GALLOWAY TALKS ON PALESTINE TO BIRMINGHAM STUDENTS
Hundreds attend George Galloway meeting in Birmingham University
by Ger Francis
For those involved in Palestinian solidarity in Birmingham, its university has long felt like some weird Zionist outpost. For years Israeli apologists, through bureaucratic bullying and intimidation via the Student Union Guild, have been able to hinder and stifle debate.
Those days are fast disappearing.
This week saw the Friends of Palestine Society sell out, at £5 a head, a 400 capacity auditorium (with a few dozen extra students having standing room only) for an audience with George Galloway MP. The success of the meeting, and the feebleness of the Zionist opposition to it, is further evidence of the growing hegemony of Palestinian solidarity in all corners of the city.
George set his stall out from the start, tackling head on the charge that critics of Israeli apartheid were anti-Semitic: ‘call me mad, bad or sad, but if you call me anti-Semitic contact your solicitor because you will be meeting me in the High Court for defamation’. Citing Albert Einstein’s refusal of an offer to be the second President of the State of Israel, the role of Jewish critics of Israel in the movement for Palestinian solidarity, his own long standing activism in the anti-racist movement and, allied to that, his call that Holocaust Denial should be a crime, he exposed the ridiculous nature of the anti-Semitic charge.
To those who believed that the Israeli state was the natural and just creation for a Jewish people exiled from their homeland in biblical times and wandering rootless ever since, Galloway said this was a fable, and a ridiculous one at that. Highlighting a new book by the leading Israeli historian Sholomo Sand, ‘The Invention of the Jewish People’, he said Jewish claims to a 2,000 year old lineage that justified theft of Palestinian land had about the same credabilty as the ‘descendents of the Romans, Normans, and Vikings’ laying claim on Britain today.
He reminded the audience that instead of the Zionists following some historic mission to Palestine, they considered Uganda, Scheyelles, and Patagonia as possible locations for a Jewish state. They settled in Palestine, with the support of Lord Balfour, (‘an anti-Semite who wanted all the Jews to leave England so that he would never have to look at their faces again’), in order that the British Empire would have a ‘loyal little Ulster’ in the region.
Israel ‘is just another European settle state, similar to apartheid South Africa and Rhodesia’, in that it was a political construction designed to maintain the privilege of one section of the population over another. Britain was there at the ‘original sin’ of the theft of Palestinian soil and has responsibility for ‘the blood that has flooded since’. Is it any wonder, George asked the audience, that more suicide bombers come from the living hell that is Jenin refugee camp when the generations of Palestinians confined there can literally see the city of Haifa from which they were driven out from. Without a just political settlement, continued violence and instability in the region was an inevitability as the Palestinian people will not give up, they will not accept being ‘put on the reservation’, they will not disappear from history.
George explained the evolution of his own views on a solution. Describing himself as a life long supporter of the PLO and the leadership of Yasser Arafat, he had believed that the Oslo Agreement was the best that the Palestinians could have hoped for, in view of the collapse of the socialist bloc and allies there, and the extinguishing of progressive Arab nationalism. However, Oslo had been a disaster for the Palestinians and Zionist aggression has killed the possibility of a two-state solution. The only solution was now a single state, called either ‘Israel/Palestine or Palestine/Israel and running from the Jordan river to the Mediterranean Sea’ in which all people are entitled to live as equal citizens under the law.
‘What is wrong with that?’ he asked. ‘When Nelson Mandela was freed from jail he was approached by some Boers wanting their own white Orange Free State. Mandela refused because he said wanted a democratic state for black and white to live as equals under the law. If it is good enough for apartheid South Africa it is good enough for Jews and Arabs’.
George rounded off with a call for people to commit to the Palestinian solidarity movement, highlighting the huge advancements in the demands for boycotts and disinvestment and urging support also for ‘siege breaking’ and the work of Viva Palestina. The next Viva Palestina convoy is scheduled to leave the UK on December 5th. For more information visit:
George Galloway is simply the most eloquent advocate of the Palestinian cause in the English speaking world. And he is also one of the very few politicians who can attract audiences of the size seen in Birmingham earlier this week.
All in all, a very encouraging evening.
This looks like a tremendous meeting. One of those that you are genuinely sorry to have missed if you weren’t there. The audience is young and large and Galloway is clearly on form. Loved the description of the evolution of his views on the way forward. Well done to all concerned.
Comment by David Ellis — 11 November, 2009 @ 12:35 pm
Charging a fiver to get in - bloody cheek.
Comment by Doug — 11 November, 2009 @ 12:52 pm
Thanks David. And the money raised goes into the coffers of the Friends of Palestine Society in order that they can continue their good work.
Comment by Ger Francis — 11 November, 2009 @ 1:40 pm
Looks like a great meeting, thanks Ger for the report.
Comment by The Friendly Lefty — 11 November, 2009 @ 1:48 pm
Doesn’t George get a slice then?
Comment by Doug — 11 November, 2009 @ 3:45 pm
Do you think that a socialist should threaten his political opponents with a court appearance? Anyway it’s Galloway’s usual bluster, because, as far as i know, he’s had a lot of opportunities to take such action, but hasn’t.
Comment by pmg — 11 November, 2009 @ 3:48 pm
pmg: the Jewish Chronicle, the Times and a couple of other publications/broadcasters have had to pay substantially for the libel that George Galloway is anti-semitic. The matter is now settled by a High Court judgment.
I think people who willfully lie about a prominent individual and claim they are a notorious racist, when they are in fact a committed anti-racist, should not do so. If they continue, then a defamation action is entirely appropriate.
But let’s not get drawn off topic by trolling. The size and outcome of this meeting is extraordinarily encouraging for the movement for Palestinian solidarity.
I hope it is widely reported.
Comment by Nas — 11 November, 2009 @ 3:55 pm
Great report. And thanks for the reference to the book - I hadn’t heard of it. It seems that on many fronts, political, ideological, etc. that the zionists are on the defensive. This is very heartening.
There is an interesting article on Electronic Intifada by Ali Abunimah about the one-state solution, comparing the arguments against it to those against one-person one-vote democracy in South Africa during the struggle against Apartheid. I think he misses the key role that Israel plays in sustaining US imperialism in the region, which will be an important obstacle to any settlement, but he makes some good points.
Comment by redbedhead — 11 November, 2009 @ 4:01 pm
Thanks for the report Ger. Very interesting that George Galloway is now saying a two-state solution is not now the way forward.
