Anthony McIntyre's Blog, page 1166
January 20, 2018
Radio Free Eireann Broadcasting 20 January 2018
Martin Galvin with details of what Radio Free Eireann is serving up this weekend.Radio Free Eireann will broadcast today January 20th.
Former political prisoner, author and political commentator Anthony McIntyre will report on Karen Bradley, who despite never having been to the north of Ireland was appointed as British colonial secretary, Bradley's new talks to restore Stormont, Barry McElduff's resignation and the by-election for his seat.
Saoradh organizer Joe Barr will tell us about a controversy regarding next week's Bloody Sunday March in Derry, and why sadly for the first time in years he will not be attending.
Martin Galvin with details of this weekend's broadcast from Radio Free Eireann.
John McDonagh and Martin Galvin co- host.
Radio Free Eireann is heard Saturdays at 12 Noon New York time on wbai 99.5 FM and wbai.org.
It can be heard at wbai.org in Ireland from 5pm to 6pm or anytime after the program concludes on wbai.org/archives.
Former political prisoner, author and political commentator Anthony McIntyre will report on Karen Bradley, who despite never having been to the north of Ireland was appointed as British colonial secretary, Bradley's new talks to restore Stormont, Barry McElduff's resignation and the by-election for his seat.
Saoradh organizer Joe Barr will tell us about a controversy regarding next week's Bloody Sunday March in Derry, and why sadly for the first time in years he will not be attending.
Martin Galvin with details of this weekend's broadcast from Radio Free Eireann.
John McDonagh and Martin Galvin co- host.
Radio Free Eireann is heard Saturdays at 12 Noon New York time on wbai 99.5 FM and wbai.org.
It can be heard at wbai.org in Ireland from 5pm to 6pm or anytime after the program concludes on wbai.org/archives.
January 19, 2018
Children Of Stones
The Uri Avnery Column revisits the Two State Solution.
They congregate in the marketplace, boys of 15, 16 years, take stones and throw them at our soldiers, who are armed to the teeth. The soldiers shoot, sometimes over their heads, sometimes straight at them. Every day there are wounded, every few days there are dead.
What for? They do not have the slightest chance of changing the policy of the Israeli occupation. Only very rarely do the boys hit a soldier and cause him a slight injury.
Yet they go on. Why?
A Friend of mine sent me an article by a respected Palestinian. He described his first demonstration, many years ago.
The way he tells it, he was 15 years old, living in a village under occupation, hating Israeli soldiers. With a group of friends of the same age, he went to the center of his village, where a line of soldiers was waiting for them.
Each of the demonstrators picked up a stone - no lack of stones in an Arab village - and threw it at the soldiers. The stones fell far short, causing no harm.
But - and here the adult man grew ecstatic - what a wonderful feeling! For the first time in his life the boy felt that he was hitting back! He was no longer a despised, helpless Palestinian! He was upholding the dignity of his people! The old leaders may be subservient! Not he, not his friends!
For the first time in his life he was proud, proud to be a Palestinian, proud to be a courageous human being.
What a wonderful feeling! For this feeling he was ready to risk his life, again and again, ready to become a Shaheed, a witness, a martyr.
There are many thousands like him.
Reading This description was exciting, because it reminded me of something in my own remote youth. When I was exactly the same age, 15.
It was in May, 1939. The British rulers of Palestine had just published a White Paper, putting the dampers on our Zionist vision. The world war was drawing close, and the British Empire needed the support of the Arab world.
A few months earlier, I had joined the National Military Organization (commonly called the Irgun), the most militant underground organization devoted to the fight against the British colonial regime. The last push for me was a disturbing event: for the first time the British had hanged a Jewish "terrorist". I was determined to fill his place.
In the evening I received an order: tomorrow noon we shall start a demonstration against the White Paper. Be ready in Allenby street, near the Mugrabi cinema.
Long before the time, I was there, waiting with growing excitement. At noon exactly, a bugle sounded. I ran to the assembly point, together with hundreds of other Irgun members. Repeating slogans that someone shouted, we started to march along the street, then Tel Aviv's main thoroughfare.
Halfway down the street there stands the Great Synagogue, with its external staircase. Somebody ran up it and delivered an impassioned speech, ending with the Biblical verse "It I forget thee, oh Jerusalem / May my right hand wither…"
From there we marched to our destination: the district offices of the British administration. Some daring fellows ran up, broke open the doors and started to throw down heaps of official papers. We burned them in the street.
Suddenly British soldiers appeared on the scene. Shots were fired, either over our heads or at us. It was the first time in my life I was shot at.
We ran away, through a hole in the fence by the railway line. After a few hundred meters we found each other again. We were ecstatic, happy beyond measure. We had shown those bloody British that Jews can fight back. We had risked our lives for our fatherland. We had made our people proud of us.
That was 79 years ago. I remember it as if it were yesterday. And I completely understand the ecstasy of the Palestinian boys, the "children of the stones", who today risk their lives, throwing stones in futile demonstrations.
Our Leaders treat the children-of-the-stones with disdain, much as the British authorities treated us then. What can they achieve? Nothing. Our - and their - pitiful demonstrations were/are ridiculous.
But a boy of 15 is a powerful force. His pride in fighting back grows with the years. It is a force that cannot be subdued. The more of them are killed, the stronger they get. The heavier the hand of the oppressor, the stronger the determination of the oppressed. It's a law of nature.
In today's Hebrew Empire, from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River, there is already a slight Palestinian majority - something like 8.2 million Arabs to 7.8 million Jews. This fact is generally hidden in official statistics. Since the Palestinian birthrate is much higher than the Jewish one (except for Orthodox Jews), the Arab majority will inexorably grow. Greater Israel will become more and more an apartheid state.
What is the answer of the Israeli Right to this? There is no answer. Some on the fringes dream of a mass exodus of the Arabs, like the one of 1948. But no people makes the same mistake twice. Whatever happens, the Palestinians will cling to their soil. They call this steadfastness "sumud".
I have in my head a poem by one of our national poets from before 1948: "No people retreats from the bulwarks of its life." The Palestinians are like all other peoples. Like us.
Lateley, A New political fashion has emerged, especially among Arabs. They declare that there is only one choice: either Two States or One State. If the Israeli leadership, aided and abetted by President Trump, rejects the Two State solution, the One State solution will take its place. Jews and Arabs will live in one joint state, from the sea to the river. End of the Zionist dream.
This is nonsense. If some Arab politicians think that this prospect will frighten Israelis into accepting the Two State solution, they are sadly mistaken. True, some right-wing Israelis talk about this possibility, but they know that this would be hell.
One State? What would the army look like? Who would command it, who would be the soldiers? With an Arab majority in the Knesset (which would presumable change its name to Majlis) fighting a daily battle against the Jewish factions? With the standard of living of the Jews vastly higher than that of the Arab citizens? Who will control the police? Endless questions without answers.
The simple fact is that there is no choice between a Two State and a One State solution, because One State is no solution at all, but a pipe-dream. Or a nightmare.
So is there no choice? Of course there is. There always is.
The choice is between the Two State solution and No Solution. Eternal war.
Uri Avnery is a veteran Israeli peace activist. He writes @ Gush Shalom
They congregate in the marketplace, boys of 15, 16 years, take stones and throw them at our soldiers, who are armed to the teeth. The soldiers shoot, sometimes over their heads, sometimes straight at them. Every day there are wounded, every few days there are dead.
What for? They do not have the slightest chance of changing the policy of the Israeli occupation. Only very rarely do the boys hit a soldier and cause him a slight injury.
Yet they go on. Why?
A Friend of mine sent me an article by a respected Palestinian. He described his first demonstration, many years ago.
The way he tells it, he was 15 years old, living in a village under occupation, hating Israeli soldiers. With a group of friends of the same age, he went to the center of his village, where a line of soldiers was waiting for them.
Each of the demonstrators picked up a stone - no lack of stones in an Arab village - and threw it at the soldiers. The stones fell far short, causing no harm.
But - and here the adult man grew ecstatic - what a wonderful feeling! For the first time in his life the boy felt that he was hitting back! He was no longer a despised, helpless Palestinian! He was upholding the dignity of his people! The old leaders may be subservient! Not he, not his friends!
For the first time in his life he was proud, proud to be a Palestinian, proud to be a courageous human being.
What a wonderful feeling! For this feeling he was ready to risk his life, again and again, ready to become a Shaheed, a witness, a martyr.
There are many thousands like him.
