clearly the fringe on the fringe of the Tzitzit Jewish men wear. Reporting on their views is a bit like interviewing a radical Jesuit liberation theologist. We may love what he says and fantasize that there is hope for a particular organized religion, but unfortunately this is all such articles provide: fantasy.

  3. Mooser
    Mooser
    November 28, 2011, 11:46 am

    “That is true, but the ones who did that were not Jews. They were fully secular, and therefore not part of the Jewish people anymore.”

    I’m telling you, there is an idea here with the greatest religious potential in the world. Imagine it, just imagine it! A religion so holy that nobody is good enough to be in it Combine that concept with an effective outreach, proselytisation and conversion program, and you could rule the world! You no sooner get in, and have the right to kick others out, than you get kicked out and have to do it all over again, just to get kicked out….
    They’ll be lined up around the block to get in. It meets every religious need for lots of people

    • Antidote
      Antidote
      November 28, 2011, 5:40 pm

      “A religion so holy that nobody is good enough to be in it Combine that concept with an effective outreach, proselytisation and conversion program, and you could rule the world…”

      You mean like Christianity?

      • November 28, 2011, 5:58 pm

        Not really . Many of the catholic saints ,before they transformed their lifes, were thieves, thugs, prostitutes, adulterers,had major anger control problems,some openly worshiped satan, quite a few were murderers, opressors (st Paul eg). The list could continue ,but I think you’ve got a point.
        There is always a time ( in life) for a change.
        We can always change, for better, or for worse. The choice is ours, the consequences will follow.

      • November 28, 2011, 6:09 pm

        There is this book: “Saints Behaving Badly: The Cutthroats, Crooks, Trollops, Con Men, and Devil-Worshippers Who Became Saints .”
        by Thomas J. Craughwell that I may get.
        http://www.amazon.com/Saints-Behaving-Badly-Cutthroats-Devil-Worshippers/dp/0385517203
        I’m not even half as bad, and I’m not planning on becoming “badder”
        ( worse:) so hey , maybe I have a chance.

  4. Justice Please
    Justice Please
    November 28, 2011, 12:10 pm

    “Rabbi Hirsch’s doorbell reads ‘A Jew Not a Zionist’.”

    If only all Jews had this on their doorbell!

  5. Justice Please
    Justice Please
    November 28, 2011, 12:29 pm

    I found this inspiring. I knew about Neturei Karta and their anti-Zionist stance, but it was very interesting to go in-depth with their leader. It is really important to all concerned to show that Judaism is not Zionism, and Jews are not Zionists per se. I’m glad his father pointed this out to Arafat, and Arafat voiced it openly.

    Three observations:

    One, I’d like to hear what Mister Hirsch has to day about Shlomo Sand and his Invention of the Jewish People. From what I read in this interview, Hirsch would agree, because his wife clearly says that “Jews are not based on a land and a language, they are based on following God’s commandments, whether they live in Russia or England or anywhere.”

    Second, I knew that Zionists killed a lot of their political enemies, be they Jews or not. But never heard about Jacob Israel de Haan. Thanks for the history lesson!

    And third: “The Book of Joshua details the migration of the Jewish people out of the desert into the land of Israel, and their slaughter and expulsion of the land’s inhabitants. ”

    Why the heck do non-Jews even remotely accept the claim that Palestine belongs to Jews, when even the Torah/Bible says that they essentially stole it from other tribes? I’m sick of this, that we essentially take the whole “God gave them the land” at face value.

    • freepaly
      freepaly
      November 28, 2011, 4:37 pm

      my guess is that hirsch and the rest of neturei karta would not approve of shlomo sand’s thesis, because it posits that modern jews are not biologically descended from the original israelites who lived in palestine (or whatever you call it) 2,000+ years ago. hirsch’s wife said that ‘jews are not based on a land or a language, they are based on following gods commandments and can live anywhere’; she never said, as sand did, that ‘jews are not based on an ethnic/biological link to the ancient israelites, they are based on random conversions to a religious ideology that happened all around the world’. i dont know of many orthodox jews who would be comfortable with denying an ancestral link to the ancient israelites!

      • November 28, 2011, 4:46 pm

        I do not know what Rabbi Hirsch would say about Shlomo Sand ,
        but here is a very quick opinion of Gilad Atzmon, with an attached video as a visual aid to support the thesis.
        http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/self-loving-shlomo.html#entry13801115

      • Justice Please
        Justice Please
        November 29, 2011, 1:52 pm

        Ben,

        thanks for the reply! If I understand Sand correctly, he admits that a very small fraction of todays “Jews” would indeed be biologically connected to ancient Hebrews/Israelites. (With the majority being converts and mixed-in people from different biological ancestry)

        So the question would be, does Hirsch think of himself as one of those few, while admitting there are many more believers of the Judaistic faith whose ancestors come from other places than ancient Palestine? Or does he indeed think that he and indeed all religiously observant Jews are direct descendants from the ancient Hebrews?