That seems quite a change from what’s been the “orthodox” view of the left.
How would a single, “Israel/Palestine” state actually operate though?
What would be the key differences between such a state and the existing state of Israel as it is today?
Comment by Karl Stewart — 11 November, 2009 @ 5:32 pm
Looks like a great event.
It is amazing the extent to which people have become sympathetic towards the Palestinian people since Israel’s invasion of Gaza. I have noticed even my flatmates have started to boycott Israeli goods. Good to see that almost a year since then, the issue still resonates with (young) people.
Well done to everyone involved
Good one George!
Comment by George W — 11 November, 2009 @ 8:30 pm
Bostin!
Comment by mark anthony france — 11 November, 2009 @ 9:37 pm
Thanks for the report Ger. a very heartening read.
It’s a pity that the city doesn’t a have a mainstream Palestinian solidarity group worthy of the cause.
Comment by Adam — 11 November, 2009 @ 9:43 pm
‘Do you not find it odd, that George Galloway calls for Holocaust Denial to be a crime, and then goes on to totally omit the Holocaust from his explanation of why so many European Jews ended up in Israel?’
He did, actually. I omitted his reference to it, and much more, for reasons for brevity. And one of the things he said was that the Holocaust was committed in Europe and by Europeans. In what way are the Palestinians responsible? Why should they be made to pay for the crime of others?
‘Do you not find it odd that George Galloway described one of the most widely-believed ideas in Jewish history as “a fable, and a ridiculous one at that”, when there is no way in a million years that he would describe any aspect of Islamic history in that way?
Well, the actual wording ‘a fable, and a ridiculous one at that’ is mine, not George’s. And, on reflection, I think you have a point about showing sensitivity with the deeply held religious beliefs of others. The underlying political point remains however, which is about the construction of a national myth. For more on Sand’s book see:
http://www.versobooks.com/books/nopqrs/s-titles/sand_shlomo_invention_of_the_jewish_people.shtml
Comment by Ger Francis — 12 November, 2009 @ 12:06 am
Wasn’t there a mufti who was a famous Nazi collaberator? Never brought to justice either….
I wonder how long this post will stay up!
Comment by badnewswade — 12 November, 2009 @ 12:59 am
Anyone know if there is any video footage from the event?
Comment by Ciarán — 12 November, 2009 @ 1:12 am
Should be. Somebody was recording it. Perhaps from the student society that was hosting the event.
Comment by Ger Francis — 12 November, 2009 @ 1:19 am
Ger - don’t feel you have to apologize to Dave Rich, two of his three links are to the websites of utterly bonkers, thoroughly racist, right wing zionists. Isracampus’ website is subtitled “monitoring Israel’s academic fifth column” - ie. anyone who criticizes Israel.
Comment by redbedhead — 12 November, 2009 @ 2:44 am
Well this is odd. I was about to post here to thank Ger Francis for his answer, and to answer redbedhead, only to find that my original post has been deleted. Well anyway, I will try.
Ger: thanks for clarifying those two points. I would be interested if you could remember what George Galloway’s exact words were concerning the ‘ridiculous fable’. I’m glad you accept my point about showing sensitivity to deeply-held beliefs, and I’m sure George Galloway would not want people to think that he was scornful of those, whatever religion they belong to. I am not arguing that deeply-held beliefs should not be challenged or critiqued - on the contrary, I think they should be - but it is important to take care over the language used.
“And one of the things he said was that the Holocaust was committed in Europe and by Europeans. In what way are the Palestinians responsible? Why should they be made to pay for the crime of others?”
Well I don’t accept his/your wording here, but essentially this is the point isn’t it? The answer to that question is the reason why Shlomo Sands’ theory is nonsense.
redbedhead:
the Isracampus link (which has now been deleted from the thread, so nobody else knows what we are talking about) is to a pdf of an essay from the Journal of Israeli History, which is a respectable academic journal. I don’t know anything about the rest of the Isracampus website because I never look at it, but I’ll take your word for it that it is “thoroughly racist, right wing Zionist”. However the fact that they have linked to a paper from a separate journal doesn’t affect the validity of that paper.
As for the other two links, one was to Haaretz, Israel’s most left-leaning daily; and the other was to the Forward, America’s oldest Yiddish-language paper (which now also publishes in English). I’d be interested to know which one you would define as “thoroughly racist, right wing zionists”, because I read both regularly, and neither one fits the description.
To whoever deleted my previous comment: I do try to be polite and constructive when I come on here, and I don’t think my comments and questions should be too much of a burden for the site to bear. People can ignore me, or answer me if they wish, but deleting me does this site no credit whatsoever.
Comment by Dave Rich — 12 November, 2009 @ 8:22 am
Well done congratulations to all involved.
Comment by kieran — 12 November, 2009 @ 8:44 am
Ger,
Any thoughts on the “single state - Israel/Palestine” solution?
(Re. My enquiry at (9).)
Comment by Karl Stewart — 12 November, 2009 @ 9:22 am
Somebody, who has since been deleted, challenged whether Einstein was really a critic of the Israeli state. Here’s a link to some quotes. I know nothing about the site:
Albert Einstein Quotations Opposing a Jewish State in 1938, 1946 & 1952 and Labeling Future Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin a Fascist in 1948.
‘I should much rather see reasonable agreement with the Arabs on the basis of living together in peace than the creation of a Jewish state. …the essential nature of Judaism resists the idea of a Jewish state with borders, an army, and a measure of temporal power….I am afraid of the inner damage Judaism will sustain – especially from the development of a narrow nationalism within our own ranks…’– Einstein speech in New York, 1938.
In January, 1946, in a reply to the question of whether refugee settlement in Palestine demanded a Jewish state, Einstein told the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry,
“The State idea is not according to my heart. I cannot understand why it is needed. It is connected with narrow-minded and economic obstacles. I believe it is bad. I have always been against it.”
Letter to the New York Times, December 4, 1948, from Albert Einstein and other prominent Jews, denouncing Menachem Begin, a future prime minister of Israel who is highly regarded by the current ruling Likud Party, as a fascist. After the death of the first president of Israel in 1952, the Israeli government offered the post of president to Einstein. He declined the offer.
