october 2004

I would like to say that the Palestinian case is not a negotiation dispute, and it is not a case of a dispute between two parties that can be described as equal parties; this is a struggle for self-determination. The Palestinian struggle has become the foremost national liberation struggle in this world. It is like the case of India when it was struggling for independence. It is like the case of Algeria , the case of South Africa, and with such a struggle people must stand with justice and support the right of the people to be free and dignified. Israel is not the victim in what is going on, although all who are killed whether Palestinians or Israelis are both victims of the policy of occupation; but in this time it is the mighty Goliath against the weak David, and the weak David in this case is Palestine and the Palestinians.Dr. Mustafa Barghouthi

The above has provoked a long debate on Israel Shamir's "togethernet" for free discourse on the problem. I (editor) was thrown off this debate for "impertinence" and deviations in discourse. The debate really proves why some people debate on internet, though many do not want replies to assertions or to be asked questions, or to give or receive any answers. This debate on the other hand, refuses to spin any kind of web of facts around the problem although Shamir's original essay was entitled Spider Web. As I have been on togethernet a long time and am indebted to Israel Shamir for enlightenment from his many essays I thought it necessary to explore the discourse a bit.
I think this short piece following, encapsulates the problem(JB,editor)
A new York jewish businessman, irwin graulich incorporated the following paragraph in an inflammatory propaganda article to press for war on iran:The secret to the enduring Palestine situation is that they are not a state, and thus cannot be dealt with in the appropriate harsh manner. Once they become a duly recognized member of the UN, they would certainly go the way of Egypt,Syria and Jordan on the battlefield, should the situation warrant it. Arafat understood this quite well which is the primary reason he rejected Barak's offer.
www.michnews.com


DAVE: In a speech in San Francisco, on March 7, Mustafa Barghouti repeated the long-standing, absurdly weak Palestinian Leadership position, that the pro-Palestine argument should not include calls for equality, because such calls will be translated by Zionists as destruction of the Jewish state. This is exactly what Ariel Sharon would most like to hear a Palestinian leader say to American peace activists. Barghouti's position is, in fact Zionism.     This information is incomparably more important to Middle East peace activists than any further information about Zionism in US government: neo-cons, AIPAC, etc.     It is particularly troubling, as Barghouti is the primary Palestinian contact-person for MECA and the ISM. Yet no one from either of those groups has reported this problem, or shown any efforts discuss or correct it. To the contrary, all efforts to amend that long-standing ideological deficiency have been ignored ­ or grossly attacked.     Any experienced American peace activist should be able to convince Barghouti and other Palestinian leaders that a principled position against racism (besides being morally necessary) is a most powerful argument - the only one that can reach most Americans. How else is a Palestinian leader supposed to know how to address US citizens, if his American contacts do not tell him? This basic comprehension, among US taxpayers and voters, is the only factor that could cause a significant shift toward justice.
 
SHAMIR: Your words ('Barghouti's position is, in fact Zionism') remind me of Stalin's response. When he was told that the important writers of his days were drunkards, womanisers and weak on party discipline, he replied: 'I have not got other writers. These are the writers I have'. Mustafa is what we have, and he is just the best there is on the Palestinian side. Even if it is not good enough that is what we have.
What you wrote shows your good heart but lack of understanding of local politics. No American peace activist, experienced or otherwise, can convince Mustafa to demand equality and one state, on this stage. I know, I tried. For Palestinians it is not a question of 'how to address US citizens'; it is a question of how to relate to Sulta, to the PNA. Though PNA is in some stage of decomposition, it is not gone...............On a deep level, the PNA leadership thinking goes like that: Jews have a lot of influence in the US and elsewhere, they are too formidable an enemy to oppose; let us try to find a modus vivendi vs. American Jews (like two states, even if Palestinian state will be small). Now, I know and you know this compromise between Palestinians and the US Jewry is not likely; but they still feel that One State is considered to be strictly against Jews. So bear it in mind: there are NO notable Palestinians for One State within PNA's reach; people like Said or Sami alDeeb lived in Diaspora. Sari Nusseibe who tried it was ostracised. There are NO notable Jews for One state, either. We are pushing for the only possible peaceful solution, One state, but we are pretty lonely. People of Palestine may be with us, but not their leadership.