        If the latter, I would ask him what he thinks where his pale skin comes from. If his ancestors lived in the Levante area and did not mix with people of different biological ancestry, where did the light brown color go which is typical for Semitic/Levantene people? (I just made ‘Levantene’ up, no idea what the right grammar is here :-))

      • annie
        annie
        November 29, 2011, 2:25 pm

        what do you mean ‘he admits’ justice. that kind of phrasing always makes it appear as if someone is making some concession to some previously expressed contradiction on his own part.

      • Justice Please
        Justice Please
        November 30, 2011, 12:13 pm

        Annie,

        thanks for correcting my sloppy wording. I didn’t mean that Sand contradicted himself. I think “acknowledge” is the proper word!? I meant that Sand does not claim that no “Jews” have direct ancestry to Hebrews, he claims that it’s only a small fraction. So he basically acknowledges the existence of X individuals in this world who are “Jews” and have direct ancestry, and Hirsch could claim to be one of X.

        What I tried to say is that Hirsch and Sand could find common ground.

  6. kalithea
    kalithea
    November 28, 2011, 12:42 pm

    If we are to defeat the injustice and brutality that is Zionism, the following must happen.:

    1. Jewish anti-Zionists must become much more pro-active in defeating Zionism. I mean they must be demonstrating; always available to speak out in the media against Zionism and even forming a non-violent resistance group.

    2. Anti-Zionists should be given much more prominence on this site. Forget about Liberal Zionism and Zionists! They are ENABLERS. Jews with true integrity must stop being “Liberal Zionists” and become Anti-Zionists. Liberal Zionists are full of inconsistencies, contradictions and hypocrisy. At best, Liberal Zionists are afflicted with cognitive dissonance. But should criminal trials happen one day, and I’m hoping they do, they better not plead ignorance or “cd”!

    3. BDS must be promoted MUCH MORE on this site and other sites that pretend to care about justice and human rights.

    4. Zionism must be addressed for what it is: a Supremacist, racist ideology that goes against humanity and values of decency and yes, God.

    5. Zionism must be rejected in every way.

    Rabbi Hirsh dared to utter this: “Zionists are actually Amalek!”

    Truer words were never spoken! The Amalek rose to power in 1930s Germany and this malevolent spirit lives on through Zionism and has resurrected and breathed life into a legion of Amalek AGAIN.

  7. kalithea
    kalithea
    November 28, 2011, 1:31 pm

    Perhaps the worst punishment Karma can inflict on men who adopt injustice as a means to an end is to pass on to them the destructive legacy of their oppressor and have them destroy themselves with that same evil; and this is EXACTLY what will happen to Zionists.

    Zionists have begun razing the ground upon which democracies are founded. Therein lies the first threat for those of us who aren’t even Palestinian. If we don’t oppose this trend forcefully, that’ll be followed by dragging us through years of war and misery.

  8. November 28, 2011, 2:51 pm

    But let your statement be, ‘Yes, yes’ or ‘No, no’; and anything beyond these is of evil” (Matthew 5:33-37).183

    The rabbi says at it is.
    He calls “things” the way they shoud be called.
    “Zionism comes in order to fundamentally REMOVE the roots of Judaism, it aims to destroy the Jewish people.”
    “Because Zionism is coming to DESTROY the Jewish people, they have no right to do this. Attempting to come and use a Biblical ideal to justify their actions is blasphemous, it is like mixing light and dark.”
    “This is brainwashing propaganda by the Israeli Zionist media machine. It has nothing to do with Torah. Zionists ARE actually Amalek! The Chofetz Chaim said that he who goes against Judaism is from the seed of Amalek! And so therefore Zionists are from the seed of Amalek.”

  9. wondering jew
    wondering jew
    November 28, 2011, 3:49 pm

    Check out Nk’s attitude towards the Shoah: The Jews were punished and should have accepted their fate peaceably instead of resisting in any way. Some people can accept such passivism. I cannot. Their objection to Zionism is more in the way of passivism and thus is not acceptable to those who object to passivism.

    • freepaly
      freepaly
      November 28, 2011, 4:49 pm

      you have a point-

      taken from Rabbi Aharon Cohen’s infamous 2006 speech at the Holocaust Conference in Tehran, Iran- http://www.nkusa.org/activities/Speeches/2006Iran-ACohen.cfm

      14. However, the Orthodox Jewish teaching and attitude is that the perpetrators of a crime, although fully guilty and responsible for their actions, would never have succeeded in their evil unless the A-lmighty wished it. So, to that extent the victim or victims have of course to attempt to avoid the evil, but if this proves impossible, then they have to accept the will of the A-lmighty. Our teaching is that part of the decree of exile divinely imposed upon us, is that it is not the task of the Jewish People to bring our persecutors to justice. That is the task of the A-lmighty. Our task is to accept the will of the A-lmighty and to strive to improve ourselves, removing from our behaviour the deeds that may have been the cause of our suffering. That has been the Jewish attitude during all the long history of Jewish suffering.