New Palestine Party Visit of Menachem Begin and Aims of Political Movement Discussed
TO THE EDITORS OF THE NEW YORK TIMES:
Among the most disturbing political phenomena of our times is the emergence in the newly created state of Israel of the “”Freedom Party”" (Tnuat Haherut), a political party closely akin in its organization, methods, political philosophy and social appeal to the Nazi and Fascist parties. It was formed out of the membership and following of the former Irgun Zvai Leumi, a terrorist, right-wing, chauvinist organization in Palestine.
The current visit of Menachem Begin, leader of this party, to the United States is obviously calculated to give the impression of American support for his party in the coming Israeli elections, and to cement political ties with conservative Zionist elements in the United States. Several Americans of national repute have lent their names to welcome his visit. It is inconceivable that those who oppose fascism throughout the world, if correctly informed as to Mr. Begin’s political record and perspectives, could add their names and support to the movement he represents.
Before irreparable damage is done by way of financial contributions, public manifestations in Begin’’s behalf, and the creation in Palestine of the impression that a large segment of America supports Fascist elements in Israel, the American public must be informed as to the record and objectives of Mr. Begin and his movement.
The public avowals of Begin’’s party are no guide whatever to its actual character. Today they speak of freedom, democracy and anti-imperialism, whereas until recently they openly preached the doctrine of the Fascist state. It is in its actions that the terrorist party betrays its real character; from its past actions we can judge what it may be expected to do in the future.
Attack on Arab Village
A shocking example was their behavior in the Arab village of Deir Yassin. This village, off the main roads and surrounded by Jewish lands, had taken no part in the war, and had even fought off Arab bands who wanted to use the village as their base. On April 9 (THE NEW YORK TIMES), terrorist bands attacked this peaceful village, which was not a military objective in the fighting, killed most of its inhabitants —— 240 men, women, and children —— and kept a few of them alive to parade as captives through the streets of Jerusalem. Most of the Jewish community was horrified at the deed, and the Jewish Agency sent a telegram of apology to King Abdullah of Trans-Jordan. But the terrorists, far from being ashamed of their act, were proud of this massacre, publicized it widely, and invited all the foreign correspondents present in the country to view the heaped corpses and the general havoc at Deir Yassin.
The Deir Yassin incident exemplifies the character and actions of the Freedom Party.
Within the Jewish community they have preached an admixture of ultranationalism, religious mysticism, and racial superiority. Like other Fascist parties they have been used to break strikes, and have themselves pressed for the destruction of free trade unions. In their stead they have proposed corporate unions on the Italian Fascist model.
During the last years of sporadic anti-British violence, the IZL and Stern groups inaugurated a reign of terror in the Palestine Jewish community. Teachers were beaten up for speaking against them, adults were shot for not letting their children join them. By gangster methods, beatings, window-smashing, and wide-spread robberies, the terrorists intimidated the population and exacted a heavy tribute.
The people of the Freedom Party have had no part in the constructive achievements in Palestine. They have reclaimed no land, built no settlements, and only detracted from the Jewish defense activity. Their much-publicized immigration endeavors were minute, and devoted mainly to bringing in Fascist compatriots.
Discrepancies Seen
The discrepancies between the bold claims now being made by Begin and his party, and their record of past performance in Palestine bear the imprint of no ordinary political party. This is the unmistakable stamp of a Fascist party for whom terrorism (against Jews, Arabs, and British alike), and misrepresentation are means, and a “”Leader State”" is the goal.
In the light of the foregoing considerations, it is imperative that the truth about Mr. Begin and his movement be made known in this country. It is all the more tragic that the top leadership of American Zionism has refused to campaign against Begin’’s efforts, or even to expose to its own constituents the dangers to Israel from support to Begin.
The undersigned therefore take this means of publicly presenting a few salient facts concerning Begin and his party; and of urging all concerned not to support this latest manifestation of fascism.
(signed)
Isidore Abramowitz, Hannah Arendt, Abraham Brick, Rabbi Jessurun Cardozo, Albert Einstein, Herman Eisen, M.D., Hayim Fineman, M. Gallen, M.D., H.H. Harris, Zelig S. Harris, Sidney Hook, Fred Karush, Bruria Kaufman, Irma L. Lindheim, Nachman Maisel, Symour Melman, Myer D. Mendelson, M.D., Harry M. Orlinsky, Samuel Pitlick, Fritz Rohrlich, Louis P. Rocker, Ruth Sager, Itzhak Sankowsky, I.J. Schoenberg, Samuel Shuman, M. Znger, Irma Wolpe, Stefan Wolpe
New York, Dec. 2, 1948
Alfred M. Lilienthal, in What Price Israel? , recounts that on April 1, 1952, in a message to the Children of Palestine, Inc., Einstein “spoke of the necessity to curb ‘a kind of nationalism’ which has arisen in Israel ‘if only to permit a friendly and fruitful co-existence with the Arabs.’” Lilienthal also relates a personal conversation with Einstein: “Dr Einstein told me that, strangely enough, he had never been a Zionist and had never favored the creation of the State of Israel. Also, he told me of a significant conversation with [Chaim] Weizmann [leader of the World Zionist Organization.] Einstein had asked him: ‘What about the Arabs if Palestine were given to the Jews?’ And Weizman said: ‘What Arabs? They are hardly of any consequence.’”
http://newdemocracyworld.org/Einstein.htm
Also see the review of ‘Einstein on Zionism and Israel: His Provocative Ideas About the Middle East’ and the interview with the author underneath:
‘In reality, while Einstein was sympathetic to the Zionist cause, he repeatedly warned that a “narrow nationalism” may arise if a Jewish-only state was founded and peaceful co-existence with the Palestinians was not achieved. Instead, Einstein advocated Cultural Zionism — the creation of Jewish cultural and educational centers within a bi-national state with equal rights for both Arabs and Jews.
When Einstein was offered the Israeli presidency, Israeli Prime Minister David Ben Gurion stated, “I’ve had to offer him the post because it was impossible not to, but if he accepts we are in for trouble.” In a letter written in the same year, Einstein compared the Zionists’ project with that of the Pilgrims, noting, “how tyrannical, intolerant and aggressive [they] became after a short while.” And in Einstein’s last media interview, which ran in the New York Post a month before his death, he stated “We had great hopes for Israel at first. We thought it might be better than other nations, but it is no better.”
http://www.indypendent.org/2009/05/14/reclaiming-einstein/
For a very sympathetic review of the book from the Baltimore Jewish Times:
http://www.jewishtimes.com/index.php/jewishtimes/book_reviews/einstein_on_israel_and_zionism_his_provocative_ideas_about_the_middle_east/
And for a more critical one here which still concedes George’s substantive point:
http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/4866/einstein_and_israel/
For contemporary relevance, and tragic vindication:
http://www.counterpunch.org/chuckman04042003.html
Comment by Ger Francis — 12 November, 2009 @ 10:52 am
This is from a commenter on Osama Saeed’s blog. I thought it an interesting proposition.