Reading This description was exciting, because it reminded me of something in my own remote youth. When I was exactly the same age, 15.
It was in May, 1939. The British rulers of Palestine had just published a White Paper, putting the dampers on our Zionist vision. The world war was drawing close, and the British Empire needed the support of the Arab world.
A few months earlier, I had joined the National Military Organization (commonly called the Irgun), the most militant underground organization devoted to the fight against the British colonial regime. The last push for me was a disturbing event: for the first time the British had hanged a Jewish "terrorist". I was determined to fill his place.
In the evening I received an order: tomorrow noon we shall start a demonstration against the White Paper. Be ready in Allenby street, near the Mugrabi cinema.
Long before the time, I was there, waiting with growing excitement. At noon exactly, a bugle sounded. I ran to the assembly point, together with hundreds of other Irgun members. Repeating slogans that someone shouted, we started to march along the street, then Tel Aviv's main thoroughfare.
Halfway down the street there stands the Great Synagogue, with its external staircase. Somebody ran up it and delivered an impassioned speech, ending with the Biblical verse "It I forget thee, oh Jerusalem / May my right hand wither…"
From there we marched to our destination: the district offices of the British administration. Some daring fellows ran up, broke open the doors and started to throw down heaps of official papers. We burned them in the street.
Suddenly British soldiers appeared on the scene. Shots were fired, either over our heads or at us. It was the first time in my life I was shot at.
We ran away, through a hole in the fence by the railway line. After a few hundred meters we found each other again. We were ecstatic, happy beyond measure. We had shown those bloody British that Jews can fight back. We had risked our lives for our fatherland. We had made our people proud of us.
That was 79 years ago. I remember it as if it were yesterday. And I completely understand the ecstasy of the Palestinian boys, the "children of the stones", who today risk their lives, throwing stones in futile demonstrations.
Our Leaders treat the children-of-the-stones with disdain, much as the British authorities treated us then. What can they achieve? Nothing. Our - and their - pitiful demonstrations were/are ridiculous.
But a boy of 15 is a powerful force. His pride in fighting back grows with the years. It is a force that cannot be subdued. The more of them are killed, the stronger they get. The heavier the hand of the oppressor, the stronger the determination of the oppressed. It's a law of nature.
In today's Hebrew Empire, from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River, there is already a slight Palestinian majority - something like 8.2 million Arabs to 7.8 million Jews. This fact is generally hidden in official statistics. Since the Palestinian birthrate is much higher than the Jewish one (except for Orthodox Jews), the Arab majority will inexorably grow. Greater Israel will become more and more an apartheid state.
What is the answer of the Israeli Right to this? There is no answer. Some on the fringes dream of a mass exodus of the Arabs, like the one of 1948. But no people makes the same mistake twice. Whatever happens, the Palestinians will cling to their soil. They call this steadfastness "sumud".
I have in my head a poem by one of our national poets from before 1948: "No people retreats from the bulwarks of its life." The Palestinians are like all other peoples. Like us.
Lateley, A New political fashion has emerged, especially among Arabs. They declare that there is only one choice: either Two States or One State. If the Israeli leadership, aided and abetted by President Trump, rejects the Two State solution, the One State solution will take its place. Jews and Arabs will live in one joint state, from the sea to the river. End of the Zionist dream.
This is nonsense. If some Arab politicians think that this prospect will frighten Israelis into accepting the Two State solution, they are sadly mistaken. True, some right-wing Israelis talk about this possibility, but they know that this would be hell.
One State? What would the army look like? Who would command it, who would be the soldiers? With an Arab majority in the Knesset (which would presumable change its name to Majlis) fighting a daily battle against the Jewish factions? With the standard of living of the Jews vastly higher than that of the Arab citizens? Who will control the police? Endless questions without answers.
The simple fact is that there is no choice between a Two State and a One State solution, because One State is no solution at all, but a pipe-dream. Or a nightmare.
So is there no choice? Of course there is. There always is.
The choice is between the Two State solution and No Solution. Eternal war.
Uri Avnery is a veteran Israeli peace activist. He writes @ Gush Shalom
In Praise of Forgetting
Christopher Owens with a review of a book that extols the freedom to forget.
Forgetting is big business.
Take a look at any book or programme designed to "further" your career/personality/whatever else you care to talk about, and there's the inevitable section involving "letting go" of the past and "moving forward." Words like 'burden', 'power', 'tomorrow' and 'destiny' are sprinkled liberally around such texts in order to convince the potential candidate for the Ludovico technique that the past is something to ignore. A toxic conclave where the mind plays tricks and triggers emotions that are not flattering to the individual ego.
Of course, there are occasions where this would be genuinely effective but, generally, it's used by people to "cast off" bad relationships, decisions and behaviour. When in fact, the opposite would be the best approach: study the actions that led you to the situation where you felt the need to consult a self help book/programme, and learn from it.
So should we forget historical injustices and consign them purely to history books?
Published in 2016, David Rieff's In Praise of Forgetting argues that we should do just that because
history is all too easy to distort for a political purpose
constant commemorations reduce history to kitsch
forgetting is a natural process (hence why England does not commemorate the soldiers killed in the Battle of Hastings, but do for the First and Second World War)
Beginning with discussing the First World War, and concluding with post Franco era Spain, Rieff is very much in favour of honesty in the history books, so much so that it's impossible to form solid myths around them (although I think he's a little too optimistic at the thought of Spain having "gotten over" Franco's legacy). Which is all very well and good in theory, but doesn't quite stand up under scrutiny.
For example, it isn't a big surprise that one of the countries that he discusses in relation to his theory is Ireland.
Firstly, he makes two errors when discussing the history of this country: he claims that both the Easter Rising and the Good Friday Agreement happened on Good Friday (you can immediately guess the point he's trying to make with that one) and that William of Orange's ascent was peaceful.
Obviously, even the best of books will have the odd factual error here and there. But this is a kind of precursor to the realisation that Rieff hasn't been able to grasp the extent to which Irish history still has a hold on the collective conscience. Throughout the book, he makes the point that it's impossible for people today to "remember" events that happened in (say) the 1600's, so why carry on with the pretence.
In most circumstances, you would say that he's correct but, as some country types know all too well, there are people who can identify which fields were taken off their ancestors in the plantation. And considering that took place in the 1600's, I think it's safe to say that this won't be "forgotten" any time soon.
As well as this, a claim from a social worker in 2010 that local children could tell her about certain events that happened in their street (such as a shooting) is a further indication that historic grievances are deeply embedded within the Irish psyche (that applies to everyone, not just republicans and loyalists). So the idea of "forgetting" is nigh on impossible, despite Edna Longley's famous quote about politicians erecting a statue to amnesia and them promptly forgetting where it was erected.
Ultimately, the past still has an incredibly strong grip on the consciousness of the modern world. The rise and rise of identity politics can certainly be seen as a progression of this, with an attempt to "right the wrongs" of the past.
The Pensive Quill's very own Anthony McIntyre has written that it's:
Where he hits home is describing the trend for commemorations and re-enactments as reducing complex historical incidents to mere kitsch, reducing the power of what happened. With the recent commemorations for the Easter Rising (and bearing in mind recent re-enactments of the Falls Curfew), it makes for uncomfortable, thought provoking reading (even if one doesn't completely accept his argument).
Ultimately, this is an interesting and thought provoking tome, even if Rieff's argument can get lost or muddled up at times due to the wide spectrum of writers he quotes from.
David Reiff 2017 In Praise of Forgetting: Historical Memory and it's Ironies Yale University Press ISBN-13: 978-0300182798
Forgetting is big business.
Take a look at any book or programme designed to "further" your career/personality/whatever else you care to talk about, and there's the inevitable section involving "letting go" of the past and "moving forward." Words like 'burden', 'power', 'tomorrow' and 'destiny' are sprinkled liberally around such texts in order to convince the potential candidate for the Ludovico technique that the past is something to ignore. A toxic conclave where the mind plays tricks and triggers emotions that are not flattering to the individual ego.
Of course, there are occasions where this would be genuinely effective but, generally, it's used by people to "cast off" bad relationships, decisions and behaviour. When in fact, the opposite would be the best approach: study the actions that led you to the situation where you felt the need to consult a self help book/programme, and learn from it.
So should we forget historical injustices and consign them purely to history books?