      15. In no way can we have the audacity to, as it were, try to prevent the will of the A-lmighty and assume that we are capable of preventing such a thing from happening again. That would be heresy.

      16. The Zionists, with their secular pompous approach behave in complete opposition to this philosophy and dare to say ‘Never Again’. They have the audacity to think that they can prevent the A-lmighty from repeating a ‘Holocaust’. This is heresy.

      17. Furthermore, as we all know, they compound the wrong of this policy by imposing themselves in a most cruel and harsh manner on the Palestinian People.

      ——–

      i dont know if NK believes that all resistance, i.e. Warsaw Ghetto uprising and what not, was sinful, and that the victims of the Holocaust should have been totally passive. nonetheless we have touched upon a very sensitive emotional kernel of Zionism. The State of Israel was rapidly formed after the Holocaust as a way to fight back, and the image that the ‘sabra’ reborn Israelite developed of the pre-1900s diaspora Jew was an image of a passive, shriveling, weak creature who waited for God to right the earth’s wrongs. Then again, there were other secular ways in the 1900s to ‘fight back against the goyim’- the Bund in Russia’s philosophy was to ‘stay and fight’ anti-semitism, to wage a civil rights struggle in the diaspora, instead of the Zionist idea to flee to Palestine.

      this passivity you speak of is a weakness of religion as such, as it appears to our modern minds- do not take it upon yourselves, have faith in God, let God to it, just pray to God and don’t rely on human initiative.

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        November 28, 2011, 8:07 pm

        “the pre-1900s diaspora Jew was an image of a passive, shriveling, weak creature who waited for God to right the earth’s wrongs. ”

        I keep hearing this, but I can’t recall ever actually coming across such an image anywhere.

        As far as I can tell, the pre-1900s anti-Semites had the image of the Jew as being a sneaky but financially, and thus socially, powerful creature who wanted to run society for his own ends.

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        December 4, 2011, 9:37 am

        RoHa, you describe the Gentile peasant image of the Jew; they would have known, being on the bottom end of the pile. Many pre-1900s pogroms were actually part of peasant uprisings.

      • American
        American
        November 28, 2011, 11:17 pm

        “i dont know if NK believes that all resistance, i.e. Warsaw Ghetto uprising and what not, was sinful, and that the victims of the Holocaust should have been totally passive. ”

        I don’t see the Rabbi and NK as being passive in the face of Jews being killed or persecuted as in the holocaust….religious Jews were killed in the holocaust along with secular…he appears to be the kind who would have spoken out and even directly to the nazis for the Jews.
        His father’s visit to Arafat for instance, I don’t see as some plea for protection for certain Jews….I regard it as his defending the Jews of Judaism by explaining the difference between them, their Judaism, and the zionist.
        I don’t see this Rabbi as a coward or passive at all.
        Obviously the NK want to keep their Judaism pure Judaism….and although he says NK views are religious and not humanitarian in the sense of a gentiles humanitarianism, the religion still produces a humanitarian result. I can live with that kind of religion…those kind of religious.

    • American
      American
      November 28, 2011, 11:39 pm

      wondering jew says:
      November 28, 2011 at 3:49 pm
      Check out Nk’s attitude towards the Shoah: The Jews were punished and should have accepted their fate peaceably instead of resisting in any way”

      Doesn’t sound like that was exactly what he was saying:
      “So, to that extent the victim or victims have of course to attempt to avoid the evil, but if this proves impossible…”
      And if I am reading the other parts right NK is objecting to the aggressions of zionism and it’s linkage to the Jews. Seems to me if they were promoting total passivism they wouldn’t even be speaking out and active against zionism…they would just wait for God’s will on zionism so to speak.

      • MHughes976
        MHughes976
        November 29, 2011, 11:18 am

        I think that any religious person is likely to say that if our attempts to resist evil or indeed to do good do not in the end succeed we have to accept that our failure is God’s will.
        None of us find it easy to pursue the question from there. Why is God’s will so harsh? If you don’t believe in God, why does a rational species behave so badly sometimes? The possibilities seem to be that:
        a) the victims had done something wrong, maybe long ago, and the error had to be paid for
        b) the victims were exceptional in their character and their contribution to society and so attracted the envy and hatred of the wicked
        c) the victims were in every way normal people who had the misfortune to be selected by the whim of other people who were both bad and arbitrary.
        The exponents of all these ideas can call on plenty of literary and theological resources. The Deuteronomic History tells us over and over that political suffering is the wages of sin, idolatry and irreligion. The Servant songs in Isaiah (we Christians can’t get enough of these, though they are more complex and problematic than we like to think) suggest the second view. Being caught up in a problem too big to be handled is more of a pagan experience, perhaps.
        Freud in Mo and Mono understood that the first two ideas are not incompatible. He thought that the Euro Jews had made a very constructive contribution, exciting envy. On the other hand there was this basic problem of inherited guilt that had never been addressed and that kept putting both the internal and external relations of the Jewish community somehow wrong.
        Still all these ideas, however you combine them, remain distressing and unattractive. Hard to escape from all of them, though.