I think the model of The Marshal Plan and the subsequent EU provides us with an interesting and possibly viable route out of this mess. The basis of the Marshall Plan was to ensure peace through mutual dependency. The EU took this further, and is a process, not an institution.
I think the role of the EU in solving the problems in Northern Ireland has been underestimated. In the same period that Israel/Palestine has descended into mess, Europe has moved inexorably towards unification in which the whole idea of land, country, geographical boundaries and currency has changed. I suspect someone in Northern Ireland realized that within the context of a EU, a single currency, no borders to speak of, free trade and movement, the entire basis of the problem was dissipating. I suspect in another fifty years these boundaries will be so blurred they will not exist. In the process no-one has lost their national, religious or cultural identity. The question is how do we apply this to Palestine / Israel.
If we accept that the Israelis are not going to pack up and leave, or be happy to live under Muslim rule and that the Palestinian Muslims can not accept Israel’s right to exist (for religious reasons there is no need to explain here) but could accept a long term ceasefire, at least we have a starting point.
If the EU was as influential in the NI settlement as I believe it was, it did so by bypassing the problems and making them irrelevant. Much of this conflict is over land; the question is how to make that less relevant.
The 21st century differs from all others in that we are no longer an agrarian culture; if we can build the economic wealth of the Palestinians based on industry and alleviate the poverty then one of the main issues will be dealt with. CS Gulbenkian, the original Mr. 5% worked on the basis that he would rather have a small slice of a big pie than a whole small one. At the moment they are all fighting over a small pie. What we need to do is make them a new one that is big enough.
The EU could play a major role here, as could the US by specific trade arrangements that would benefit Palestinian businesses and encourage economic development. Personally I would like to see a particularly generous arrangement made for businesses that are jointly owned by Muslims and Jews.
The situation in Iraq could also be used as part of the solution. If the Haifa pipeline were to be re-opened, but with the Haifa refinery being placed under joint Palestinian/ Israeli ownership and control and if a substantial chunk of the revenue (if not all the additional revenue created by the reopening) headed for Palestinian infrastructure projects, both sides could gain.
It would also allow Iraq to generate revenue that could be used for internal restructuring. A second facility built under entirely Palestinian control within Gaza would have additional benefits. If this secondary spur to the Kirkuk-Haifa pipeline became the Kirkuk–Gaza pipeline the economic boom would be palpable in an area of great need.
I believe that Hamas and their parent organization are unfeasibly honest, and that for the first time in 50 years, some of the Palestinians have a non-corrupt government who are capable of directing funds in a responsible and socially exacting manner. This current mess, and by that I include Iraq, is also an opportunity. If the benefits of reopening the Haifa pipeline accrue directly to the Palestinians and Iraqis it would be a good starting point. If an economic system can be developed in tandem that builds mutual dependency, things could start to move in the right direction.
These are just a couple of suggestions; I do not claim to offer a solution to one of the biggest international issues we face. All I am trying to do here is say that there are other possibilities if we are prepared to look for them.
Comment by RMS — 12 November, 2009 @ 11:07 am
I provide the link. Now, which ones are ‘fabricated’?
It is obvious from reading the commentary in the other links I provided that Einstein was one of an honorable tradition of Jewish critics very critical of Israeli treatment of the Palestinians. George is quite right to evoke his memory against those who try label all such criticism of Israel as ‘anti-Semitic’. The notion that Einstein underwent a political lobotomy when offered the presidency insults his memory and the historical record.
Comment by Ger Francis — 12 November, 2009 @ 12:44 pm
The Palestinian national democratic revolution was stalled by the intervention of British imperialism and was seriously set back again when Zionism came to imperialism’s aid in the middle east after WWII and established its racist colonising project. Now, with Zionism increasingly discredited the palestinian revolution is back on the agenda again demonstrating the incredible tenacity of the Palestinian people. The unification of Palestine (Israel, Gaza, West Bank)under one secular elected authority and the return of the refugees to compensation, new jobs and homes should they choose is now very much a possibility. The alternative is continued zionist ethnic cleansing and the eventual genocide of the palestinian culture.
Naturally, in the course of the struggle for the completion of the Palestinian democratic revolution and the establishment of a nation in which Muslims, jews, christians and everybody else can live in harmony and without special privelege it will become clear to the Palestinian working class that its own bourgeoisie (bound as it is to the failed two-state collaboration) are so scared of it that it can no longer carry forward its own historic obligations. Only the Palestinian working class at the head of the popular masses and supported by a sizeable and sympathetic chunk of the jewish working classes and intelligencia and with the international support of progressive workers everywhere can carry through this revolution. It is the class that will need to take power with the help of the above mentioned allies, kick out the zionist and imperialist monopolisers of the means of production and set Palestine on the road to a progressive future.
Comment by David Ellis — 12 November, 2009 @ 12:44 pm
Great report Ger,Viva Palestina.
Comment by Larry N — 12 November, 2009 @ 12:59 pm
SEAUMUS MILNES ARTCILE ON GUARDIAN TODAY NEEDS A DISCUSSION
The real lesson of 1989 is that nothing is ever settled
The fall of the wall brought freedoms, but also war and crisis. Now that is creating the basis for a new alternative
*
Comments (157)
* Buzz up!
* Digg it
* Seumas Milne
*
o Seumas Milne
o guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 11 November 2009 21.30 GMT
o Article history
From the point of view of western self-esteem, 1989 is a year to die for: a tale of the triumph of individual freedom and the defeat of an ideological competitor, all captured live on television in the ritual destruction of a reviled enemy symbol in the heart of Europe. So the blanket coverage of the anniversary of the fall of the wall, and the parade of platitude-mouthing politicians in Berlin to mark the implosion of European communism it symbolised, was only to be expected.