Published in 2016, David Rieff's In Praise of Forgetting argues that we should do just that because
history is all too easy to distort for a political purpose
constant commemorations reduce history to kitsch
forgetting is a natural process (hence why England does not commemorate the soldiers killed in the Battle of Hastings, but do for the First and Second World War)
Beginning with discussing the First World War, and concluding with post Franco era Spain, Rieff is very much in favour of honesty in the history books, so much so that it's impossible to form solid myths around them (although I think he's a little too optimistic at the thought of Spain having "gotten over" Franco's legacy). Which is all very well and good in theory, but doesn't quite stand up under scrutiny.
For example, it isn't a big surprise that one of the countries that he discusses in relation to his theory is Ireland.
Firstly, he makes two errors when discussing the history of this country: he claims that both the Easter Rising and the Good Friday Agreement happened on Good Friday (you can immediately guess the point he's trying to make with that one) and that William of Orange's ascent was peaceful.
Obviously, even the best of books will have the odd factual error here and there. But this is a kind of precursor to the realisation that Rieff hasn't been able to grasp the extent to which Irish history still has a hold on the collective conscience. Throughout the book, he makes the point that it's impossible for people today to "remember" events that happened in (say) the 1600's, so why carry on with the pretence.
In most circumstances, you would say that he's correct but, as some country types know all too well, there are people who can identify which fields were taken off their ancestors in the plantation. And considering that took place in the 1600's, I think it's safe to say that this won't be "forgotten" any time soon.
As well as this, a claim from a social worker in 2010 that local children could tell her about certain events that happened in their street (such as a shooting) is a further indication that historic grievances are deeply embedded within the Irish psyche (that applies to everyone, not just republicans and loyalists). So the idea of "forgetting" is nigh on impossible, despite Edna Longley's famous quote about politicians erecting a statue to amnesia and them promptly forgetting where it was erected.
Ultimately, the past still has an incredibly strong grip on the consciousness of the modern world. The rise and rise of identity politics can certainly be seen as a progression of this, with an attempt to "right the wrongs" of the past.
The Pensive Quill's very own Anthony McIntyre has written that it's:
... important to realise that social movements, nations and religions are built to some extent on foundational myths. That has to be the case also in loyalism and republicanism. It would be a strange phenomenon were they not to be tainted by it.
Where he hits home is describing the trend for commemorations and re-enactments as reducing complex historical incidents to mere kitsch, reducing the power of what happened. With the recent commemorations for the Easter Rising (and bearing in mind recent re-enactments of the Falls Curfew), it makes for uncomfortable, thought provoking reading (even if one doesn't completely accept his argument).
Ultimately, this is an interesting and thought provoking tome, even if Rieff's argument can get lost or muddled up at times due to the wide spectrum of writers he quotes from.
David Reiff 2017 In Praise of Forgetting: Historical Memory and it's Ironies Yale University Press ISBN-13: 978-0300182798
January 18, 2018
Think Again
Daniel Bradley calls on those republicans boycotting the Bloody Sunday march to think again.
I'm aware of what happened at last year's march. I am also aware that you have been supporting this march from day one.
You will agree with me at this present moment that 9 British soldiers are charged with murder and we are waiting for an outcome. If we as republicians and nationalists do not stand together and show support the British divide and conquer shall overcome and these soldiers will not stand trial. Is that what you want to see?
I want to share this. Many of the years in this Bloody Sunday march I would have loved to take the platform and share how volunteer Seamus Bradley was captured, stripped naked and shot three times as well as been tortured. But I had to agree with these two ladies, Kate and Linda Nash, that this March is about innocent people shot down in Bloody Sunday.
It doesn't take a lot to understand a families injustice. Therefore, Tony, you must look once again and understand their decision in refusing your wife the platform.
Daniel Bradley is a Derry justice campaigner.
I'm aware of what happened at last year's march. I am also aware that you have been supporting this march from day one.
You will agree with me at this present moment that 9 British soldiers are charged with murder and we are waiting for an outcome. If we as republicians and nationalists do not stand together and show support the British divide and conquer shall overcome and these soldiers will not stand trial. Is that what you want to see?
I want to share this. Many of the years in this Bloody Sunday march I would have loved to take the platform and share how volunteer Seamus Bradley was captured, stripped naked and shot three times as well as been tortured. But I had to agree with these two ladies, Kate and Linda Nash, that this March is about innocent people shot down in Bloody Sunday.
It doesn't take a lot to understand a families injustice. Therefore, Tony, you must look once again and understand their decision in refusing your wife the platform.
Daniel Bradley is a Derry justice campaigner.
January 7, 2018
Ah, The Bible Is So Full Of It
A piece sent to Atheist Republic from Norm R. argues that the bible is full of bull.
Having made a start on the Bible, I decided to read it from cover to cover, an exercise I now suggest to anyone who wants to further his/her atheistic bent. That the Pentateuch was a collection of tales to justify the political and military exploits of the Hebrew nation soon became obvious. The promotion of savage rules for living supposedly emanating from a kindly God was justification enough to cut my ties with any religion based on the Old Testament. That Paul continued the attack on women also energized my distaste for the New Testament.
Among the stories which annoy and disgust, is something lighter, the foolish yarn about Noah who purportedly built an ark (Genesis 6) which prevented every species on earth (except the unicorn) from perishing in an universal flood. The number of animals on board would vary, depending on which of the two versions, you want to accept; and, on how fast dinosaurs multiply (fundamentalists of many stripes believe that man and dinosaur co-existed). Totally impossible. Entirely misleading. But, excrementally funny, if you think about it.
On to the juicy stuff. So many stories teaching or approving of indecency, treachery, rape and murder. How to choose the more glaring examples? Lot (Genesis 11-14; 19 ... particularly 19), being Abraham's nephew, should be a good fellow to start the parade. His happy offer to let the mob at his door do whatever they want with his two virgin daughters, so long as they will not touch his two male guests, stands as one of the most vile examples of twisted thinking in the whole bible. It is comforting that the daughters lived to escape Sodom with their parents, though Lot's wife didn't make it, having looked back to see what was happening to her friends ... which served her right, because Yahweh had warned her! But, back to the tale ... Lot is now an old man (still virile ... it ran in the family) living in a cave in the hills with his two now-adult daughters who want to become pregnant. There are no men around, and they are too lame-brained to take their love to town, so they get their father drunk (this happens two nights in a row) and take turns sleeping with him to get pregnant. And it happens! So drunk that he could not remember, he can still do the thing! I guess that the girls told the historians of the time later on, when they discovered which way was downhill.
But, on to the gore and sex. The much-told, much-deplored, awful legend (Genesis 22) of Abraham preparing to sacrifice his son, Isaac, because he heard a voice (this was God?) telling him to do so was a corker which terrified me as a child, which fear soon gave way to disgust. Perhaps the novel tale of Jacob's chicanery in breeding "striped or spotted or piebald cattle" (Genesis 31) would serve to illustrate acceptable behaviour among the Israelites (Jacob having just been re-named as Israel, because he wrestled God, saw him face to face and lived, though he came away limping due to God's having struck him on the sciatic nerve). Not overly dramatic, watching cattle humping, but illustrative of what you can get away with when Yahweh is on your side.
Treachery, as approved only for the Chosen People, surfaces again in the adult-only story of Shechem's rape of Diana (Genesis 34). Diana's brothers are not content that Shechem's desire to marry Diana will satisfy custom and the law -- they want revenge. They pretend to accept Shechem as a future brother-in-law, with the stipulation that Shechem must first consent to the circumcision of himself and his men, which would somehow make them people of God and thus acceptable to Israel. Shechem wants more of Diana, so he agrees, but once he and all his men are lying about in scabs (it being the third day) and awful pain, Diane's brothers (not to forget, these are the sons of Jacob, who has already proved his own lack of integrity) and their men, kill all of the Hivite males, including Shechem -- and his father, for God's sake! Treachery, when performed by the Chosen People is evidently acceptable.
The story of Onan (Genesis, 38) has, for me, long figured among the most objectionable tales, not for the content, but for the mis-teaching for which it is used. Here we have a young man, Onan, who defies the instruction of his father, Judah, to impregnate Tamar, the widow of his elder brother, Er (God having killed Er, because Er displeased him). The Jerusalem Bible is clear ... anxious not to spoil a good thing, Onan had sex with Tamar night after night, but withdrew before impregnating her, as any child produced would not be his. So, God killed him, too. Talk about quid pro quo! How Mother Church could use that story to frighten young fellows away from masturbation is a total puzzle ... not that it mattered, for it didn't work, anyway -- not even with the priests.