  10. john h
    john h
    November 28, 2011, 3:51 pm

    I knew that Zionists killed a lot of their political enemies, be they Jews or not. But never heard about Jacob Israel de Haan. Thanks for the history lesson!

    Same, we never stop learning. Having been thus introduced to this snippet about him and then looked further, it quickly became clear to me that who he was in Palestine and his assassination because of what he stood for, are important history that should be more widely known.

    De Haan was born in the Netherlands, and received a traditional Jewish education. De Haan worked as a teacher and studied law between 1903 and 1909. He wrote in socialist publications and various other magazines during these years [and later described himself as “the only important Jewish national poet Holland has ever had.”.[4]].

    Around 1910, De Haan developed an interest in Judaism, the Land of Israel and Zionism. De Haan rapidly became more religiously committed. He was angered by Zionist refusals to cooperate with Arabs.[5] He wrote extensively on the subject of Israel and Zionism even before he moved there in 1919.

    At first he aligned himself with religious Zionism and the Mizrachi movement, but after meeting Rabbi Yosef Chaim Sonnenfeld leader of the Haredi Jewish community, he became the political spokesman of the Haredim in Jerusalem and was elected political secretary of the Orthodox community council, Vaad Ha’ir.[6]

    He endeavoured to get an agreement with Arab nationalist leaders to allow unrestricted Jewish immigration into Palestine in exchange for a Jewish declaration foregoing the Balfour Declaration.[8]

    The leader of the Haredi Jews in Palestine at the time, Rabbi Yosef Chaim Sonnenfeld chose de Haan to organize and represent the Haredi position on a diplomatic level equal to that of the secular Zionists. When Lord Northcliffe, a British publisher, was about to visit the Middle East, de Haan went to Alexandria in Egypt to present the case of Palestine’s Haredim before he reached Palestine:

    ‘He spoke about the tyranny of the official Zionist movement. Already in Dutch circles he was the reputed volksverrader, traitor of his own people, and now his views spread throughout Great Britain and its Global Empire. Although his messages were short and few, the Zionist authorities both in Palestine and London became very worried. There was a great potential danger from these critical reports from a Jew who actually lived and worked right on this hot spot.'[4]

    De Haan was assassinated on 30 June 1924 in Jerusalem by members of Haganah,[9] and final responsibility was attributed to Zionists alarmed by his political activities in favour of a settlement with Arab leaders.

    The 1985 publication of De Haan: The first political assassination in Palestine, by Shlomo Nakdimon and Shaul Mayzlish,[10] revived wider interest in his assassination.

    Nakdimon and Mayzlish were able to trace the assassin, Avraham Tehomi (1903–1990), then a businessman living in Hong Kong. Tehomi was interviewed for Israeli TV by Nakdimon and openly stated: “I have done what the Haganah decided had to be done. And nothing was done without the order of Yitzhak Ben-Zvi (who later became the second president of Israel 1952-1963)… I have no regrets because he (de Haan) wanted to destroy our whole idea of Zionism“. [11]

    De Haan’s murder is considered the first political murder in the Jewish community in Palestine. His activities were perceived as undermining the struggle for the establishment of a Jewish state, but the assassination sparked a controversy and was harshly condemned by some. Labor movement publicist Moshe Beilinson wrote:

    “The flag of our movement must not be tarnished. Neither by the blood of the innocent, nor by the blood of the guilty. Otherwise – our movement will be bad, because blood draws other bloods. Blood always takes revenge and if you walk down this path once, you do not know where it would lead you.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Isra%C3%ABl_de_Haan

    • American
      American
      November 28, 2011, 11:25 pm

      De Haan’s murder

      I didn’t know about that piece of Israeli history.
      What a bad lot these zionist were from the beginning.

