January/February 1997, p. 23

From the Hebrew Press

The Two Forms of Israeli Jewish Chauvinism

by Israel Shahak

Foreword: The media self-censorship that is widely practiced in Western countries proscribes discussing or even mentioning Jewish chauvinism and religious fanaticism. Even stronger than this taboo in conservative publications is its observance in mildly leftist U.S. publications, such as The Nation , which from time to time supports the just rights of the Palestinians. In contrast, the Hebrew press often discusses Jewish chauvinism and religious fanaticism, which do exist in Israel and, in my view, are even stronger among U.S. Jews. In fact Israeli policies cannot be understood without considering the influence of this chauvinism. Two examples from the Hebrew press are presented here of this chauvinism’s two main forms, the first being secular and the second religious, which is even worse.

After the Riots, “The Israeli Army Should Have Killed Masses of People”

Tel Aviv Friday paper, Oct. 18, 1996

By Yuval Karni

Bentzi Mordov, member of Likud Center and Tel Aviv municipal council, complains that after the September incidents, Binyamin Netanyahu has treated the Palestinians too laxly. He should have ordered “killing of thousands of Arabs in the territories to suppress the riots.” Mordov also says that those who demonstrated against the government in those days should be charged with treason. Bentzi Mordov holds senior positions in Tel Aviv municipality, and is also, on behalf of Likud, the chairman of the Dan area¹ municipal association for sewage. He is not only a veteran Likud member but the chairman of the largest Likud branch, which consists of the southern part of Tel Aviv.² For a long time he supported David Levy, but last year he worked on behalf of Netanyahu. He wields great influence over many Likud members and sympathizers.

“Netanyahu was right when he ordered the opening of the tunnel, but he made a mistake in his treatment of the Arabs afterwards,” said Mordov. “Immediately after the PLO policemen began shooting at Israeli army soldiers, the mass killing should have begun, in order that such things should never happen again and that no one should hit Israeli soldiers or civilians.” According to Mordov, at least some tens of thousands of Arabs should have been killed “to bring quiet to the territories.”

“The very heart of the act” is revenge.

He added, “We should never treat the Arabs laxly. We should treat the Arabs as Arab history taught us and as Arab rulers are treating them. King Hussein, who killed so many of them during Black September [in 1970], and Hafez al-Assad, who slaughtered thousands in Hama in 1980, should serve us as examples. Arabs don’t understand the language of peace and negotiations, but as their rulers know, only the language of power. We should treat them accordingly.”

Mordov also has strong opinions about Yitzhak Rabin, Shimon Peres and all the leftists. “Rabin and Peres would have caused Israel to collapse had they been left to rule it. Their greatest crime was to give weapons to murderers with bloody hands. They were naive and stupid when they hoped that those weapons would not be turned against Jews.”

Question: What do you say about the claim, raised even by some in Likud, that Netanyahu conducted the last crisis hastily and foolishly and so bears the greatest responsibility for it?

Answer: Only very few in Likud say so. They don’t represent the great majority of Likud members who support Netanyahu.

Question: Is Ronny Milo, the Likud Tel Aviv mayor, considered by you to be an isolated voice?

Answer: I think so. He has no contact with Likud activists. I have.

Question: Do you think that the majority in Likud thinks like you?

Answer: Yes, I believe so.

Question: But what you are saying seems very violent and racist.

Answer: I have heard such statements before. They are untrue. It is the Jewish nation which is discriminated against. Those who call me a racist are those diseased masochists from the left. They are miserable people whom one should send to an insane asylum.

Mordov is sure that Netanyahu desires peace based on security. The proof of that, according to him, is that the prime minister is not making hasty concessions to Palestinians and especially that he is not removing the army from Hebron. “I think that we will never evacuate the army from Hebron and it will remain ours,” he declares.

Mordov speaks violently against the leftist demonstrators, especially the popular singers,³ and proposes to charge them with treason. “Some of the leftists are mentally ill and I pity them. In a civilized country such people should not be allowed to demonstrate while Israeli soldiers are fighting. No Arab country would have allowed such a thing. We should all be ashamed that some of our citizens behaved in such a manner that Jews who want Israel to collapse have joined the Israeli Arabs in their demonstrations. This is what happens when there is too much democracy in a country. Both the Jews and Arabs who demonstrated should be charged with treason.” Mordov said that he will raise this issue in the next meeting of Likud’s secretariat.

“I Am Not Sorry.”

Mordov is known for his extreme views, which have brought him great popularity among Likud activists of his branch. Some time ago he claimed that some Arabs in Jaffa-Tel Aviv collaborate with Hamas. The Arabs of Jaffa felt insulted and other members of the Tel Aviv municipal council condemned Mordov’s statement and called for maintenance of good relations between Jews and Arabs in Jaffa, but Mordov did not retract. On the contrary, even now he persists, “I am not sorry because I was not mistaken,” he says.

Question:Is not Jaffa one of the examples of Jewish-Arab coexistence?