What has been more striking, though, has been the lack of ideological confidence and enthusiasm that would have been expected only a few years ago. In the rest of what was eastern Europe, there have been barely any high-profile celebrations of the wider collapse of the old regimes. Given the eruption of wars, global insecurity and now economic crisis that have marked the 20 years since the end of the cold war, the larger narrative of peace, capitalist prosperity and the end of history peddled in the wake of 1989 just seems ridiculous.
For Germans, of course, the destruction of the wall didn’t only signal the end of authoritarian rule and travel restrictions in the east, competitive elections and better consumer goods, as elsewhere in the former eastern bloc. It also meant an end to the militarised division of families, their capital city and an entire nation, so they have more reason to celebrate than most.
But the question in 1989 wasn’t whether the old system had to change; it was how it would change. The political force that had turned the Soviet Union into a superpower, industrialised half of Europe and sent the first human being into space had exhausted itself. There were, however, alternative routes out of its crisis. What the protesters in first Gdansk and then Leipzig were mostly demanding was not capitalism, of course, but a different kind of socialism. Even given a restoration of capitalism, there were softer landings that could have been negotiated by Mikhail Gorbachev and guaranteed by the United States and its allies.
Instead, 1989 unleashed across the region and then the former Soviet Union free-market shock therapy, mass robbery as privatisation, vast increases in inequality, and poverty and joblessness for tens of millions. Reunification in Germany in fact meant annexation, the takeover and closure of most of its industry, a political purge of more than a million teachers and other white-collar workers, a loss of women’s rights, closure of free nurseries and mass unemployment – still double western Germany’s rate after 20 years.
And east Germany has done far better than the rest. Elsewhere in eastern Europe, the crisis created under western tutelage and nomenklatura capitalism was comparable to the Great Depression in the US, and national income took more than a decade to recover. In Russia itself, post-communist catastroika produced the greatest economic collapse in peacetime in modern history. Mortality rates rose steeply across the region in the 1990s – in Russia, the market experiment produced more orphans in the 1990s than the country’s 20m wartime deaths, while Gorbachev’s democratisation went into reverse.
Now, after a decade of profoundly unequal economic recovery, eastern Europe has once again been plunged into deep crisis by the west’s own meltdown, with ethnic violence spreading and public sector workers facing wage cuts of up to 40%.
The western failure to recognise the shocking price paid by many east Europeans for a highly qualified freedom – the Economist this week dismissed them as “the old, the timid, the dim” – is only exceeded by the refusal to acknowledge that the communist system had benefits as well as obvious costs. The German Democratic Republic was home to the Stasi, shortages and the wall, but it was also a country of full employment, social equality, cheap housing, transport and culture, one of the best childcare systems in the world, and greater freedom in the workplace than most employees enjoy in today’s Germany.
Along with the humiliation of the takeover, that’s why Der Spiegel this year found that 57% of eastern Germans believed the GDR had “more good sides than bad sides”, and even younger people rejected the idea that the state had been a dictatorship. Just as only one in five Hungarians believes that the country has changed for the better since 1989, only 11% of Bulgarians think ordinary people have benefited from the changes and most Russians and Ukrainians regret the disintegration of the Soviet Union.
This two-sided, Janus-like nature of 1989 is also reflected in its global and ideological impact. It kicked off the process that led to the end of the cold war. But by removing the world’s only other superpower from the global stage, it also destroyed the constraints on US global power and paved the way for wars from the Gulf and Yugoslavia to the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.
At the same time, by destroying its main ideological competitor, 1989 opened the door to a deregulated model of capitalism that has wreaked social and economic havoc across the world for two decades. That, in turn, led to the economic crisis of 2009, which has so palpably discredited the neoliberal model. It also created the conditions for the wave of progressive change in Latin America that has challenged the post-89 social order and raised the possibility of a new form of socialism for the 21st century.
It’s often said that the collapse of European communism and the Soviet Union has destroyed the only systemic alternative to capitalism. But the pressure for a social alternative has always come from capitalism itself and its failures, which are once again obvious to people throughout the world. Only 11% of those questioned in a BBC poll across 27 countries this week said they think free-market capitalism is working well, nearly a quarter believe it is fatally flawed and most want more public ownership and intervention in the economy.
The system that collapsed two decades ago, with all its lessons for the future, both negative and positive, is history. But that new movements and models will emerge to challenge a global order beset by ecological and economic crisis seems certain. As communists learned in 1989, and capitalism’s champions are discovering now, nothing is ever settled.
Comment by SIMON WEBBE — 12 November, 2009 @ 1:30 pm
George mentioned this as well in the meeting and how he had used the platform Press TV provides to oppose Iran’s use of the death penalty. But this is all smoke blowing. What’s the matter? Given up on the Einstein debate?
Comment by Ger Francis — 12 November, 2009 @ 5:00 pm
Like others,I am a lifelong of celtic football club. In my political awakening, I am also a lifelong supporter of the PLO and Viva Palestina.
Grow up Mikey and stop your sniping at our lifelong comrade in arms.
Viva Palestina!
Comment by Larry N — 12 November, 2009 @ 5:57 pm
Nice one Mikey, almost funny.
Einstein was very well known as a pacifist who opposed war. He consistently regretted his involvement with the moves that led to the Manhatten Project (notably his joint letter with Leo Szilard in September 1939 sent to FDR).
The links from Ger are authentic and mirror several books that discuss Einstein’s politics as I suspect you well know. Cassidy’s little gems or even Pais’s more dubious work (from the view that he seeks to underplay Einstein’s politics and commitment) are useful sources.
You are not much of a historian if you did not know about Einstein’s concern about Zionism in Israel.
Comment by Dirty Red Bandana — 12 November, 2009 @ 5:59 pm
The BBC has made clear its support for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. (I will post the links if you want). Does that mean anti-war figures should not appear on it? Of course not. More desperate attempts to try and smear George. If you are genuinely interested in tackling anti-Semitism I would have thought you would welcome his call for Holocaust Denial to be a crime.
Comment by Ger Francis — 12 November, 2009 @ 6:16 pm
“Describing himself as a life long supporter of the PLO and the leadership of Yasser Arafat.”
That is a lie before we begin. The PLO was founded in 1964 and George Galloway was born in 1954.”
GG does go in for a lot of bigging himself up that often runs contrary to the time and place. Not particularly political I realise, but on his radio programme he often goes on about how he was a mod. But he’d have been about 9 or 10 years of age during that period. Likewise, I’ve heard him categorically state that he was in the army. Something that he later contradicted in saying that he was in the TA for a short period. There’s lots about George that is easily picked apart on one level, his contradictions and even fabrications. But he does get things done and sadly he’s the best that the left can offer at present . It’s with this in mind that I felt encouraged by the report of the conference in Birmingham. So I too offer congratulation to all involved.