    • Elisabeth
      Elisabeth
      November 29, 2011, 8:53 am

      Thanks for adding some more about the Haan. And yes, he was Dutch, not Polish. (I suppose ‘Holland’ sounded like ‘Poland’ during the interview.) In the Netherlands he is more known as a writer, not as an anti-Zionist activist and it was thought for years that his assasination was related to his (quite open) homosexuality. His killer however came forward in the eighties and had this to say: “I have done what the Haganah decided had to be done. And nothing was done without the order of Yitzhak Ben-Zvi (who later became the second president of Israel 1952-1963)… I have no regrets because he (de Haan) wanted to destroy our whole idea of Zionism” He denied allegations that De Haan’s assassination was related to his homosexuality: “I neither heard nor knew about this”, adding “why is it someone’s business what he does at his home?” According to Gert Hekma, Zionists spread a rumour he had been killed by Arabs because of his sexual relations with Arab boys

  11. Richard Witty
    Richard Witty
    November 28, 2011, 5:00 pm

    Two lessons from the interview.

    1. To Neturai Karta, the dissent of secular Jews and non-Jews is irrelevant, off the message. The only way to address the discussion of the various neo-religious assertions, is by knowledge of Torah and Torah literature.

    2. That Neturai Karta is selective (biased) in its definition of what is a vain authoritative position.

    If everything that occurs in the world, occurs by divine willingness, then the establishment of the state of Israel did so as well. It is possible to pursue other strategies from the present – future, but it is a denial of a large component of Jewish thought to describe his interpretation as “God’s”. And, it is an interpretation.

    • john h
      john h
      November 28, 2011, 7:39 pm

      Not divine willingness, but divine allowance, the same as with the Holocaust and regarding all other evil that occurs. In no way does that mean such things have divine approval, or will not finally be accountable.

      We are all selective or biased in our definitions and interpretations. The question is whether that bias is toward truth and facts and God’s ways or to support our own agenda.

      And it is very likely that bias toward God will take us to “a denial of a large component of Jewish thought”.

      For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
      Nor are your ways my ways, says the Lord.
      For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
      So are my ways higher than your ways,
      And my thoughts than your thoughts.
      Isaiah 55:8-9

      That is the real lesson to be learned.

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        November 28, 2011, 7:55 pm

        What do truth and facts have to do with “God’s ways”?

        ‘And it is very likely that bias toward God will take us to “a denial of a large component of Jewish thought”.’

        You are all going to become Muslims or Baha’is?
        Better to just dump the whole lot.

      • john h
        john h
        November 28, 2011, 8:06 pm

        RoHa, do take into account who I was replying too! What do you think he would have had in mind by “a large component of Jewish thought”?

        Truth and facts as opposed to lies and hasbara.

        Dumping the whole lot is what Zionism and Marxism did. There must surely be a better way; in practice both atheism and religion have made such a mess of things. And we see from recent Zionism what trying to join the two is doing.

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        November 28, 2011, 10:04 pm

        “Dumping the whole lot is what Zionism”

        Zionism didn’t dump the totality of Jewish thought. It clung to the idea of “Jewishness”, to start with.

        “and Marxism did.”
        What has Marxism got to do with it?

        “both atheism and religion have made such a mess of things.”

        What mess has atheism made?

      • john h
        john h
        November 29, 2011, 12:08 am

        Fair questions because what I said was not clear to you and probably too sweeping, and it appears neither of us got what the other was getting at. So let’s back up a little.

        What then were you referring to by your “Better to just dump the whole lot”?

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        November 29, 2011, 2:11 am

        ‘What then were you referring to by your “Better to just dump the whole lot”?’

        Jewish thought.

      • john h
        john h
        November 29, 2011, 3:59 am

        The term “Jewish thought” was first used here by RW. In my reply to him and later question on it I made an assumption on what he intended, and used it how I saw it.

        So the meaning I took is not the same as what you mean, hence what came after that.

        What I meant was Jewish thought as RW had expressed it, “divine willingness; knowledge of Torah and Torah literature”.

        RW, however, did not stop there, but went on to refer to Zionist actions regarding “the establishment of the state of Israel” (which to me is tantamount to saying Zionism) as being “a large component of Jewish thought”, on the basis that interpretations vary and this one of his could be “God’s”.

        I consider Zionism to have nothing to do with God and that it came from those who had rejected him and Judaism and made it its replacement. That was why I said, “And it is very likely that bias toward God will take us to “a denial of a large component of Jewish thought”.”

        It is also why I put Zionism and Marxism together as atheist ideologies that have made such a mess just as have various religions that are so often used or abused or misused for evil.

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        November 29, 2011, 7:01 pm

        “What I meant was Jewish thought as RW had expressed it, “divine willingness; knowledge of Torah and Torah literature”.

        Yes. Dump that.

        ““the establishment of the state of Israel” (which to me is tantamount to saying Zionism) as being “a large component of Jewish thought”, ”

        That too.

        “It is also why I put Zionism and Marxism together as atheist ideologies”

        It is not the atheism that made the mess.

      • john h
        john h
        November 30, 2011, 1:44 am

        Yes, it is not the atheism that made the mess, and equally, it is not the religion that made the mess.

        The mess was made by humans who invented and/or used their atheism or ideology or religion to enslave and bring misery to others.