JoD:There is little to argue against in your `'zero tolerance for Racism' doctrine, but it is plastic, what I refer to as `McMorality', there is a whole world out there that is not an American demographic, and the argument is packaged for an American Demographic. The non-American demographic world involves death, oppression, and the classification of entire swathes of this planet as `illegitimate' and `barbaric'. We find that dearly held convictions are the first to be ejected when engaging the rest of the world, and Americans need to engage long before they become entangled in superfluous arguments about `non-violence', `racism' and `equality'. We need tougher activist than that. To argue, as you do, that Shamir is a Zionist tool, simply because he recognizes a greater audience than Americans, is feeble minded in the extreme. We should know our place, and our place when considering the position of Boughouti is to follow the Palestinian Street. They would rightly consider the denunciation of Bhoughouti as typical American arrogance, regardless of how they themselves see the situation. Be humble and do not conflate your position to be the end-all and be-all of it all. JohD

DAVE: THE REPLY: No, it is incorrect to suggest that I was "slamming" Barghouti or that Shamir "cautioned against" it.     Barghouti said we must not express our belief in equality - we must not use that one perfect argument against Zionism. In so doing, he adopted a Zionist political position - supporting "Jewish" supremacy (a "Jewish" state) in Palestine. This is plain fact, not an opinion. Nothing could "slam" Barghouti worse than the plain fact that he speaks against honesty about equality. He does that. My saying so does not make it so.
    And Shamir said that my insistence on the value of equality - and the strategic value of the ARGUMENT for equality - was "undermining" Barghouti.     That is perfect nonsense. It could only fool someone with no experience in confronting Zionists and presenting these arguments to ordinary Americans. It cannot fool anyone who has ever actually USED the equality argument in public debates with Zionists and in political contests with Zionists. Those who believe in equality - and who have ACTED ON this belief - cannot be fooled into thinking that we must keep quiet about it.    And repeating plain facts is "attacking" only in a Zionist universe.    It's just amazing that in the unique case of Zionism, it is repeatedly necessary to go back to Square One and re-explain that ALL official racism and tolerance of it is unacceptable.    I don't know if it is possible to make this simple enough for people raised in a miasma of Zionist connotation, but I will try:     It is unconstitutional to support official ethnic and religious prejudice.    Doing so also flies against everything we were supposed to have learned about official prejudice in the past two centuries; thus it is counter-progressive, or extremely "regressive." The question therefore remains: "just who is this`equality' for?"On the heels of the Civil Rights Movement, it used to be harder for the Zionists to suppress the equality argument.     For decades they desperately avoided it - citing the "complexities" of the "Arab-Israeli conflict," with its inevitable "Arab refugees." The Zionists did all they could to hide the blazing racism at the root of the problem - the blazing racism that ends all debate. That is why they had to say the Palestinians did not exist. That is why they kept the word "Palestine" out of the media as long as they could.     Those who knew the basic facts also knew that some day the simple truth of what the fighting is about would emerge from all the "complex" conflicts with the bordering states - the simple ethnic cleansing of Palestine - pure and simple racism as plain and violent as it ever gets. And we thought that THEN the Zionists would be on the ropes. We did not realize how the right-brain propaganda would muddle all its dopey-headed victims, so that when the fundamental racism finally could be no longer denied - there would be a whole set of Zionist-selected "Palestinians" to say we should not mention it! And we would have full-time professional "anti-Zionists" who say every bad thing one can imagine about Zionists and Jews, but tell us not to speak up for HUMAN EQUALITY.

SHAMIR: "Long time ago, an Arab Communist Member of Knesset told me, 'we need two states to have an escape from Jewish domination mania'; and only after the encounter with .... I began to understand him."I.Shamir

SUBJECT: Re.Shamir's derisive term "Propaganda of non-violence":

SHAMIR: Not only on the practical plane - soldiers, knights, warriors are as important as priests in their own place. The propaganda of non-violence goes against the very order of things by trying to undermine the spirit of chivalry. On this question, Lenin agrees with the Knights Templar and with the Upanishads. Even on this list, more given to priests than to warriors, we may acknowledge that “war is a possible ascetical and immortalising path”, as Evola summed up the medieval Christian tradition. As our great task is to restore harmony between male and female, Yin and Yang principles, we should not overlook the Yang concept of war.

Joh D: "Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors. And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah; but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression." 002:191-193 Quran.Get that?

ARDESHIR: THIS  however is the crux of the difference between us. You will not give up your belief IN belief, while I HAVE given it up. As a result, you will continue to believe statements (or trust in them), while I will not! That is why neither of us will convince the other in the end.BELIEVE in belief, right? You say that Muslims BELIEVE this or that. Now for my own part, I do NOT believe in belief. I do not believe in ANYTHING at all. If I know something, I say I know it; and if Idon't, I say I don't.(The only place where belief is okay is as a TEMPORARY hypothesis, for the sake of testing it. If one wishes to conduct an experiment, one formulates a hypothesis, and assuming FOR THE DURATION OF THE EXPERIMENT that it is true, acts accordingly. If the results disprove the hypothesis, then the experiment has obviously disproved it. However, as Popper famously explained, no amount of experimentation can VERIFY a hypothesis: experimentation can only FALSIFY a hypothesis.)