Genesis is so full of good stories, that I hate to leave it. The complex, sometimes contradictory, always vicious (some might say "stern") commandments set forth in "Numbers" and in the Deuteronomic Code speak are tributes to male chauvinism, religious extremism and stupidity. They are the product of leaders with a very precarious hold on their people, of priests who felt compelled to restrain a people whose sense of decency and fair play were still significantly underdeveloped. For most of us, they are dated and objectionable. They are, however, useful to consider because almost every fundamentalist who claims to believe and follow every word of God's bible is either lying or is ignorant of what is contained in those books.
Let us, before closing, marvel at one more. See, God is sitting around with Satan (not really the devil as we "know" him - the Christians gave us that one, later), arguing about the quality of the faith of this poor sod, Job. "No one like him on the earth," says Yahweh (Book of Job 1). "Well, yeah, I guess," says Satan ... you give him all the goodies. Take away his possessions and see what happens, see if he'll still bless you." Well, the bet is on! Yahweh arranges for the theft or death of cattle and camels, shepherds and all his children. Not satisfied, he treats Job to a dose of "malignant ulcers" which, along with the "treatment" in the ash pit, leave him unrecognizable. There then ensues a long, series of arguments, pro and con, dealing with the wisdom, mercy and justice of "God" ... interesting, as Milton's "Paradise Lost" and "Paradise Regained" are interesting, but fatuous beyond belief. Of course, Job's having proved true and faithful results in his being granted incredible replacement riches and a whole new family, his daughters being known as the fairest in all the land. The introduction to The Book of Job in The Jerusalem Bible says: "The Book of Job is the literary masterpiece of the wisdom movement." Usually dated as of the early part of the fifth century, B.C.E., it is, indeed a literary work worth reading if one can ignore the destruction of life and property by a god who wants only to make a point to his troublesome alter-ego, Satan; and, if one can countenance the smugness and arrogance of this same god in his last arguments establishing his might and power.
Ah, the bible is so full of it.
Follow Atheist Republic on Twitter @AtheistRepublic
Having made a start on the Bible, I decided to read it from cover to cover, an exercise I now suggest to anyone who wants to further his/her atheistic bent. That the Pentateuch was a collection of tales to justify the political and military exploits of the Hebrew nation soon became obvious. The promotion of savage rules for living supposedly emanating from a kindly God was justification enough to cut my ties with any religion based on the Old Testament. That Paul continued the attack on women also energized my distaste for the New Testament.
Among the stories which annoy and disgust, is something lighter, the foolish yarn about Noah who purportedly built an ark (Genesis 6) which prevented every species on earth (except the unicorn) from perishing in an universal flood. The number of animals on board would vary, depending on which of the two versions, you want to accept; and, on how fast dinosaurs multiply (fundamentalists of many stripes believe that man and dinosaur co-existed). Totally impossible. Entirely misleading. But, excrementally funny, if you think about it.
On to the juicy stuff. So many stories teaching or approving of indecency, treachery, rape and murder. How to choose the more glaring examples? Lot (Genesis 11-14; 19 ... particularly 19), being Abraham's nephew, should be a good fellow to start the parade. His happy offer to let the mob at his door do whatever they want with his two virgin daughters, so long as they will not touch his two male guests, stands as one of the most vile examples of twisted thinking in the whole bible. It is comforting that the daughters lived to escape Sodom with their parents, though Lot's wife didn't make it, having looked back to see what was happening to her friends ... which served her right, because Yahweh had warned her! But, back to the tale ... Lot is now an old man (still virile ... it ran in the family) living in a cave in the hills with his two now-adult daughters who want to become pregnant. There are no men around, and they are too lame-brained to take their love to town, so they get their father drunk (this happens two nights in a row) and take turns sleeping with him to get pregnant. And it happens! So drunk that he could not remember, he can still do the thing! I guess that the girls told the historians of the time later on, when they discovered which way was downhill.
But, on to the gore and sex. The much-told, much-deplored, awful legend (Genesis 22) of Abraham preparing to sacrifice his son, Isaac, because he heard a voice (this was God?) telling him to do so was a corker which terrified me as a child, which fear soon gave way to disgust. Perhaps the novel tale of Jacob's chicanery in breeding "striped or spotted or piebald cattle" (Genesis 31) would serve to illustrate acceptable behaviour among the Israelites (Jacob having just been re-named as Israel, because he wrestled God, saw him face to face and lived, though he came away limping due to God's having struck him on the sciatic nerve). Not overly dramatic, watching cattle humping, but illustrative of what you can get away with when Yahweh is on your side.
Treachery, as approved only for the Chosen People, surfaces again in the adult-only story of Shechem's rape of Diana (Genesis 34). Diana's brothers are not content that Shechem's desire to marry Diana will satisfy custom and the law -- they want revenge. They pretend to accept Shechem as a future brother-in-law, with the stipulation that Shechem must first consent to the circumcision of himself and his men, which would somehow make them people of God and thus acceptable to Israel. Shechem wants more of Diana, so he agrees, but once he and all his men are lying about in scabs (it being the third day) and awful pain, Diane's brothers (not to forget, these are the sons of Jacob, who has already proved his own lack of integrity) and their men, kill all of the Hivite males, including Shechem -- and his father, for God's sake! Treachery, when performed by the Chosen People is evidently acceptable.
The story of Onan (Genesis, 38) has, for me, long figured among the most objectionable tales, not for the content, but for the mis-teaching for which it is used. Here we have a young man, Onan, who defies the instruction of his father, Judah, to impregnate Tamar, the widow of his elder brother, Er (God having killed Er, because Er displeased him). The Jerusalem Bible is clear ... anxious not to spoil a good thing, Onan had sex with Tamar night after night, but withdrew before impregnating her, as any child produced would not be his. So, God killed him, too. Talk about quid pro quo! How Mother Church could use that story to frighten young fellows away from masturbation is a total puzzle ... not that it mattered, for it didn't work, anyway -- not even with the priests.
Genesis is so full of good stories, that I hate to leave it. The complex, sometimes contradictory, always vicious (some might say "stern") commandments set forth in "Numbers" and in the Deuteronomic Code speak are tributes to male chauvinism, religious extremism and stupidity. They are the product of leaders with a very precarious hold on their people, of priests who felt compelled to restrain a people whose sense of decency and fair play were still significantly underdeveloped. For most of us, they are dated and objectionable. They are, however, useful to consider because almost every fundamentalist who claims to believe and follow every word of God's bible is either lying or is ignorant of what is contained in those books.
Let us, before closing, marvel at one more. See, God is sitting around with Satan (not really the devil as we "know" him - the Christians gave us that one, later), arguing about the quality of the faith of this poor sod, Job. "No one like him on the earth," says Yahweh (Book of Job 1). "Well, yeah, I guess," says Satan ... you give him all the goodies. Take away his possessions and see what happens, see if he'll still bless you." Well, the bet is on! Yahweh arranges for the theft or death of cattle and camels, shepherds and all his children. Not satisfied, he treats Job to a dose of "malignant ulcers" which, along with the "treatment" in the ash pit, leave him unrecognizable. There then ensues a long, series of arguments, pro and con, dealing with the wisdom, mercy and justice of "God" ... interesting, as Milton's "Paradise Lost" and "Paradise Regained" are interesting, but fatuous beyond belief. Of course, Job's having proved true and faithful results in his being granted incredible replacement riches and a whole new family, his daughters being known as the fairest in all the land. The introduction to The Book of Job in The Jerusalem Bible says: "The Book of Job is the literary masterpiece of the wisdom movement." Usually dated as of the early part of the fifth century, B.C.E., it is, indeed a literary work worth reading if one can ignore the destruction of life and property by a god who wants only to make a point to his troublesome alter-ego, Satan; and, if one can countenance the smugness and arrogance of this same god in his last arguments establishing his might and power.
Ah, the bible is so full of it.
Follow Atheist Republic on Twitter @AtheistRepublic
January 6, 2018
And What Of The Irish Republic?
Sean Bresnahan writes that Irish Republicanism is going forward.
Republicanism going forward – in the context of its reduced position in the Irish body politic – can best proceed, if only for now, as an ideological vanguard. Its role in this respect would be to uphold and advance the inalienable rights of the Irish Nation — rights which exist in their own space and time, beyond and impervious to current or future constitutional realities.
It is automatic that rights as these remain intact regardless of such particulars — even where they have met with approval, in whole or in part, as is argued of Good Friday. That the same will be posited should ‘Agreed Ireland’ come to pass is a given. Such approval, however, does not impact the standing of ‘prior rights’ and is without capacity to dispose of their status. As prior rights, they are not subject to electoral whim or fortune.