Comment by nich — 12 November, 2009 @ 6:21 pm
#34
Contradiction defines us all. I wouldn’t take your word re Holocaust denial seen as you support the continued illegal occupation of another’s people’s land.
But, along with many others I suspect, the tactic of using Holocaust denial as a way to discredit and smear those concerned with raising their voices against apartheid and ethnic cleansing today, right now, is pretty repugnant.
Israel’s continued denial of the human, civil, and legal rights of the Palestinian people is a crime against humanity. George Galloway’s outstanding role in championing the Palestinians has earned him the respect and admiration of millions throughout the world, particuarly in the Middle East. The platforms afforded him by Talksport and Press TV have allowed him to educate and inspire untold thousands of people with an interest in justice and universal human rights.
It has also earned him the enmity of people like you.
I’d say he’s doing him job.
Comment by John — 12 November, 2009 @ 6:29 pm
Even the Zionist trolls on this thread cannot argue with what George actually says and what he actually does. I for one applaud the fantastic humanitarian aid that has been done by Viva Palestina led by George. Contrast that by the way the BBC collapsed in front of the Zionist lobby when they refused to broadcast the Gaza Relief Appeal.
Make no mistake about the importance of the aid. For example, in Gaza there are 12 kidney machines. Non works because of lack of spare parts that the Zionists will not let through, so people on dialysis die.
Comment by Howard T — 12 November, 2009 @ 6:40 pm
Wow, Mikey, so are you the Zionist claiming to be a historian here? Amazing that you quote the wrong source for Einstein’s political views. Why not start with the books about his politics and his views on the decision to launch the Manhatten Project, which he played a role in? Einstein’s politics are a bit more complex than you wish them to have been. Never mind, like Procrusteus, you can simply chop off your legs to fit the bed you wish to lie in.
Or why not Mandelsohn’s brilliant articles on the atomic scientists movement? Or Hughes’ awesome book on Manhatten? Or the work on numerous historians of science on the politics of science in recent years that include fascinating pieces on Einstein’s politics (and Bohr’s)? Oh no, your agenda is far more right wing and demented.
Comment by Dirty Red Bandana — 12 November, 2009 @ 7:11 pm
apolitical point: I have it on good authority that George was indeed a mod. Just felt the need to clear that up.
Comment by johng — 12 November, 2009 @ 7:34 pm
you forget that it takes a while for things to get to Dundee.
Comment by johng — 12 November, 2009 @ 7:34 pm
Wow, you really love a good debate here!
Comment by badnewswade — 12 November, 2009 @ 9:38 pm
(by the way, I was being sarcastic)
Comment by badnewswade — 12 November, 2009 @ 9:39 pm
To Comment 2.: I was one of the organisers of this event. Regarding charging a fiver to get in (it was actually £3 but nevermind), that is because there are costs. For example one reason why Birmingham University is seen as ’some weird Zionist outpost’ is that any pro-Palestinian figures seem to be automatically considered high risk, and so can only be permitted to speak at the uni if the society inviting them (i.e. us) can come up with several hundred pounds to pay for security guards, plus VAT. You’d probably be surprised how little of the proceeds went back to us. And anyway any profit made goes towards funding future events, it’s not as if anyone’s making any personal financial gain here.
Comment 15.: Yes there is a video, but we need the university’s permission before they’ll allow us to put it on the web. We’re negotiating.
Comment by UoBham FoP — 13 November, 2009 @ 1:35 am
“Comment 15.: Yes there is a video, but we need the university’s permission before they’ll allow us to put it on the web. We’re negotiating”
If they refuse, just leak it to the web anyway.
Comment by Hello — 13 November, 2009 @ 1:59 am
“Highlighting a new book by the leading Israeli historian Sholomo Sand, ‘The Invention of the Jewish People’, he said Jewish claims to a 2,000 year old lineage that justified theft of Palestinian land had about the same credabilty as the ‘descendents of the Romans, Normans, and Vikings’ laying claim on Britain today.”
Shlomo Sand’s book has now been translated into English, so I’ll get around to reading it soon.
He’s attracting quite a lot of interest among the mainstream Jewish Community, hence his sales figures.
He is interviewed in the Jewish Chronicle today.
http://www.thejc.com/lifestyle/the-simon-round-interview/21817/interview-shlomo-sand
What suprises me is that, for a professional historian and former member of Matzpen, how naive he appears to have been.
Clearly, he’d never read the Classical Sources if he thought that Judaism was an entirely closed religion in the Greco-Roman period.
They’re explicit on this and the question of exile.
Some of the claims he makes on Spain and the Khazar question, I think are simply wrong.
My treatment of the similar issues, which doesn’t rely on any religious sources (other than the Koran) is here:-
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/alt.politics.socialism.trotsky/browse_thread/thread/2edc13c2cd27c2fd
A useful contribution by Moshe Machover, “Resolution of The Israeli–Palestinian conflict:A socialist viewpoint” is here:-
http://www.matzpen.org/index.asp?p=resolution-machover
Comment by prianikoff — 13 November, 2009 @ 10:33 am
George Galloway was neither in the Army nor the TA. He was a boy soldier (under-age) in the Army Cadet Force (Royal Artillery Battery two). He was indeed a Mod, between 1969 and 1973 in Dundee. Isn’t it amazing how people think they’ve heard something or stumble across what they think is a contradiction…and then build a hostile house of cards upon it?
Comment by Molotov — 13 November, 2009 @ 5:29 pm
Are you his bioographer? Cool!
Comment by RobM — 13 November, 2009 @ 5:49 pm
Mikey, you’re being a touch dense here (no doubt intentional). After all, I pointed in my earlier post to the 1939 letter to Roosevelt which Einstein profoundly regretted as he and Szilard falsely believed that the Nazis were close to an atomic bomb (they were not, as Heisenberg admitted). Szilard was also a known left winger whose parents fled Hungary after serving int he Soviet government that briefly took power in 1919. Scandalous to believe that there is an alternative tradition among jews.