        So dump atheism, ideology, and religion too.

        Problem is, we can’t dump what we are as humans; those three are part of what makes us who we are. We have no alternative to working with what is, in us and in others; that is the reality.

        Otherwise we will just imagine what is yet another impossible dream.

        http://www.songmeanings.net/songs/view/8671/

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        November 30, 2011, 6:48 pm

        My previous reply didn’t make it through, so I’ll try again.

        “The mess was made by humans who invented and/or used their atheism or ideology or religion to enslave and bring misery to others.

        So dump atheism, ideology, and religion too.”

        I’ve seen ideology and religion being used to bring misery. Never seen it done with bare atheism.

        “we can’t dump what we are as humans; those three are part of what makes us who we are.”

        I really don’t know what you mean by “who we are”, so I can’t comment on this.

        But we can dump Jewish Thought (as defined above) and be better off for it. As far as I can tell (pending another burst of erudition from Hostage) it has brought no benefit and a fair amount of misery to Jews and Gentiles alike.

        We should also dump the Christian, Islamic, and Baha’i equivalents.

      • john h
        john h
        December 1, 2011, 1:59 pm

        I’ve seen ideology and religion being used to bring misery. Never seen it done with bare atheism.

        Never seen it done with bare Christianity either. What is bare is soon tainted by our humanity that can become what we call inhumanity.

        I really don’t know what you mean by “who we are”, so I can’t comment on this.

        Who we are is seen in the record of human history, and expressed every day everywhere. We produce a toxic mix of human misery and human care for self and for others.

        Our religion, our atheism, our ideologies, are all expressions of this and are not the real source of what is wrong or right in the world. That is much closer to home.

        Note this from another thread:

        Walid says:
        December 1, 2011 at 9:13 am

        “… We were not a violent people. We never danced and sang while our foes suffered.” (Avrum Rosenzweig)

        An illusion, Avrum, it wasn’t the Mideast air that did it to you. It’s been there all the time but you never saw it.

        MHughes976 says:
        December 1, 2011 at 10:27 am

        There in all of us, I think, of all religions [and none] and races. People are created equal in more ways than they like to think.

        That’s where change comes from, and that’s why we’re here at Mondo. We made that choice.

      • December 1, 2011, 2:13 pm

        ‘I’ve seen ideology and religion being used to bring misery. Never seen it done with bare atheism.”
        Bollocks.
        Go and study Russian and French revolutions. Millions of people died thanks to bare atheism being enforced on them.
        I’m not even talking about Maoist’s China.
        Gosh, why people do not study history.

      • eljay
        eljay
        December 1, 2011, 2:47 pm

        >> Go and study Russian and French revolutions. Millions of people died thanks to bare atheism being enforced on them.

        Atheism is the absence of a belief in a god(s). That lack of belief contains no actionable, religion-like dogma of superiority, exclusivity, entitlement, righteousness or domination.

        Forcing atheism on others is not at all the same thing as atheism.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka
        December 1, 2011, 3:01 pm

        dumvitaestspesest,

        “Go and study Russian and French revolutions. Millions of people died thanks to bare atheism being enforced on them.
        I’m not even talking about Maoist’s China.”

        In none of these cases did anyone die because of atheism. They died because those who killed them were adherents to irrational ideologies. Bigotry against atheists is no less disgusting than any other bigotry. Atheism simply means one doesn’t believe in god or gods. Nothing more.

      • December 1, 2011, 3:02 pm

        Let’s call it “an atheism in action, then.

      • eljay
        eljay
        December 1, 2011, 3:12 pm

        >> Let’s call it “an atheism in action, then.

        Atheism does not call for any action, so a more accurate phrase might be “the darker side of human nature in action”.

      • December 1, 2011, 3:21 pm

        No ,my friend. Go and study your history. The true one.
        I know what I’m talking about. Please do not teach me MY history.

        Have you heard about Wandea during French revolution??

        here is a link (in Russian) showing documental films that depict destroying of russian orthodax churches by communists ( 6:45-6:55).

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka
        December 1, 2011, 4:04 pm

        “No ,my friend. Go and study your history. The true one.
        I know what I’m talking about. Please do not teach me MY history.”

        It’s not your history that is the problem, it’s your thinking. The fact that one does not believe in any gods is all that atheism is. Is someone has additional ideologies beyond that which propel him to take irrational or immoral actions, then criticize those ideologies. The excesses and crimes in the French and Russian revolutions were not borne of atheism, but anti-clericism in the first instance and communism in the second. There is a good debate to be had on how much was warranted, how much was excessive, etc. (Indeed, it is hard to argue, in my opinion, that the role of the Catholic Church pre-revolution in France was anything but parasitic.) But don’t let anti-atheist bigotry cloud your thinking.