With this in mind, the focus of our efforts must at all times remain the advance of the Irish Republic, conscious throughout that the Republic itself is the constitutional embodiment of the Nation. Accordingly, ‘the Republic’ and ‘the Nation’ must proceed together in the one unseparated endeavour.
In this sense, our national entitlements can only be realised upon the achievement in full of the Republic. The notion of that Republic, as both a manifest and ethereal concept, must guide and inform our every word and deed — the language we employ, the commitments we offer, the actions and initiatives that we set toward.
Why is any of this important in an Ireland where constitutional change seems anyway on the horizon? Surely with emerging demographic realities – with the weight of numbers soon to be on ‘our side’ – it is now only a matter of patience?
The virtue of such belies an emerging narrative, which speaks not of the sovereignty of the Irish Nation, inclusive of its two traditions, but of the ‘island of Ireland’ and the existence of two nations within its geographical confines. Ireland is no longer to be considered a nation but instead a mere territorial entity, devoid of a political basis. As such, it can come to house a political construct other than a republic — which is the likely intent of ‘Agreed Ireland’.
As Irish Republicans, in the face of this, we must assert the sovereignty and unity of the Republic, this even though it be usurped at this moment and that this will likely remain the case for the foreseeable future. The task, going forward, is to balance what is a point of principle with the need to build strategic power — this to entail the co-opting of the people into an effort to realise the Republic.
Guarding against being trapped by rhetoric is critical in this regard. While, yes, we must have the solid foundation which the Republican Constitution affords, we must alongside this configure a political analysis relevant to 2018 — one that finds fertile ground in the mind and consciousness of the Irish people. ‘The Irish Republic must be made a word to conjure with.’
In this regard, the onset of Brexit provides new opportunities unseen since Partition. Will Republicans get our house in order or are we already too late? Given the current state of affairs, an honest assessment would admit things don’t look promising. This can be tempered, however, by the surety it need not remain so. Where we go from here is up to ourselves — be that a newfound relevancy or complete oblivion, only time will tell.
In the challenges before us lie the prospects for change. As Brexit ruptures the constitutional fabric of the ‘dis-United Kingdom’, such is the impact on the balance of forces that normalisation has run aground. We must respond accordingly, with some form of ‘Irish Unity Initiative’ the necessary requirement. Building as much is the task before us over the months and years to come — ensuring it remains a Republican project our primary responsibility. The time to organise is now.
Sean Bresnahan blogs at An Claidheamh Soluis
Follow Sean Bresnahan on Twitter @bres79
Republicanism going forward – in the context of its reduced position in the Irish body politic – can best proceed, if only for now, as an ideological vanguard. Its role in this respect would be to uphold and advance the inalienable rights of the Irish Nation — rights which exist in their own space and time, beyond and impervious to current or future constitutional realities.
It is automatic that rights as these remain intact regardless of such particulars — even where they have met with approval, in whole or in part, as is argued of Good Friday. That the same will be posited should ‘Agreed Ireland’ come to pass is a given. Such approval, however, does not impact the standing of ‘prior rights’ and is without capacity to dispose of their status. As prior rights, they are not subject to electoral whim or fortune.
With this in mind, the focus of our efforts must at all times remain the advance of the Irish Republic, conscious throughout that the Republic itself is the constitutional embodiment of the Nation. Accordingly, ‘the Republic’ and ‘the Nation’ must proceed together in the one unseparated endeavour.
In this sense, our national entitlements can only be realised upon the achievement in full of the Republic. The notion of that Republic, as both a manifest and ethereal concept, must guide and inform our every word and deed — the language we employ, the commitments we offer, the actions and initiatives that we set toward.
Why is any of this important in an Ireland where constitutional change seems anyway on the horizon? Surely with emerging demographic realities – with the weight of numbers soon to be on ‘our side’ – it is now only a matter of patience?
The virtue of such belies an emerging narrative, which speaks not of the sovereignty of the Irish Nation, inclusive of its two traditions, but of the ‘island of Ireland’ and the existence of two nations within its geographical confines. Ireland is no longer to be considered a nation but instead a mere territorial entity, devoid of a political basis. As such, it can come to house a political construct other than a republic — which is the likely intent of ‘Agreed Ireland’.
As Irish Republicans, in the face of this, we must assert the sovereignty and unity of the Republic, this even though it be usurped at this moment and that this will likely remain the case for the foreseeable future. The task, going forward, is to balance what is a point of principle with the need to build strategic power — this to entail the co-opting of the people into an effort to realise the Republic.
Guarding against being trapped by rhetoric is critical in this regard. While, yes, we must have the solid foundation which the Republican Constitution affords, we must alongside this configure a political analysis relevant to 2018 — one that finds fertile ground in the mind and consciousness of the Irish people. ‘The Irish Republic must be made a word to conjure with.’
In this regard, the onset of Brexit provides new opportunities unseen since Partition. Will Republicans get our house in order or are we already too late? Given the current state of affairs, an honest assessment would admit things don’t look promising. This can be tempered, however, by the surety it need not remain so. Where we go from here is up to ourselves — be that a newfound relevancy or complete oblivion, only time will tell.
In the challenges before us lie the prospects for change. As Brexit ruptures the constitutional fabric of the ‘dis-United Kingdom’, such is the impact on the balance of forces that normalisation has run aground. We must respond accordingly, with some form of ‘Irish Unity Initiative’ the necessary requirement. Building as much is the task before us over the months and years to come — ensuring it remains a Republican project our primary responsibility. The time to organise is now.
Sean Bresnahan blogs at An Claidheamh Soluis Follow Sean Bresnahan on Twitter @bres79
Radio Free Eireann Broadcasting 6 January 2017
Martin Galvin
with details of this weekend's broadcast from
Radio Free Eireann.
It can be heard at wbai.org in Ireland from 5pm to 6pm or anytime after the program concludes on wbai.org/archives.
Mark Thompson of Relatives For Justice, Belfast, will preview his emergency visit this week to the USA and why American help now is critical to block British moves to end all hope for truth about British crown murders.He will have details of 5 New York area events beginning on Wednesday January 10th.
Chris Byrnes will discuss a unique Red Hook Community benefit to be held at the new Rocky Sullivan's.
John McDonagh and Martin Galvin co- host.
It can be heard at wbai.org in Ireland from 5pm to 6pm or anytime after the program concludes on wbai.org/archives.
Mark Thompson of Relatives For Justice, Belfast, will preview his emergency visit this week to the USA and why American help now is critical to block British moves to end all hope for truth about British crown murders.He will have details of 5 New York area events beginning on Wednesday January 10th.
Chris Byrnes will discuss a unique Red Hook Community benefit to be held at the new Rocky Sullivan's.
John McDonagh and Martin Galvin co- host.
January 5, 2018
A Terrible Thought
The Uri Avnery Column considers Avi Gabbay, leader of the Israeli Labor Party.
Suddenly, A terrible thought struck me. What if Avi Gabbay really believes what he is saying?
Impossible. He cannot really believe all those things. No, no.
But if he does? Where does that leave us?
Avi Gabbay is the new leader of the Israeli Labor Party. Until recently, he was a founding member of a moderate right-wing party, Kulanu ("We all"). Without ever being elected to the Knesset, he served as a junior minister. He resigned when Avigdor Lieberman, considered by many as a semi-fascist (and the “semi” is far from certain), was allowed to join the government as Minister of Defense, the second most important post.
In a bold move, Gabbay left Kulanu and joined the Labor Party (also known as "the Zionist Camp") and was soon elected its chairman. However, he did not become the official "Leader of the Opposition", because he was not a member of the Knesset. (The formal title remained with his predecessor, the very nice but rather insignificant Yitzhak Herzog.)
One of Gabbay's outstanding qualities is the fact that he is "Oriental", an Eastern Jew. He is the seventh of eight children in a family that immigrated from Morocco in 1964, just three years before his birth.
This is very important. The Labor Party is decried as "Western" (or Ashkenazi), the party of the social elites, estranged from the mass of the Orientals. It must overcome this characterization if it ever wants to attain power again.
In the Likud Party, the situation is the exact opposite. The mass of Likud voters are Orientals, but Binyamin Netanyahu is as Ashkenazi as you can get. The Orientals adore him, as they have never adored any Oriental leader.
But Gabbay's origin is not his only attribute. From his humble beginnings he climbed the heights of economic success. He became the CEO of one of Israel's most important corporations, amassing a personal fortune on the way.