NASHID: In fact Muslims are not supposed to blindly follow anyone. When one make the declaration for becoming a Muslim they say, 'Ashadu inlah illaha illAllah wa Ashadu anna Nuhammadan Rasullulah' 'I bear witness that there is no God but Allah and I bear witness that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah!' The Arabic word used for bearing witness means that the individual is seeing with their own eyes. He is consciously making his declaration not from following someone else but from his own determination. This idea of blind following has no place in Islam.

ARDESHIR: that is not what I am talking about. I am talking about believing that the Qr'an is the WORD of Allah.

NASHID: For a man who preaches about enlightenment as the key, you sure are not enlightened regarding the teachings of Qur'an. To be honest you know more than most but there are some fundamentals that you miss. The Qur'an never points to its words only as the basis of belief. It always also point to the signs in creation for man to study to confirm his beliefs. The thing that you call 'proof' is exactly the same thing that the Qur'an points the mind to look at to establish the truth. There are many verses in the Qur'an showing this.

ARDESHIR: Now WHERE in all these signs is there proof that violence is the BEST policy under certain circumstances? (It is THIS point which sparked off our disagreement, remember?).............As Sun Tzu, the Chinese military strategist, wrote, "The greatest skill
in war is to win WITHOUT fighting"..............I see that you have not studied the martial arts as they are taught in the orient (China, Japan, etc.) In these arts, one cultivates what is called in Japanese *ma*. This word cannot adequately be translated into English, but it may be inadequately translated as a sort of "aura". A person who has great *ma* does not NEED to fight: his very presence simply discourages any attacker from attacking..........................................My mentor, Mr Giuseppe Bo, had *ma* of another kind. He had been born in 1896 in Italy, and being an anti-Fascist, had to flee for his life when Mussolini came to power. He made it out of Italy in the nick of time. Then he travelled all over the Middle East and ultimately to India, taking eight years to walk all over the region. He took some of the most magnificent photographs ever taken of those places during that period (between the two World Wars). He never carried a weapon. Though he went to all the places where fighting was raging, he was never caught in the cross-fire. He was a confirmed and avowed atheist, so it cannot have been because he was taken for a Muslim! He even took photographs of people cutting themselves with knives during Muharram in Kerbela. Nobody ever objected! Nor did he take photographs surreptitiously: his was an ancient view camera mounted on a tripod, and had to be focussed with a black cloth over the head!
Even when I came in touch with him, when he was fifty years old or so and living in Poona, the city where I was born, he was able to enter any cage in any zoo containing any wild tiger or panther, and instantly make friends with the animal. He had a kind of *ma* that animals understood instinctively. They would play with him, as with a friend, because they could sense that he meant them no harm.And how does one get such tremendous and wonderful *ma", you may ask?
Simple: by getting in tune with the Ultimate, the Absolute: that which is called by different names, "the Tao", "the Brahman", "The Lord"! The more you get in tune with the Ultimate, the more of the Ultimate's power is yours.
This is not to say that a person with *ma* cannot be killed. But he can ONLY be killed if it is Will of the Lord!..........What if one who believes in violence is confronted by a violent person at a time when the former has no weapons, or has inferior weapons, of confronted by a more skilled opponent? Will he not die JUST as surely as the one who does not believe in violence?
That is why in Buddhism that which is prized in the West as "virtue" is given another name: *upaya kaushalya*, which may be translated (inadequately again) as "skill". This is not merely skill in this or
that activity or field of expertise, but overall skill. The Buddha himself is reputed to have exhibited such skill at one time, when someone tried to kill him by enraging an elephant and letting the beast loose on the Buddha. The elephant came raging down the path to where the Buddha was preaching to some disciples. The Buddha - or so it is said - who was siting down at the time, simply raised his right hand: a peaceful gesture which calmed the beast immediately. Nothing could touch the Buddha, even though he never carried a weapon!
One version of the Buddhist vow of the Bodhisattva goes as follows:

All beings, without number, I vow to enlighten;

Endless blind passions I vow to uproot;

Truth beyond measure I vow to penetrate;