      • December 1, 2011, 4:11 pm

        If you want to find a blame in something ,you’ll always find.
        I killed her because, she gave me a “look”.
        It is hard for me to discuss with such arguments.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka
        December 1, 2011, 4:17 pm

        If you want to find a blame in something ,you’ll always find.
        I killed her because, she gave me a “look”.
        It is hard for me to discuss with such arguments.

        But yet you have no problem concluding that because someone is atheist and committed a bad act, that the atheism somehow motivated the act??

      • December 1, 2011, 4:28 pm

        Are you talking about individual choices or group/ideological ones??
        An individual?? I have no idea, I don’t sit in anybody’s conscience/mind.
        A group one?? Yes, there were lots of “bad acts” comitted by atheists in the name of fighting with religion, or people, who believed in one. History is full of that.
        Neron , Rome on fire, playing fiddle, and hungry lions for example.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka
        December 1, 2011, 5:01 pm

        “Are you talking about individual choices or group/ideological ones??”

        I am talking about the fact that atheism consists of a disbelief in the existence of gods/the supernatural (whatever that’s supposed to be). Nothing more. If you are pointing to someone doing anything other than not believing in god, then whatever it is you are talking about, it is not atheism.

        “Yes, there were lots of “bad acts” comitted by atheists in the name of fighting with religion, or people, who believed in one.”

        Great. So what? “[F]ighting with religion, or people, who believed in one” is not a part of atheism.

        “History is full of that.”

        Great. But it’s not atheism, so your acts in blaming it for anything is off base.

        “Neron , Rome on fire, playing fiddle, and hungry lions for example.”

        Nero wasn’t an atheist. And even if he was, again, none of these things constitutes atheism.

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        December 1, 2011, 7:12 pm

        I really don’t know what you mean by “who we are”, so I can’t comment on this.

        Who we are is seen in the record of human history, and expressed every day everywhere. We produce a toxic mix of human misery and human care for self and for others.”

        Sorry. That doesn’t clarify the “who we are” phrase at all.

        I really don’t know what you mean by “who we are”, so I can’t comment on this.

        “Our religion, our atheism, our ideologies, are all expressions of this and are not the real source of what is wrong or right in the world. That is much closer to home.”

        But we should still dump the religion stuff.

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        December 1, 2011, 7:35 pm

        “Neron , Rome on fire, playing fiddle,”

        What has that got to do with atheism?

        Wikipedia has a good article on Nero and the fire of Rome.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Fire_of_Rome

        “and hungry lions “

        “According to Tacitus, alone, Nero blamed the Christians for the fire in Rome. Annals, XV. This passage is not referred to in any other pagan, nor Christian writings until 400 CE. The Fantastic details of the sufferings of the Christians – dressed in animal hides and torn apart by dogs, crucified, and used as human torches – fits the pornographic masochistic obsession of the early Church. The sordid details of flesh torn and blood copiously shed is repulsive to the modern mind. For some reason the early Church wallowed in graphic descriptions of virgins violated and gored to death by bulls, old men crucified suffering horrific tortures and not to mention the over-fed lions of the Colosseum. By the way, the Romans did not feed their lions exclusively on Christians, any old mal-content would do; and more often did.

        Eusebius, when the Church was triumphant in the 4th century, after the ‘persecutions’ could only find 146 martyrs in the history.”

        Nero’s Fire and the Christian Persecution? – http://carrington-arts.com/cliff/Nero.htm

        Worth reading the whole thing.

        Also worth reading is MacMullen’s paper arguing that Christian persecution of pagans in the later Roman Empire was less energetic than Christian persecution of heretic Christians.

        MacMullen, R. (1996) “Paganism – Hard to Kill”, Journal of Higher Criticism Vol.3, No. 1, pp. 3 -17.

      • john h
        john h
        December 1, 2011, 8:33 pm

        It doesn’t matter what we dump or what we pick up, compared with what we are as individuals and what we do as a result.

        Debating about religion and atheism, bare or otherwise, is taking our eye off the ball. It’s not about brownie points.

        We will always have differences and see what we think are blindspots in others. But we’re not here to be wasting time and energy dotting the i’s and crossing the t’s of someone who shares our view on justice.

        What counts is what Mondoweiss stands for on Israel/Palestine.

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        December 4, 2011, 10:01 am

        Perhaps the problem can be revealed by (1) reading Nietzsche, and (2) reading the Nazi version of Nietzsche? Nietzsche was totally against Bismark and his contemporary German culture, and he was the first to declare, “God is dead.” He wrote about self-overcoming, and about the original politico-economic role in the rise of Christianity, a “slave morality.” He often ultimately spoke in metaphor. Look what the Nazis reduced his deep thought to: the splendid blonde beast, the survival of the fittest, melding aesthetics, the will to power, and social Darwinism into–the concept of a robust chosen people.