He is not a charismatic leader, not a person to arouse the masses. Indeed, his face is easily forgotten. But he took with him from the business world a sound, logical way of thinking. In politics, logic is a rare commodity. It can be obstructive.
The question now is: where does logic take him?
During his few months as leader of the Labor Party, Gabbay has deeply shocked many party members. Shocked them to the core.
About once a week, usually on Shabbat, Gabbay lets loose a statement that seemingly contradicts everything the party has stood for during its more than one hundred years of existence.
He once declared that peace does not mean that any of the many dozens of settlements in the occupied territories must be removed. Until then, the party line was that only the "settlement blocs" – located hard on the Green line - could remain, within the framework of an agreed exchange of territories, and that all the others must be removed. Gabbay's announcement caused quite a stir, since it probably makes the "Two-State solution" impossible.
On another occasion, Gabbay announced that he would never set up a coalition with the "United List", the only Arab list in the Knesset. This list consists of three separate – and very different - Arab parties, which were compelled to unite when Lieberman (the same) raised the minimum electoral threshold in order to eliminate them.
It is very difficult (if not impossible) to put together a leftist majority in the Knesset without the Arab list. The Oslo agreement would never have come into being if the Arab members had not given their unwavering support to Yitzhak Rabin (but without joining his government).
To make matters worse, Gabbay announced that the only Arab member of the Labor Party in Parliament – a popular sports commentator – would not be in the next Knesset. His crime: he criticized the Balfour Declaration of 1917, which promised the Jews a national home in Palestine, which at the time was an Arab land.
The Climax (so far) came last week, To top it all, Gabbay did something that many Labor members found abhorrent.
There are in Israel tens of thousands of non-Jewish African refugees, especially from Sudan and Eritrea. They have been held for several months in an open semi-detention facility, which is vastly superior to conditions at home. Others vegetate in the poor quarters of Tel Aviv, doing occasional jobs and competing with poor inhabitants, making them very angry.
Israel claims to be a "Jewish State". Jews have been persecuted refugees for centuries. But now the government has decided not only to stem the flow, but to pay to dispose of the refugees who are already here: paying the government of Rwanda 5000 dollars for every refugee they accept from us. The refugees themselves will also get 3500 dollars each if they go voluntarily. If they refuse, they will be put in a real prison indefinitely.
Deported? Imprisoned? In a "Jewish" state? Incredible. And here comes Gabbay and calls upon his party to vote for this atrocity!
As If all this was not enough, Gabbay said something else incredible. He denounced his party's stand on Judaism.
Years ago, Netanyahu was caught on camera whispering into the ear of a very old rabbi that "the Labor Party has forgotten what it means to be Jewish". Incredibly, Gabbay repeated this accusation, announcing that the Labor Party had indeed "forgotten what it means to be Jewish".
Nothing could be more shocking than that. The party was founded a century ago by convinced atheists, like David Ben-Gurion, who refused to put a kippah on his head even at funerals. (Sometimes even I do so out of courtesy to religious mourners.)
The entire Zionist enterprise started as a rebellion against religion. Almost all the important rabbis of his day condemned Theodor Herzl, the founding father, as a heretic and cursed him in no uncertain terms. God Himself evicted the Jews from their country because of their sins, and only God could send His Messiah to bring them back there, if and when He pleases.
The Zionist Labor Movement has always been profoundly atheistic, except for minuscule religious elements. What Gabbay was saying now amounted to an ideological revolution. (By the way, gabbay is the Hebrew word for the administrator of a synagogue.)
Nobody is quite sure what "to be Jewish" means nowadays. Does Judaism represent a religion, a nation, or both? Does it only mean that one identifies with Jewish history and tradition, or that one believes in a God who has "chosen us from among the peoples"? And who the hell cares?
So Does Gabbay really believe all this stuff, or is it just political propaganda?
It may well be the latter.
Gabbay is a seasoned businessman. His logic is that of a businessman. It adds numbers.
There are two ways to view the Israeli political landscape. One is the simple one: adding election results. According to this system, the Right now enjoys a clear majority. Apart from the Likud, it consists of two extreme rightist parties, the "Jewish Home" and "Israel is Our Home", Kulanu and two Orthodox parties. The Left (or "Center-Left" as they like to call themselves these days) consists of Labor, Meretz, Ya'ir Lapid's "There is a Future" and the Arab list.
To change the balance, Labor must win over a considerable number of voters from the moderate Right.
Another way of looking at the picture sees a rightist minority facing a leftist minority, with the great mass of the people in between. The result is the same: the Center-Left must win over enough voters to change the balance.
How? Gabbay's answer seems logical: steal the clothes that the Right hung out to dry, as Churchill once put it. Meaning in practice: adopt the slogans of the right, look religious, act chauvinistic, make it possible for Rightist voters to vote for you.
That seems to be Gabbay's tactic. Can it succeed? In political life, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. If he can attract enough right-wing voters, he may change the balance. If his party loses voters on the left, no problem. They will vote for Meretz, which makes no difference. And if the Arabs are very angry, that makes no difference either: they have no choice but to support a leftist government "from the outside".
Bur what if this approach leads to disaster? Political logic is quite different from business logic. It is not based on a 2 + 2 = 4 equation. In politics the answer may well be 3 or 5.
And then it hit me. What if this is not a political tactic at all? What if Gabbay really believes in all this?
God save us!
Uri Avnery is a veteran Israeli peace activist. He writes @ Gush Shalom
Suddenly, A terrible thought struck me. What if Avi Gabbay really believes what he is saying?
Impossible. He cannot really believe all those things. No, no.
But if he does? Where does that leave us?
Avi Gabbay is the new leader of the Israeli Labor Party. Until recently, he was a founding member of a moderate right-wing party, Kulanu ("We all"). Without ever being elected to the Knesset, he served as a junior minister. He resigned when Avigdor Lieberman, considered by many as a semi-fascist (and the “semi” is far from certain), was allowed to join the government as Minister of Defense, the second most important post.
In a bold move, Gabbay left Kulanu and joined the Labor Party (also known as "the Zionist Camp") and was soon elected its chairman. However, he did not become the official "Leader of the Opposition", because he was not a member of the Knesset. (The formal title remained with his predecessor, the very nice but rather insignificant Yitzhak Herzog.)
One of Gabbay's outstanding qualities is the fact that he is "Oriental", an Eastern Jew. He is the seventh of eight children in a family that immigrated from Morocco in 1964, just three years before his birth.
This is very important. The Labor Party is decried as "Western" (or Ashkenazi), the party of the social elites, estranged from the mass of the Orientals. It must overcome this characterization if it ever wants to attain power again.
In the Likud Party, the situation is the exact opposite. The mass of Likud voters are Orientals, but Binyamin Netanyahu is as Ashkenazi as you can get. The Orientals adore him, as they have never adored any Oriental leader.
But Gabbay's origin is not his only attribute. From his humble beginnings he climbed the heights of economic success. He became the CEO of one of Israel's most important corporations, amassing a personal fortune on the way.
He is not a charismatic leader, not a person to arouse the masses. Indeed, his face is easily forgotten. But he took with him from the business world a sound, logical way of thinking. In politics, logic is a rare commodity. It can be obstructive.
The question now is: where does logic take him?
During his few months as leader of the Labor Party, Gabbay has deeply shocked many party members. Shocked them to the core.
About once a week, usually on Shabbat, Gabbay lets loose a statement that seemingly contradicts everything the party has stood for during its more than one hundred years of existence.
He once declared that peace does not mean that any of the many dozens of settlements in the occupied territories must be removed. Until then, the party line was that only the "settlement blocs" – located hard on the Green line - could remain, within the framework of an agreed exchange of territories, and that all the others must be removed. Gabbay's announcement caused quite a stir, since it probably makes the "Two-State solution" impossible.
On another occasion, Gabbay announced that he would never set up a coalition with the "United List", the only Arab list in the Knesset. This list consists of three separate – and very different - Arab parties, which were compelled to unite when Lieberman (the same) raised the minimum electoral threshold in order to eliminate them.
It is very difficult (if not impossible) to put together a leftist majority in the Knesset without the Arab list. The Oslo agreement would never have come into being if the Arab members had not given their unwavering support to Yitzhak Rabin (but without joining his government).
To make matters worse, Gabbay announced that the only Arab member of the Labor Party in Parliament – a popular sports commentator – would not be in the next Knesset. His crime: he criticized the Balfour Declaration of 1917, which promised the Jews a national home in Palestine, which at the time was an Arab land.
