|
Non-Jewish citizens of Israel do not
have the right to equality before the law. This discimination is
expressed in many Israeli laws in which, presumably in order to avoid
embarressment, the terms 'Jewish' and 'non-Jewish' are usually not
explicitly stated, as they are in the crucial Law of Return. According
to that law only persons officially recognised as 'Jewish' have an
automatic right of entry to Israel and of settling in it. They
automatically receive an 'immigration certificate' which provides them
on arrival with 'citizenship by virtue of having returned to the Jewish
homeland', and with the right to many financial benefits, which vary
somewhat according to the country from which they emmigrated. The Jews
who emigrate from the states of the former UUSR receive 'an absorption
grant' of more than $20,000 per family. All Jews immigrating to Israel
accordingthis law immediately acquire the right to vote in elections and
to be elected to the Knesset -- even if they do not speak a word of
Hebrew. (Chapter 1: A Closed Utopia?)
There are so many laws and regulations in
Israel which discriminate in favour of the persons defined in Israel as
those 'who can immigrate in accordance with the Law of Return' that the
subject demands seperate treatment. We can look here at one example,
seemingly trivial in comparison with residence restrictions, but
nevertheless important since it reveals the real intentions of the
Israeli legislator. Israeli citizens who left the country for a time but
who are defined as those who 'can immigrate in accordance with the Law
of Return' are eligible on their return to generous customs benefits, to
receive subsidy for their children's high school education, and to
receive either a grant or a loan on easy terms for the purchase of an
apartment, as well as other benefits. Citizens who cannot be so defined,
in other words, the non-Jewish citizens of Israel, get none of these
benefits. The obvious intention of such discriminatory measures is to
decrease the number of non-Jewish citizens of Israel, in order to make
Israel a more 'Jewish' state. (Chapter 1: A Closed Utopia?)
The main danger which Israel, as 'a Jewish state',
poses to its own people, to other Jews and to its neighbors, is its
ideologically motivated pursuit of territorial expansion and the
inevitable series of wars resulting from this aim. The more Israel
becomes Jewish or, as one says in Hebrew, the more it 'returns to
Judaism' (a process which has been under way in Israel at least since
1967), the more its actual politics are guided by Jewish ideological
considerations and less by rational ones. My use of the term 'rational'
does not refer here to a moral evaluation of Israeli policies, or to the
supposed defence or security needs of Israel - even less so to the
supposed needs of 'Israeli survival'. I am referring here to Israeli
imperial policies based on its presumed interests. However morally bad
or politically crass such policies are, I regard the adoption of
policies based on 'Jewish ideology', in all its different versions as
being even worse. The ideological defence of Israeli policies are
usually based on Jewish religious beliefs or, in the case of secular
Jews, on the 'historical rights' of the Jews which derive from those
beliefs and retain the dogmatic character of religious faith. (Chapter
1: Israeli Expansionism)
It must be admitted at the outset
that the Talmud and the talmudic literature - quite apart from the
general anti-Gentile streak that runs through them, which will be
discussed in greater detail in Chapter 5 - contain very offensive
statements and precepts directed specifically against Christianity. For
example, in addition to a series of scurrilous sexual allegations
against Jesus, the Talmud states that his punishment in hell is to be
immersed in boiling excrement - a statement not exactly calculated to
endear the Talmud to devout Christians. Or one can quote the precept
according to which Jews are instructed to burn, publicly if possible,
any copy of the New Testament that comes into their hands. (This is not
only still in force but actually practiced today; thus on 23 March 1980
hundreds of copies of the New Testament were publicly and ceremonially
burnt in Jerusalem under the auspices of Yad Le'akhim, a Jewish
religious organization subs subsidized by the Israeli Ministry of
Religions.) (Chapter 2: A Totalitarian History)
Under external pressure, the rabbis deceptively
eliminated or modified certain passages - but not the actual practices
which are prescribed in them. It is a fact which must be remembered, not
least by Jews themselves, that for centuries our totalitarian society
has employed barbaric and inhumane customs to poison the minds of its
members, and it is still doing so. (These inhumane customs cannot be
explained away as mere reaction to antisemitism or persecution of Jews:
they are gratuitous barbarities directed against each and every human
being. A pious Jew arriving for the first time in Australia, say, and
chancing to pass near an Aboriginal graveyard, must - as an act of
worship of 'God' - curse the mothers of the dead buried there.) Without
facing this real social fact, we all become parties to the deception and
accomplices to the process of poisoning the present and future
generations, with all the consequences of this process. (Chapter 2:
Defense Mechanisms) In
1962, a part of the Maimonidean Code referred to above, the so-called
Book of Knowledge, which contains the most basic rules of Jewish faith
and practice, was published in Jerusalem in a bilingual edition, with
the English translation facing the Hebrew text.20 The latter has been
restored to its original purity, and the command to exterminate Jewish
infidels appears in it in full: 'It is a duty to exterminate them with
one's own hands.' In the English translation this is somewhat softened
to: 'It is a duty to take active measures to destroy them.' But then the
Hebrew text goes on to specify the prime examples of 'infidels' who must
be exterminated: 'Such as Jesus of Nazareth and his pupils, and Tzadoq
and Baitos 21 and their pupils, may the name of the wicked rot'. Not one
'word of this appears in the English text on the facing page (78a). And,
even more significant, in spite of the wide circulation of this book
among scholars in the English-speaking countries, not one of them has,
as far as I know, protested against this glaring deception. (Chapter 2:
The Deception Continues)
ACCORDING TO THE JEWISH religion, the murder of a Jew is a capital
offense and one of the three most heinous sins (the other two being
idolatry and adultery). Jewish religious courts and secular authorities
are commanded to punish, even beyond the limits of the ordinary
administration of justice, anyone guilty of murdering a Jew. A Jew who
indirectly causes the death of another Jew is, however, only guilty of
what talmudic law calls a sin against the 'laws of Heaven', to be
punished by God rather than by man.