Answer: It is not. The Arabs of Jaffa are hiding weapons and this is a fact known to everybody.⁴ The conclusion is that we should never rely on Arabs for our security.

Hamis Abulafiya, one of the senior Arab politicians (Labor) of Jaffa, was asked for his reaction. Abulafiya said, “I hear with disgust and great sorrow what Mordov says. Such expressions show to everybody that the incitement which characterized Israel before the assassination of our Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin (R.I.P.) still persists. Legal steps should be taken against it. I totally deny what Mordov irresponsibly says about the Arabs of Jaffa. There is coexistence in Jaffa and the Arabs, with their tolerance, are the chief cause of this coexistence.”

Advocate Yossi Sperling, member of Tel Aviv municipal council on behalf of Labor, says in reaction to Mordov: “What he says is racist and insane incitement, but I have to recognize that what Bentzi Mordov is saying expresses the long-time views of many Likud members. I am ashamed that the Jewish nation had produced elected representatives like Mordov, but I acknowledge that people like him are repeating what the worst anti-Semites have said. I hope that the Israeli Jews will yet vomit from their midst such war- and hate-mongers. As to the Arabs of Jaffa, there is an alliance based on fraternity between them and us and I am sure that the alliance is strong enough to survive insults by the extreme right.”

Question: Is Mordov “extreme right”? He is a member of Likud. You sit in a coalition with him in the Tel Aviv municipal council

Answer: True, Mordov is a member of Likud. He was elected by the people. The worst assassins of the Jews were elected by the people by the democratic process. So were our most dangerous extremists.

Question: How do you feel when you sit in a coalition with a person who speaks like Mordov?

Answer: This is not my problem, that is Likud’s problem. It is the Likud that chooses persons like Mordov who continue the incitement which began before the assassination of Rabin.⁵

NOTES:

¹ The area around Tel Aviv.

² Inhabited by the poorer Jews, with an “Oriental” majority.

³ On Sept. 26 some singers popular in “Israel A” demonstrated in Tel Aviv against Netanyahu. Since popular entertainers for a long time have been polarized among the Israeli Jews, with singers popular in “Israel A” loathed by “Israel B,” their demonstration only persuaded the already convinced and antagonized all the others.

⁴ He refers to gangsters for which Jaffa is, indeed, notorious.

⁵ Some days after publication of this article, the Likud faction in the Tel Aviv municipal council demanded that Mordov apologize and retract his views. When he refused, the Likud faction disassociated itself from him and removed him from the two functions he had filled on its behalf. Mordov brought the matter before the Likud branch which he chairs and he got a vote of confidence. The whole affair shows an aspect of Israeli Jewish society which is usually ignored by the U.S. media.

This Is the Jewish Religion as Taught in Yoseph’s Tomb

Ma’ariv, Oct. 11, 1996

By Aryeh Naor

Nobody knows who is buried in the place called “Yoseph’s Tomb”¹ and there is no scientific proof to link that with Jewish traditions from the period that preceded the conquest of Palestine by the Muslims.² In spite of its very doubtful identification, the symbolic value attributed to this place in the “Od Yoseph Hay” (Yoseph is still alive) yeshiva established there does not depend on scientific proof. So we might say it is as impossible that the Yoseph mentioned in the Bible is buried there as it is impossible that he is still alive. A month ago it was still possible to dismiss these things with laughter. Who cares who is buried there or that a yeshiva was established there? However, now it turns out that the defense of this place and of the bunch of crazies who settled there demands a heavy price of bloodleading us to the question whether it is worthwhile to hold it and pay the price.

This question will be answered by everybody according to his scale of values and inclinations. But when, besides the grave doubts about the authenticity of the place, there is a certain knowledge about the world outlook that guides the yeshiva, its head Rabbi Yitzhak Ginsburg and his students, the question becomes still more pressing: For whose sake and for what purpose are Israeli soldiers sent to risk life and limb?

After the massacre carried out by Baruch Goldstein in the Patriarchs’ Cave, Ginsburg wrote a supposedly theoretical article, printed in a book entitled Baruch Hagever³ published in Goldstein’s honor, devoted to the praises of the assassin, who is called a “saint.”⁴ It is hard to believe when you read the book that it was written by a Jew. Its style and contents remind us of the most abominable and despicable things that have been written by anti-Semites.

It is said there that what Goldstein did is a fulfillment of a number of commands of Jewish religious law, and because of his adherence to Jewish religion he suffered martyrdom. Among his good deeds, as enumerated, are saving Jewish lives, taking revenge on the non-Jews, extermination of the non-Jews who are from the seed of Amalek and waging a war to conquer the Land of Israel and to drive out its non-Jewish inhabitants, and the sanctification of the Holy Name.⁵

Rabbi Ginsburg found that the religious devotion of the assassin, the “admiration” that his action roused among pious Jews, and the intimidation of the Arabs caused by his act deserve the highest praise, because “the non-Jews will feel a threat against them proceeding from upright Jews…like Goldstein.” The murder has led, in the rabbi’s opinion, “to the rescue of many Jews, a sharpening of the distinction between the Jews and the non-Jews. and clear knowledge among the Jews that ‘the life of a Jew is preferable to the life of a non-Jew’ and thus ‘it is permissible to kill non-Jews in order to save Israel.’”