The way of the Buddha I vow to attain.
The Buddha never gave up on ANYBODY (not even on the orthodox Jews! :-) ... and THIS is why his approach is superior to that of ANY Western religious teaching - even Christ's teaching.
Also, if we emulate the oppressors, just WHAT lesson are we imparting? Are we not imparting the lesson that there are times when it is RIGHT to be violent? In what way is it any different from what they are doing?But they fight us or oppress us or cause us to suffer BECAUSE they differ from us in ideas! You see, the violent are those who believe that violence PAYS, or because they think it is RIGHT. If they did not believe that, they would not be using violence against us, would they?
.................................................................................................Does not Allah say above that He will PUNISH those who go astray? This is PRECISELY the point. Punishment of the criminal is undoubtedly JUST, as I said earlier, but it is not the BEST course of action, for its results are far from ideal! It does not cause crime to DISAPPEAR. If punishment DID cause crime to disappear, then America would by now be free of crime, for America punishes more people than any other country! Punishment does NOT result in the realisation "who is worst in position, and (who) weakest in forces". Do not the convicts in American jails realise that they are in the worst position, and the weakest in forces, compared to the police and the prison guards?

NASHID: Oh, this is TERRIBLE advice. I followed it for decades, and in the end what do I find? Those who have knowledge about physics (e.g., Relativity) and mathematics (e.g., non-Euclidean geometry) - or rather, those who are reputed to have such knowledge, for it is impossible for us to KNOW who has knowledge! - have been pulling the wool over my eyes, and over everybody else's, for not just decades but at times even for CENTURIES!

ARDESHIR: > No, it is EXCELLENT advice and here's why. The Qur'an never said to go to those who have theories and speculation. It said go to those who have confirmed knowledge that have been proven to be true.

NASHID: Here is one example from Gary Miller:Quote:
> A few years ago, a group of men in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia collected all if the verses in the Qur'an which discuss embryology - the growth of the human being in the womb. They said, "Here is what the Qur'an says. Is it the truth?" In essence, they took the advice of the Qur'an: "Ask the men who know." They chose, as it happened, a non-Muslim who is a professor of embryology at the University of Toronto. His name is Keith Moore, and he is the author of textbooks on embryology - a world expert on the subject. They invited him to Riyadh and said, "This is what the Qur'an says about your subject. Is it true? What can you tell us?" While he was in Riyadh, they gave him all of the help that he needed in translation and all of the cooperation for which he asked. And he was so surprised at what he found that he changed his textbooks. In fact, in the second edition of one of his books, called 'Before we are Born', in the second edition about the history of embryology, he included some material that was not in the first edition because of what he found in the Qur'an.
He mentioned that some of the things that the Qur'an states about the growth of the human being were not known until thirty years ago. In fact, he said that one item in particular - the Qur'an's description of the human being as a "leech-like clot" ('alaqah) at one stage - was new to him; but when he checked on it, he found that it was true, and so he added it to his book. He said, "I never thought of that before," and he went to the zoology department and asked for a picture of a leech. When he found that it looked just like the human embryo, he decided to include both pictures in one of his textbooks. Dr. Moore also wrote a book on clinical embryology, and when he presented this information inToronto, it caused quite a stir throughout Canada. As a matter of fact, one newspaper reporter asked Professor Moore, "Don't you think That maybe the Arabs might have known about these things - the description of the embryo, its appearance and how it changes and grows? Maybe there were not scientists, but maybe they did something crude dissections on their own - carved up people and examined these things."
The professor immediately pointed out to him that he [i.e., the reporter] had missed a very important point - all of the slides of the embryo that had been shown and had been projected in the film had come from pictures taken through a microscope. He said, "It does not matter if someone had tried to discover embryology fourteen centuries ago, they could not have So
seen it!".
You may ask - If THAT is the way you are arguing, then in what way is non-violence unnatural, either? It is unnatural because it is breaking the first law of nature which is self preservation.

ARDESHIR: Self preservation, by the way, is not a "law of nature" in the same sense as, for example, the law of gravity is. It is not even a law of HUMAN nature. There are many, MANY humans who have been willing to relegate self-preservation to a lower level than some higher good,
whether imagined or real. Are all martyrs breaking a law of nature? Did Jesus and many of his subsequent disciples, including St Peter, break a law of nature? Did Mansur al-Hallaj break a law of nature? If so, then I would say, More power to THEM! That law - if it indeed IS a law - SHOULD be broken ... but of course, only when it is broken for a genuinely higher cause.
You yourself admit that the Qr'an condones violence under certain circumstances. THAT is where I
and the Qr'an part company! I find that to much less-than-perfect advice. Does it then MATTER what the rest of the Qr'an says? Even if I were to agree with EVERY word of the rest of it, I would STILL disagree with THIS bit! Prove to me that violence is the best course of action, at least in some cases. THAT's the point of disagreement here. Let's not try to discuss OTHER points raised by the Qr'an, all of which I would probably agree with fully!