  12. patm
    patm
    November 28, 2011, 9:00 pm

    Thanks, Ben Lorber. You have provided much food for thought.

  13. radii
    radii
    November 28, 2011, 10:00 pm

    “It is very important to be active against Zionist actions, because they are harming both Jews and the rest of the world. So it is important to maintain vocal opposition, to dispute the Zionist agenda and make it understood that the Zionists are not really the Jewish voice.”

    yes, zionism is a poison, and it harms jews most of all

    the simple slogan in this age of media overload needs to be: Jews Yes Zionism No

  14. LeaNder
    LeaNder
    November 29, 2011, 6:02 am

    Jacob Israel de Haan was a secular Jew who became religious, and came here from Poland.

    Poland? Jacob Israël de Haan is an interesting part of the early Zionist context. But surely Dutch and not Polish or Russian, for whatever it’s worth. Or am I missing something?

    • john h
      john h
      November 29, 2011, 1:48 pm

      You are right, but still missing something – we made this clear in earlier posts.

  15. Talkback
    Talkback
    November 29, 2011, 8:47 am

    I’m not sure about this Neturei Karta guys.

    Sometimes it seems to me, that all they care about is Jews and that if Jews do bad things to Palestinians or Gentiles it is only bad, because it’s bad for the Jewish people or their collective soul. Antizionism is not wrong to them, because it’s rascist or inhumane, but because it’s against God’s commands and prevents the coming of the Jewish Messiah (which on the other hand will come anyway). And if he comes, according to them not only Israel will fall to Jews (as global Highpriests) anyway. They don’t care about humanity but only about God’s commands, even if they were inhumane.

    But maybe I’m wrong.

    • November 29, 2011, 8:54 am

      Yes , you are wrong.
      What is so “inhumane ” in God’s commands, that cleary state” thou shall not steal”, “thou shall not kill”??
      Is there anything in it that’s so hard to understand??
      The fact, that for some people those commands are very hard to follow, it’s another, different story.

      • Talkback
        Talkback
        November 29, 2011, 12:18 pm

        I was not talking about the 10 commands. And I’m not even sure, if Neturei Karta members even think that the 10 commands bind Jews towards Gentiles and not only towards Jews.

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        December 4, 2011, 10:12 am

        NK leader clearly departed from the humanist values as not being divinely ordained by their Jewish G-D, even as he admitted the results might be the same if everybody was either a secular humanist or an NK Jew. Seems NK is most for following orders, their G-D’s orders. I guess you could say, secular humanists follow the ethical morality of people like Kant? Is it sort of like being a Jehovah’s Witness versus being a secular humanist? Are the results the same as a practical matter? Awful lot of JWs murdered in Nazi camps…

  16. hophmi
    hophmi
    November 29, 2011, 11:05 am

    You can do all of the interviews you want with these whackjobs and we can all the interviews we want with Arabs who are Zionists like Walid Shoebat. It will not change anything. It’s a silly diversion meant for consumption by the true-believers.

    NK’s view of orthodoxy and its militant activism in favor of Jew haters like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is not supported by any mainstream Jewish movement. They’re a small, crazy sect. Nothing more.

    • john h
      john h
      November 29, 2011, 1:19 pm

      Whether something is a small crazy sect or a mainstream Jewish movement, it is a matter of discerning what is and is not truth in what is said.

      The message, not the messenger. Counting heads means nothing, hophmi.

    • Citizen
      Citizen
      December 4, 2011, 10:16 am

      hophmi, why do you call Ahmadinejad a “Jew hater?” He did say the Holocaust, like any other rendition of world history, should be open to refinement as more evidence becomes available–like any other aspect of history. And he did say, “The Zionist entity will vanish from the pages of history.” As, for example the USSR did. How do you conflate these observations ipso facto with being a “Jew-hater?” Why?

  17. annie
    annie
    November 29, 2011, 2:26 pm

    ben, this and the other articles you’ve been writing for WM, really an exceptional addition to the site imho. i’m particularly glad to have your contributions here. thanks.

  18. kalithea
    kalithea
    November 30, 2011, 1:42 am

    Someone should have the balls to tell the truth about the birth of Zionism by making a film based on Jacob Israël de Haan’s life and the crimes committed by Haganah and Irgun.

    • Talkback
      Talkback
      November 30, 2011, 8:51 am

      Well, who knows the real reason for Hertzl’s sudden death after his Uganda proposal.

    • Citizen
      Citizen
      December 4, 2011, 10:32 am

      Well, kalithea, they could start with this summary of De Haan’s life: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASnzDZOE1Ec

      His nobility of character is clear. He was murdered by the guy who founded the terrorist group Irgun because the Zionists did not want anyone teaching against their own ideas. The murder was authorized by the second honcho of the state of Israel. Nothing shows the nature of the state of Israel more than the life of De Haan.

Leave a Reply