When the victim is a Gentile, the position is quite different. A Jew who
murders a Gentile is guilty only of a sin against the laws of Heaven,
not punishable by a court. To cause indirectly the death of a Gentile is
no sin at all.
Thus, one of the two most important commentators on the Shulhan Arukh
explains that when it comes to a Gentile, 'one must not lift one's hand
to harm him, but one may harm him indirectly, for instance by removing a
ladder after he had fallen into a crevice .., there is no prohibition
here, because it was not done directly: He points out, however, that an
act leading indirectly to a Gentile's death is forbidden if it may cause
the spread of hostility towards Jews. (Chapter 5: Murder and Genocide)
According to the Halakhah, the duty to save the life of a fellow Jew is
paramount. It supersedes all other religious obligations and
interdictions, excepting only the prohibitions against the three most
heinous sins of adultery (including incest), murder and idolatry.
As for Gentiles, the basic talmudic principle is that their lives must
not be saved, although it is also forbidden to murder them outright. The
Talmud itself~~ expresses this in the maxim 'Gentiles are neither to be
lifted [out of a well] nor hauled down [into it]'. Maimonides explains:
"As for Gentiles with whom we are not at war ... their death must not be
caused, but it is forbidden to save them if they are at the point of
death; if, for example, one of them is seen falling into the sea, he
should not be rescued, for it is written: 'neither shalt thou stand
against the blood of thy fellow' - but [a Gentile] is not thy fellow."
(Chapter 5: Saving of Life)
SEXUAL INTERCOURSE between a married Jewish woman and any man other than
her husband is a capital offense for both parties, and one of the three
most heinous sins. The status of Gentile women is very different. The
Halakhah presumes all Gentiles to be utterly promiscuous and the verse
'whose flesh is as the flesh of asses, and whose issue [of semen] is
like the issue of horses' is applied to them. Whether a Gentile woman is
married or not makes no difference, since as far as Jews are concerned
the very concept of matrimony does not apply to Gentiles ('There is no
matrimony for a heathen'). Therefore, the concept of adultery also does
not apply to intercourse between a Jewish man and a Gentile woman;
rather, the Talmud equates such intercourse to the sin of bestiality.
(For the same reason, Gentiles are generally presumed not to have
certain paternity.) (Chapter 5: Sexual Offences)
Theft and robbery. Stealing (without
violence) is absolutely forbidden - as the Shulhan 'Arukh so nicely puts
it: 'even from a Gentile'. Robbery (with violence) is strictly forbidden
if the victim is Jewish. However, robbery of a Gentile by a Jew is not
forbidden outright but only under certain circumstances such as 'when
the Gentiles are not under our rule', but is permitted 'when they are
under our rule'. Rabbinical authorities differ among themselves as to
the precise details of the circumstances under which a Jew may rob a
Gentile, but the whole debate is concerned only with the relative power
of Jews and Gentiles rather than with universal considerations of
justice and humanity. This may explain why so very few rabbis have
protested against the robbery of Palestinian property in Israel: it was
backed by overwhelming Jewish power. (Chapter 5: Money and Property)
The Halakhah forbids Jews to sell immovable
property - fields and houses - in the Land of Israel to Gentiles. In
Syria, the sale of houses (but not of fields) is permitted.
Leasing a house in the Land of Israel to a Gentile is permitted under
two conditions. First, that the house shall not be used for habitation
but for other purposes, such as storage. Second, that three or more
adjoining houses shall not be so leased.
These and several other rules are explained as follows: ... 'so that you
shall not allow them to camp on the ground, for if they do not possess
land, their sojourn there will be temporary.' Even temporary Gentile
presence may only be tolerated 'when the Jews are in exile, or when the
Gentiles are more powerful than the Jews,' but when the Jews are more
powerful than the Gentiles we are forbidden to let an idolator among us;
even a temporary resident or itinerant trader shall not be allowed to
pass through our land unless he accepts the seven Noahide precepts, for
it is written: 'they shall not dwell in thy land' that is, not even
temporarily. If he accepts the seven Noahide precepts, he becomes a
resident alien (ger toshav) but it is forbidden to grant the status of
resident alien except at times when the Jubilee is held [that is, when
the Temple stands and sacrifices are offered]. However, during times
when Jubilees are not held it is forbidden to accept anyone who is not a
full convert to Judaism (ger tzedeq). (Chapter 5: Gentiles in the
Land of lsrael)
Anyone who lives in Israel knows how deep and widespread these attitudes
of hatred and cruelty to towards all Gentiles are among the majority of
Israeli Jews. Normally these attitudes are disguised from the outside
world, but since the establishment of the State of Israel, the 1967 war
and the rise of Begin, a significant minority of Jews, both in Israel
and abroad, have gradually become more open about such matters. In
recent years the inhuman precepts according to which servitude is the
'natural' lot of Gentiles have been publicly quoted in Israel, even on
TV, by Jewish farmers exploiting Arab labor, particularly child labor.
Gush Emunim leaders have quoted religious precepts which enjoin Jews to
oppress Gentiles, as a justification of the attempted assassination of
Palestinian mayors and as divine authority for their own plan to expel
all the Arabs from Palestine. (Chapter 5: Abuse)
http://www.captiveminds.org/rec.htm
http://www.radioislam.net/historia/shahak/english.htm |