The Climax (so far) came last week, To top it all, Gabbay did something that many Labor members found abhorrent.
There are in Israel tens of thousands of non-Jewish African refugees, especially from Sudan and Eritrea. They have been held for several months in an open semi-detention facility, which is vastly superior to conditions at home. Others vegetate in the poor quarters of Tel Aviv, doing occasional jobs and competing with poor inhabitants, making them very angry.
Israel claims to be a "Jewish State". Jews have been persecuted refugees for centuries. But now the government has decided not only to stem the flow, but to pay to dispose of the refugees who are already here: paying the government of Rwanda 5000 dollars for every refugee they accept from us. The refugees themselves will also get 3500 dollars each if they go voluntarily. If they refuse, they will be put in a real prison indefinitely.
Deported? Imprisoned? In a "Jewish" state? Incredible. And here comes Gabbay and calls upon his party to vote for this atrocity!
As If all this was not enough, Gabbay said something else incredible. He denounced his party's stand on Judaism.
Years ago, Netanyahu was caught on camera whispering into the ear of a very old rabbi that "the Labor Party has forgotten what it means to be Jewish". Incredibly, Gabbay repeated this accusation, announcing that the Labor Party had indeed "forgotten what it means to be Jewish".
Nothing could be more shocking than that. The party was founded a century ago by convinced atheists, like David Ben-Gurion, who refused to put a kippah on his head even at funerals. (Sometimes even I do so out of courtesy to religious mourners.)
The entire Zionist enterprise started as a rebellion against religion. Almost all the important rabbis of his day condemned Theodor Herzl, the founding father, as a heretic and cursed him in no uncertain terms. God Himself evicted the Jews from their country because of their sins, and only God could send His Messiah to bring them back there, if and when He pleases.
The Zionist Labor Movement has always been profoundly atheistic, except for minuscule religious elements. What Gabbay was saying now amounted to an ideological revolution. (By the way, gabbay is the Hebrew word for the administrator of a synagogue.)
Nobody is quite sure what "to be Jewish" means nowadays. Does Judaism represent a religion, a nation, or both? Does it only mean that one identifies with Jewish history and tradition, or that one believes in a God who has "chosen us from among the peoples"? And who the hell cares?
So Does Gabbay really believe all this stuff, or is it just political propaganda?
It may well be the latter.
Gabbay is a seasoned businessman. His logic is that of a businessman. It adds numbers.
There are two ways to view the Israeli political landscape. One is the simple one: adding election results. According to this system, the Right now enjoys a clear majority. Apart from the Likud, it consists of two extreme rightist parties, the "Jewish Home" and "Israel is Our Home", Kulanu and two Orthodox parties. The Left (or "Center-Left" as they like to call themselves these days) consists of Labor, Meretz, Ya'ir Lapid's "There is a Future" and the Arab list.
To change the balance, Labor must win over a considerable number of voters from the moderate Right.
Another way of looking at the picture sees a rightist minority facing a leftist minority, with the great mass of the people in between. The result is the same: the Center-Left must win over enough voters to change the balance.
How? Gabbay's answer seems logical: steal the clothes that the Right hung out to dry, as Churchill once put it. Meaning in practice: adopt the slogans of the right, look religious, act chauvinistic, make it possible for Rightist voters to vote for you.
That seems to be Gabbay's tactic. Can it succeed? In political life, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. If he can attract enough right-wing voters, he may change the balance. If his party loses voters on the left, no problem. They will vote for Meretz, which makes no difference. And if the Arabs are very angry, that makes no difference either: they have no choice but to support a leftist government "from the outside".
Bur what if this approach leads to disaster? Political logic is quite different from business logic. It is not based on a 2 + 2 = 4 equation. In politics the answer may well be 3 or 5.
And then it hit me. What if this is not a political tactic at all? What if Gabbay really believes in all this?
God save us!
Uri Avnery is a veteran Israeli peace activist. He writes @ Gush Shalom
Hamilton Tries Duping Glenanne Families
Martin Galvin in a letter in yesterday's Irish News rebukes PSNI Chief Constable George Hamilton.
Re: Chief constable's letter to North's politicians Dec. 15th
A chara,
Fifty Glenanne victims' families, with 'Justice for the Forgotten' and the Pat Finucane Centre, appealed(December 8th) to Constabulary Chief George Hamilton. They asked him to aid their inquiry into crown collusion in the Glenanne Gang murders and stop stonewalling grieving families with frivolous delays. Hamilton wants to make these families wait for the sort of watered down inquiry that the DUP will agree.
Hamilton followed the script used by James Brokenshire and British officialdom to block progress towards nationalist rights, much less national reunification. Feign sympathy, blame divisions, and claim nationalist rights require a DUP permission slip. Crown officials think they can DUPe nationalists.
Hamilton addressed his reply (December 15th) to "elected representatives with responsibility for policing," implying it was their problem not his. He feigned sympathy for "grieving families" and "those who have suffered" while distressing grieving families who suffered at the hands of the Glenanne Gang.
Two years ago, gifted a major platform at the West Belfast Festival, Hamilton boasted, "I'm not going to be fettered by secretaries of state, prime ministers or anyone else". Now he blames being fettered by politicians, judges, Courts, budgets, too few detectives, political vacuums, lack of structures, legal challenges and the inability of political leaders to reach agreement.
The implications of Glenanne Gang collusion are stark. This criminal gang tallied more than 120 murders, like the Dublin-Monaghan Bombings, Miami Showband etc. It included members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, Ulster Defense Regiment and paid agents, all supporting British rule. Any genuine police service would want to uncover the full scope of the British collusion network needed to commit and get away with so many murders. European Law and Belfast judges say these families have a right to know. Hamilton, like Brokenshire, pretends such rights can be ignored without DUP agreement.
What can the Glenanne families expect from a DUP agreed inquiry? While vetoing inquest funds Arlene Foster said "a lot of innocent victims feel that their voice has not been heard recently and there has been an imbalance in relation to state killings as opposed to paramilitary killings."
Would she agree to any inquiry that might uncover British state forces' complicity in 120 loyalist killings? Does Foster think Glenanne victims innocent or feel since supporters of British rule targeted them, they must be guilty of something?
No matter the issue, British officials think they can feign sympathy, blame divisions, and play their sham DUP veto to trample nationalist rights, like covering up Glenanne Gang collusion.
Can we prove them wrong?
Slan,
Martin Galvin
Martin Galvin is a US Attorney-At-Law.
Re: Chief constable's letter to North's politicians Dec. 15th
A chara,
Fifty Glenanne victims' families, with 'Justice for the Forgotten' and the Pat Finucane Centre, appealed(December 8th) to Constabulary Chief George Hamilton. They asked him to aid their inquiry into crown collusion in the Glenanne Gang murders and stop stonewalling grieving families with frivolous delays. Hamilton wants to make these families wait for the sort of watered down inquiry that the DUP will agree.
Hamilton followed the script used by James Brokenshire and British officialdom to block progress towards nationalist rights, much less national reunification. Feign sympathy, blame divisions, and claim nationalist rights require a DUP permission slip. Crown officials think they can DUPe nationalists.
Hamilton addressed his reply (December 15th) to "elected representatives with responsibility for policing," implying it was their problem not his. He feigned sympathy for "grieving families" and "those who have suffered" while distressing grieving families who suffered at the hands of the Glenanne Gang.
Two years ago, gifted a major platform at the West Belfast Festival, Hamilton boasted, "I'm not going to be fettered by secretaries of state, prime ministers or anyone else". Now he blames being fettered by politicians, judges, Courts, budgets, too few detectives, political vacuums, lack of structures, legal challenges and the inability of political leaders to reach agreement.
The implications of Glenanne Gang collusion are stark. This criminal gang tallied more than 120 murders, like the Dublin-Monaghan Bombings, Miami Showband etc. It included members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, Ulster Defense Regiment and paid agents, all supporting British rule. Any genuine police service would want to uncover the full scope of the British collusion network needed to commit and get away with so many murders. European Law and Belfast judges say these families have a right to know. Hamilton, like Brokenshire, pretends such rights can be ignored without DUP agreement.
What can the Glenanne families expect from a DUP agreed inquiry? While vetoing inquest funds Arlene Foster said "a lot of innocent victims feel that their voice has not been heard recently and there has been an imbalance in relation to state killings as opposed to paramilitary killings."