Einstein was also a Spinozoan Deist as he announced in two articles in the Berliner Tagenblatt in November and December 1931. We are therefore entitled to point out that this pacifist physicist (who did not follow the conventional route into the discipline) who mobilized for the construction of the atomic bomb on an anti-Nazi basis, preached both new forms of materialism and Spinozoan deism and had some political sympathy with the left and Zionism (not unusual at the time but very unusual now), was a fairly complicated thinker in philosophical, religious and political terms in addition to his obvious physics.
How does any of this justify your position about Galloway or your claims to be a historian? I shall ponder that one while I don the kuffiyah and head for a protest against Israeli goods in Morrison’s.
Comment by Dirty Red Bandana — 13 November, 2009 @ 6:16 pm
Ah, Spinoza’s materialist theory of god - now you’re talking.
Comment by Kevin Ovenden — 13 November, 2009 @ 6:35 pm
I’m much more interested in mods in Dundee personally. Which is probably a bit bloody philistine.
Comment by johng — 13 November, 2009 @ 6:40 pm
“For those involved in Palestinian solidarity in Birmingham, its university has long felt like some weird Zionist outpost”
I did my MPhil at Birmingham University two years ago and have to disagree with this comment. The UoB has a huge Muslim presence and most activism you see on campus is usually anti-Zionist. There’s a Jewish Society and Jewish students, most of whom (not all) are all very supportive of Israel, but that’s democracy for you. The idea that there’s a sort of Jewish conspiracy stifling debate on Israel is too widespread among many on the left, but it doesn’t stand scrutiny. Most progressive media is vocally anti-Israel, and the I/P conflict receives far more attention than any other in the world. If there’s one debate that hasn’t been stifled is precisely this one.
“the feebleness of the Zionist opposition to [the meeting], is further evidence of the growing hegemony of Palestinian solidarity in all corners of the city”
You’ve just shown me that I’m not that wrong, but then, it’s Birmingham, the British city with one of the largest Muslim communities. If the Palestinian cause didn’t gather support there, where else? The problem the Palestinians face is not their lack of support in the west, but among their Arab brethren. They can’t become citizens of most Arab countries, where they live as third class non-citizens, mostly in refugee camps. Black September Massacre perpetrated by the Jordan Army makes the Operation Cast Lead pale in comparison. So does the constant raids Palestinians suffer under in the refugee camps of Lebanon. The list is huge. Until the Arab leaders stop using the Palestinian people as a pawns in their power games, the Palestinians have a serious problem.
“To those who believed that the Israeli state was the natural and just creation for a Jewish people exiled from their homeland”
Personally, I think that’s irrelevant. I see Israel as the result of a nationalist struggle for self-determination of a people who, tired of being persecuted in Europe, decided that they’d be safer somewhere else. European Jews first started buying land in Palestine and establishing the kibbutzim as socialist experiences. But they were not the only Jews living there. Jerusalem or Hebron have a long history of Jewish population. The territory was under the jurisdiction of the Sultan of Turkey and later Britain. When decolonization took place you already had an important Jewish population in Palestine. Could things have been solved otherwise? Yes they could, but all the parties involved refused to do so: all, Jews, British AND Arabs.
“He reminded the audience that instead of the Zionists following some historic mission to Palestine, they considered Uganda, Scheyelles, and Patagonia as possible locations for a Jewish state”
Yes, that was Theodor Herzl looking for alternatives to emigrate. But people who point this out do it as if sending all the Jews to Uganda would have not created any injustice. Those places were populated too. The problem is that Jews were tired of being pogromed in Europe, and as the Pilgrims of the Mayflower, they decided it was better to try to go somewhere else. The Sultan of Turkey had welcomed them in 1492 after they were expelled from Spain. It’s normal that they thought about a territory that was then under Turkish jurisdiction and which has strong connections to Jewish history (yes, I think that the Bible is all bollocks, but so is Al-Quran, so if you’re going to deny the Jews their claims to Palestine, you should do so with Muslims. There’s no trace of Muhammad ever being outside the Arabian Peninsula, unless you believed that horses fly).
“Israel ‘is just another European settle state, similar to apartheid South Africa and Rhodesia’”
This is dishonest. Israel has 20% of non-Jewish citizens and their rights are in general respected. There’s discrimination, but there’re also Arabs in the Knesset, the Supreme Court, the Army, the diplomatic service, etc. Within the borders of Israel, you can’t define it as an apartheid state. The WB is something different, but I don’t regard the WB as Israel. Officially, Israel doesn’t either, and they apply Jordanian law over there. The example George was looking for is Texas, which got its independence 100 years before Israel. A lot of US citizens migrated to Texas, then under Mexican jurisdiction, and then decided to split from Mexico. They were independent for a year and after a war, they decided to join the US. A bloody episode, but all Texans are US citizens, even those of Mexican descent who are born there or naturalise themselves as US citizens.
Besides, what’s wrong with settlers states? My country of birth (Argentina) is a settler state. The US, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, are settler states. Algeria is an Arab settler state in most of its territory (and the Ber Ber are not very happy about it). Morocco is a similar case to the south of Marrakesh. Settlers are the Arabs and Turks who live in Kurdistan and the Chinese Han who live beyond the two rivers. The problem is whether those settler states grant equal rights to their citizens (none of the examples I gave do). In my view Israel does within their borders, but not in the occupied territories, which is the reason why I think they should abandon them or declare the Palestinian citizens of Israel.
“Is it any wonder, George asked the audience, that more suicide bombers come from the living hell that is Jenin refugee camp”
No, it’s no wonder, but it’s sickening that anyone would rationalize suicide bombing. As I wrote somewhere else, suicide bombing is not the natural result of oppression, but a tactic chosen by psychopaths who have nothing by contempt for their ranks and files and who wouldn’t do it themselves. The Kurds are much more oppressed than the Palestinians. So are the Sharawis. Repression in El Salvador would make the Gaza look like a picnic (OK, OK, I’m trying to make a point here, not to denigrate Palestinian suffering, but rationalizing suicide bombing is a step too far) … None of those people ever did suicide bombing. Their leaders are socialists and secular, and unlike other men in robes, they care for their people.
http://juampylewis.wordpress.com/2009/07/10/suicide-bombing/
“Oslo had been a disaster for the Palestinians”
Really? Before Oslo the Palestinians didn’t have any representation or authorities of their own. The IDF occupied the whole of the territory and the Likud party believed strongly in Greater Israel. Things are more nuanced today, and the IDF has abandoned most of Palestinian cities and great parts of B areas (not all unfortunately). There’s a lot of work to be done and I wish they retreated to the Green Line, but to say that after Oslo the Palestinians have not achieved anything can only be justified from a maximalist point of view. Fair enough, and I’ve no problems with people who define themselves as maximalists, but they should say so. Because most of the times, maximalism is lethal… and people know it.