Rabbi Ginsburg continues: “The very heart of the act is revenge. “The revenge is the verdict of the Jews on their enemies; it makes the distinction between good and bad clear …Every time when the Jews have the upper hand, we are in Paradise since the King of Justice reveals Himself by such an act to all the Jews.”

An act of revenge is an invitation to God to hasten His Redemption, without taking into account the question if the victim of the revenge is guilty or not. So, in a way of thought that reminds us of arguments of anti-Semites and racists, the rabbi of the “Yoseph’s Tomb” yeshiva puts the murder of the praying Muslims in the Patriarch’s Cave above good and evil. The supreme good is the national interest of the Jews and thus it does not matter if some anonymous Arab is guilty of anything. His very belonging to the group against whom the revenger has acted is, in Rabbi Ginsburg’s view, the authorization for any Jew to kill him.

Another command that the assassin has observed, in Ginsburg’s opinion, is the extermination of Amalek.⁶ What he wrote about that clarifies some of the intentions of the settlers in that yeshiva. The command to wipe out the memory of Amalek should be observed now, even though Amalek as a nation does not exist, because every enemy of the Jews is a kind of Amalek. In our days the Palestinians are the Amalek since they represent the evil, and it is a religious command to develop hatred against the evil and a desire to witness its ruin.

Ginsberg writes that “The hostility of the Arabs of Hebron in particular and of the Palestinians in general is anti-Semitism. It is not motivated by any desire for a land of their own, because there is no Palestinian nation and the talk about it is only intended to harm the Jews.”

Ginsburg abstains from drawing the general conclusion, almost self-evident from this analysis, and does not call on the Jews to kill every living Palestinian, but he states again, “The command to wipe out Amalek is accompanied by the command always to remember his bad deeds and his hostility…to have strength to wipe out the evil one should kindle its hatred in the heart.”

Beyond the ideology of hatred that reminds us of the most poisonous anti-Semitic propaganda, Ginsburg has a political dimension that finds expression in the command to wage war and drive out all non-Jewish inhabitants of this country. In Meir Kahane’s spirit he writes that we have a duty to conquer the country by waging a war and he hints clearly that after the conquest all Arabs must be driven out, “Taking possession of the country must be done totally with the reference to its actual inhabitants. Sovereignty and ownership over it are not enough…” To remove any doubt about what he is writing, he quotes a few passages from the Bible that say that if the Israelites do not drive out those who lived before them in the land given to them by God, those who are not driven out will become “thorns in your eyes and stings in your sides.”

By this he clearly shows his meaning, that everything Goldstein did and what Ginsburg teaches his students about the future, is destined to cause a war in which the memory of Amalek will be wiped out and the Arabs will be driven out from the entire Land of Israel.⁷ This is the teaching of the rabbi from “Yoseph’s Tomb.” The Israeli soldiers are sent to risk their lives to protect him and his yeshiva in Nablus.

NOTES:

¹ Quite apart from other considerations, the present town of Nablus was founded by Emperor Vespasian in 72 AD as a new town (Nablus is the Arabic form of the Greek name “Nea Polis,’’ new town). The ancient biblical town called Shechem in the Bible was a few miles distant from the present site. It follows that no Biblical figure could be buried in the present town.

² The first Jewish traditions, undoubtedly derived from the Muslims, date only from the mid-19th century.

³ “Baruch,” a common Hebrew name, means “Blessed.” “Hagever” means “the man.” Thus the book’s title can mean praise for the mass-murderer. The entire book is, indeed, full of his praises. The book had a great sale in synagogues and yeshivas but not among the secular Israeli Jewish public. It should be added that no Israeli rabbi (including the “moderates” among them) has said a word against the contents of the book.

⁴ Goldstein is, indeed, being worshipped as a saint in Kiryat Arba. His intercession before God is asked by pilgrims and it is reported that he cures the ill and generally helps those Jews who ask his help. Although his pious worshippers represent only a small minority of Israeli Jews as a whole, their influence is much stronger among its religious segment.

⁵ The most holy act which can be committed by a pious Jew.

⁶ See Exodus chapter 17, 14:1 Samuel chapter 15, 3 and other places. The Jewish religious law is unanimous that all those who are regarded as descendants of Amalek should be killed by the Jews, wherever discovered.

⁷ Actually the Nazi “teaching” of Ginsburg is worse. As behind Hitler’s pretended wish “only” to expel the Jews, there was a wish to exterminate them, so behind Ginsburg’s wish “only” to expel the Palestinians there also is a wish to exterminate them. In both cases, those who don’t refer to the danger while there is yet time to prevent it are the worst. Those in the U.S. media who expend much space on describing, rightly or wrongly, Muslim fanaticism but do not describe Jewish fanaticism when the evidence for the latter is clearly available are, in my view, even worse than Ginsburg.