Would she agree to any inquiry that might uncover British state forces' complicity in 120 loyalist killings? Does Foster think Glenanne victims innocent or feel since supporters of British rule targeted them, they must be guilty of something?
No matter the issue, British officials think they can feign sympathy, blame divisions, and play their sham DUP veto to trample nationalist rights, like covering up Glenanne Gang collusion.
Can we prove them wrong?
Slan,
Martin Galvin
Martin Galvin is a US Attorney-At-Law.
January 4, 2018
Everything From The Plough To The Stars
From the 1916 Societies an address delivered at a commemorative event for James Connolly at Arbour Hill.
Comrades & friends once again we gather in Abour Hill to commemorate a giant of Irish labour James Connolly. We are here as an expression of our continued opposition to British imperialism and partition and to reaffirm our commitment to the Struggle for National unity political and economic independence and national sovereignty. We must remember his politics learn from them and use this knowledge to advance our struggle today & into the future. As we gather here today it’s 101 years after the execution of James Connolly. Socialism is what we want everything from The Plough to the stars. Lots of political parties and groups
claim James Connolly as their inspiration. Well I have news for them James Connolly was a Socialist, a Marxist, an anti-imperialist, an internationalist & a trade union organiser. You cannot cherry pick. He would have no truck with the imperialism of the European Union and he would laugh at the deluded suggestion of using Brexit and membership of the European Union as a means to uniting the country by surrendering our national sovereignty & democracy to the imperialism of the European Union.
James Connolly fought and died for a Socialist Republic not the gombeen partitioned country with a divided people that the Counter Revolution installed. There is one thing in common between these two parts of Ireland the unelected power of private business determines the course of both economies through investment and production decision this give them total power over government no matter what party or jurisdiction we are talking about. What Unites the people is our labour power, our class. Without the workers capital is powerless. We have to set about reorganizing the economy so it is no longer dependent on private capital.
War has been declared on the working class all around the world under this neo liberal globalised economy that we now live. Let’s call it what it is. It is imperialism and under this imperialism 83% of all goods manufactured in the world are now manufactured in the Global South in sweatshops for slave wages with little regard for health and safety and total disregard for the environment.
As result of this super exploitation of workers in the poorest areas of the planet half a trillion dollars is shipped back to the richest countries from the profits earned on the backs of these exploited workers every year. Let’s put that in perspective it is the equivalent of 15,000 tonnes of gold being shipped back from the colonies to the motherland every year. That is twice as much gold in one year than was plundered in the entire 350 years since Columbus set sail. Neither slavery nor genocidal clearances of indigenous people or the worst excesses of colonialism could achieve a wealth transfer of this magnitude. What military Force could not achieve in the last couple of centuries market forces are doing on a massive scale every year and they called this foreign direct investment. Foreign direct Imperialism the plunder of the poorest people’s of the world goes on unabated.
I mentioned the bank bailout there so let’s look at the choices and priorities there. A bailout in my language is a helping hand a leg up or a dig out but not in capitalist speak like everything else in the capitalist world it is a business opportunity. We are being charged up to €7 billion a year to service this bailout and we still have to pay it back in its entirety. But that’s alright the interests of The Ruling Class is served big business survives and these massive debts accrued by them are paid off by you and me the people through tax increases, wage cuts, extra charges and the slashing of public services. Choices & priorities comrades.
As Connolly said government in a capitalist Society is but a committee to organise the affairs of the rich. Bailout I don’t think, sell out more like.
It is the greatest transfer of wealth from the working class to the rich in modern times. Seaní Fitz is still getting chauffeured in a Mercedes to his rounds of golf with his political & business cronies while the people pay off his debts.
Allied Irish Bank is now owned by the state and should be kept in state ownership as a national Development Bank. That’s a priority decision in the interests of the Citizens. The government have other ideas. Who will this benefit you and me or big business? The state wants to sell off Allied Irish Bank for a one-off short-term gain. If we retain the bank as a National Development Bank it’s investments will be made in the interest of the common good. It will take a lot of the decisions on where the state is to invest out of the hands of private capital and will set the standard for other banks.
The bank made a profit last year of over a billion. It makes no sense to sell it. Choices once again business gets priority over the people. There’s no doubt that if it is sold the new owners will “rationalise it” put another way “asset strip it” slash jobs cut pay and sell it on in a couple of years for a massive profit we’ve seen this time and time again way back to the Whiddy Island Oil refinery and more recently to the multiple sales of Telecom Éireann. Choices and priorities comrades.
Comrades & friends once again we gather in Abour Hill to commemorate a giant of Irish labour James Connolly. We are here as an expression of our continued opposition to British imperialism and partition and to reaffirm our commitment to the Struggle for National unity political and economic independence and national sovereignty. We must remember his politics learn from them and use this knowledge to advance our struggle today & into the future. As we gather here today it’s 101 years after the execution of James Connolly. Socialism is what we want everything from The Plough to the stars. Lots of political parties and groups
claim James Connolly as their inspiration. Well I have news for them James Connolly was a Socialist, a Marxist, an anti-imperialist, an internationalist & a trade union organiser. You cannot cherry pick. He would have no truck with the imperialism of the European Union and he would laugh at the deluded suggestion of using Brexit and membership of the European Union as a means to uniting the country by surrendering our national sovereignty & democracy to the imperialism of the European Union.
James Connolly fought and died for a Socialist Republic not the gombeen partitioned country with a divided people that the Counter Revolution installed. There is one thing in common between these two parts of Ireland the unelected power of private business determines the course of both economies through investment and production decision this give them total power over government no matter what party or jurisdiction we are talking about. What Unites the people is our labour power, our class. Without the workers capital is powerless. We have to set about reorganizing the economy so it is no longer dependent on private capital.
War has been declared on the working class all around the world under this neo liberal globalised economy that we now live. Let’s call it what it is. It is imperialism and under this imperialism 83% of all goods manufactured in the world are now manufactured in the Global South in sweatshops for slave wages with little regard for health and safety and total disregard for the environment.
As result of this super exploitation of workers in the poorest areas of the planet half a trillion dollars is shipped back to the richest countries from the profits earned on the backs of these exploited workers every year. Let’s put that in perspective it is the equivalent of 15,000 tonnes of gold being shipped back from the colonies to the motherland every year. That is twice as much gold in one year than was plundered in the entire 350 years since Columbus set sail. Neither slavery nor genocidal clearances of indigenous people or the worst excesses of colonialism could achieve a wealth transfer of this magnitude. What military Force could not achieve in the last couple of centuries market forces are doing on a massive scale every year and they called this foreign direct investment. Foreign direct Imperialism the plunder of the poorest people’s of the world goes on unabated.
I mentioned the bank bailout there so let’s look at the choices and priorities there. A bailout in my language is a helping hand a leg up or a dig out but not in capitalist speak like everything else in the capitalist world it is a business opportunity. We are being charged up to €7 billion a year to service this bailout and we still have to pay it back in its entirety. But that’s alright the interests of The Ruling Class is served big business survives and these massive debts accrued by them are paid off by you and me the people through tax increases, wage cuts, extra charges and the slashing of public services. Choices & priorities comrades.
As Connolly said government in a capitalist Society is but a committee to organise the affairs of the rich. Bailout I don’t think, sell out more like.
It is the greatest transfer of wealth from the working class to the rich in modern times. Seaní Fitz is still getting chauffeured in a Mercedes to his rounds of golf with his political & business cronies while the people pay off his debts.
Allied Irish Bank is now owned by the state and should be kept in state ownership as a national Development Bank. That’s a priority decision in the interests of the Citizens. The government have other ideas. Who will this benefit you and me or big business? The state wants to sell off Allied Irish Bank for a one-off short-term gain. If we retain the bank as a National Development Bank it’s investments will be made in the interest of the common good. It will take a lot of the decisions on where the state is to invest out of the hands of private capital and will set the standard for other banks.
The bank made a profit last year of over a billion. It makes no sense to sell it. Choices once again business gets priority over the people. There’s no doubt that if it is sold the new owners will “rationalise it” put another way “asset strip it” slash jobs cut pay and sell it on in a couple of years for a massive profit we’ve seen this time and time again way back to the Whiddy Island Oil refinery and more recently to the multiple sales of Telecom Éireann. Choices and priorities comrades.
Anthony McIntyre's Blog
- Anthony McIntyre's profile
- 2 followers
Anthony McIntyre isn't a Goodreads Author
(yet),
but they
do have a blog,
so here are some recent posts imported from
their feed.