“The only solution was now a single state”
A pity most Israelis and most Palestinians don’t agree with George.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/22/most-israelis-palestinian_n_189596.html
“George Galloway is simply the most eloquent advocate of the Palestinian cause in the English speaking world”
If that’s the best the English speaking left can do… I’m disappointed.
Sorry for the long post. I hope it stirs some debate at least. For the record. I’m Argentinean. I’m a socialist and I’ve been a member of the Left since I’m 14 (more than twenty years now). I’m not a Zionist troll and post this with respect and critical spirit, in the belief that you can only strengthen your position if you allow opposite views to be discussed. My experience since I moved to Europe six years ago is that discussing the I/P conflict in the left is very difficult without people resorting to name calling. I find that self-defeating, and that’s not what I want for the left.
Comment by Juan — 15 November, 2009 @ 12:08 am
hi juan, you were doing well up until ”Black September Massacre perpetrated by the Jordan Army makes the Operation Cast Lead pale in comparison” With reference to the SB comment, I hope you weren’t then trying to rationalise the settlements. Maybe your critiques come from being a ‘member’ of the left since 14. Anyway good luck with your studies.
Comment by mike — 17 November, 2009 @ 7:11 pm
I am a PhD student immersed in many of the primary sources to which Shlomo Sand, specialist in modern French history, refers. There are plenty of British academics in Jewish history. Conspicuously, none were present here, or in any discussion with Sand.
The exile is assumed in rabbinic and Talmudic literature, as it is in Christian and Islamic. The Talmud is an expression of the rabbis’ resolve that every scrap of Jewish law, lore, custom and memory be retained in the face of the catastrophic loss of temple, Jerusalem, Judea and state.
In the Bellum Judaeorum. Josephus is too early to realise the loss of temple and Jerusalem is permanent, and he likely hoped for their return to the Jews. But there is no question that he perceives the loss of a Jewish state, of which Jerusalem is the capital.
Soon after Jews fall from favour. We hear no more of Hellenistic Jewish intellectuals, like Philo, whether Roman citizens or no. The destruction of the Alexandrian Jewish communities signals a decline in Hellenistic Jewish civilisation, a decline completed by the Christians. Jews no longer write Greco-Roman historiography. Hellenistic and Roman Jewish works, the provenance, in any case, of an elite, are lost. All Jews, empirewide, are punished for the rebels of Judea by collection of the temple tax. Indeed this likely plays a part in triggering the revolts in Alexandria and Cyrenaica. All Jews are thus identified as “Judeans”, and the Christians continue the policy. But now Jews are not only treated as de facto rebels, or potential rebels, against the Roman state and its gods, they are rebels against their own God, who know favours Greco-Roman gentile Christians, who inherit Jerusalem and Judea, now renamed “Palestine”, from their pagan predecessors, who acted as agents of divine wrath against Israel for rejecting or slaying Christ.
The “myth” of exile arises precisely because it is no longer possible to retain or research information about the past in detail. Except, for Jews, in the Talmud. It is a shorthand that most neatly encapsulates the Jewish experience of dispossession, disfavour, subjugation and displacement. Jews intermingle and intermarry, and the rabbis forge a pan-Jewish identity precisely because they fear Israel will be lost among the nations. Thereafter the tendency is less to convert new as to retain old Jews.
The assumption, indeed the necessity, that Jews are a people dispossessed of temple, city and land for their rejection of Jesus and the prophets only bolsters Jewish self-definition.
And the Christians continue the process of Jewish dispossession of the land of Israel by laws seeking to alienate or marginalise them. Yes, a sizable Jewish community remains in the land, largely in the Galil, whither many Judean refugees likely went.
Shlomo’s assertion that Romans did not exile peoples is idiotic: they certainly carried out tranfer or genocide against Dacia, the only other province, other than Judaea, to be renamed as a consequence.
Cassius Dio says 500 000 Judeans were killed during the suppression of the second Jewish revolt. Exaggeration? Possibly. But ethnic cleansing even by modern standards (and the Palestinian Arab Muslim and Christian experience springs to mind).
Judaea is changed to Syria Palaestina both to likely reflect that “demographic” change and to alienate Jews from the land for ever. It was never complete, sure. But I can tell you that every ancient Christian author, even those living in Palestine, speaks as though Israel has been completely dispossessed from the land, not because it necessarily reflects reality, but because it reflects things as they think they should be.
Which is why Jews have been regarded as a people dispossessed of temple, city and land, in Christendom and Islam, for most of Christian and Islamic history.
Especially Palestinian Christian and Islamic history.
In any case, one consequence of this is that, even in the 19th and 20th centuries, Jews in Europe, North Africa and Asia are regarded as more nationally Judean than, say, European or Arab, and are either killed, or effectively driven out: before 1914, mostly to America, after 1914, mostly to Palestine, or what became Israel.
Which is why the Jewish state of Israel is the second or largest Jewish community today, and certainly the one most identifiably Jewish (hence, unsurprisingly, the especial focus of hatred of antisemites today).
Sand’s holding a post-Revolutionary French notion of nationality as the touch stone of its definition is absurd: the Greeks and the Romans regarded Jews as a distinct ethno-national group, along with Syrians and Egyptians.
But, more to the point, Sand’s criterion proves the very opposite of his thesis: the granting to Jews of French citizenship was significant precisely because it was the first time since antiquity that Jews could transcend their (anciently regarded) Jewish ethno-nationality without having first to convert from Judaism to Christianity.
The intellectuals of the French Republic all assumed the Jews were an ethno-national group historically dispossessed because this was not merely how Jews saw themselves, it had been a datum of European culture for nearly 2000 years.
It was precisely this identity Jews were supposed to surrender in order to become French citizens. That was why orthodox rabbis viewed emancipation with such ambivalence, and why Liberal Judaism evolved as a response.
Conte de Clermont-Tonnerre to the General Assembly of the Republic ‘To the Jews as individuals everything, to the Jews as a nation nothing.’
It goes without saying that this presupposes Jews to have been a national group of some kind, although this was what Jews needed to abandon to become French citizens.
Comment by zkharya — 27 November, 2009 @ 3:27 pm