SHAMIR: .....So you like a saying of Christ, fine. But Christianity is not a collection of sayings by Jesus.

ARDESHIR: Then Christianity (as you define it) is something that Christ himself would not only not condone, he would in fact say - as quoted below - to those who call themselves Christians, "Depart from me, ye that work iniquity"!

SHAMIR: Jewish scholars often argue like you do, Ardeshir; so did my teacher David Flusser. He wrote: if the Christians were just to follow preaching of Jesus and drop this idea of his Divinity and Messiahood!

ARDESHIR: So would you then say that Christ's own words are of no consequence?Cf. Matt. 7:

"21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the
kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in Heaven.
"22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied
in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done
many wonderful works?
"23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from
me, ye that work iniquity."
The members of the churches say "Lord, Lord", but by Christ's own clear
words, are not worthy to enter into the Kingdom.

SHAMIR: we have the teaching of the church to protect us from sophisms.

ARDESHIR: The church - as it exists today, not as it existed in the time of Christ and for a few centuries after him - is CLEARLY the work of Satan, not of Christ! Do you think CHRIST would have condoned the murder and mayhem and even genocide committed and condoned by the various Christian churches over the ages, after they acquired worldly power?
Come ON, Shamir: how can you not recognise that the deeds of the various churches have been FAR worse than those of the Jews over the same time period (say, the last fifteen hundred years or so)?
"Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree
bringeth forth evil fruit.

"A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither [can] a corrupt
tree bring forth good fruit.

"Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast
into the fire.

"Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them."

SHAMIR: Moreover, it is a long-time Jewish dream to enforce the 'turn right cheek' thought amongst Goyim. In the Toledot Yeshu, the Jewish anti-Gospel of (probably) 4th century, it is said that Jews installed this idea among Christians so 'when a Jew will beat them they were just to offer another cheek'.And if Gandhi were alive he would probably advise Palestinians to commit mass suicide to shame the Jews - like he advised the Jews in 1930s. In our world, there is no place for this 'non-violence' idea. It is an ideological import from a very different universe of India

ARDESHIR: Oh, Shamir! This sort of argument is not worthy of you. You know as well as I do that this idea has been present in all of Asia - India, China, South-East Asia ... in many places and over many millennia. Lao Tzu spoke of it in China many centuries before Christ, and he never even knew that India exists! It is not exclusive to Christ or Gandhi.

SHAMIR: Rule of native people is always better than the rule of immigrants, whether obtained by violence or by gentle compassion. I am not for total equality: my view is 'biased' in favour of the Native, for the Native knows how to treat his land.And a Native is entitled to fight a foreign conquerer by all violence he can muster.

ARDESHIR: ENTITLED, yes, for he has justice on his side. But as I explained to Nashid earlier, just because a course of action is just doesn't mean that it is the BEST course of action.
"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent." (quote by Salvador Hardin). If one has to resort to violence, one shows oneself up as being capable of controlling neither oneself nor one's surroundings. My martial arts teacher - I have studied the oriental martial arts for decades - once taught me (along with the rest of the class I was in): "If you attack someone, it's YOUR fault. If someone attacks you, it's YOUR fault." That's the same as Christ's teaching. It's not CHRISTIANITY, by your definition - but if your definition is correct, then thank God, I say, that I am not a Christian! However, it IS the same as Christ's teaching. Cheers.

Joh DBut really Ardeshir, your neo-Christianity is getting tiresome. This is not even a question of non-violence vs. violence; yours is the posture a dog takes when threatened by a bigger dog - on its back, tail between the legs and legs in the air.

THIS TROUBLED BRANCH OF ARGUMENT SPLITS OFF AT THIS POINT :

ARDESHIR: Is it really true that Shamir thinks it would be 'impossible' to : withdraw from the settlements?

SHAMIR:I expressed my view just a few days ago in the Tnet, in a letter to a Belgian magazine:
THE SHARON EVACUATION HORROR SHOW, Lev Grinberg said that the promotion of voluntary evacuation of the settlers behind the Green Line -with compensation and international funding- could even help to relieve the current stagnation of the economy in Israel. He promotes a compensation for the volunteers who spent many years in the settlements. In which way this evacuation can be of influence on the state's economy? >
I replied: >
... As for their (settlers) forced evacuation, I see absolutely no reason for it: indeed, when Belgium granted Congo its independence, the Belgians did not forcefully evacuate their citizens. Whoever wanted to stay, stayed. Whoever wanted to leave, left. The same rule is applicable to the settlers: if they want to stay after Israeli army redeployment, let them. Let them sell their homes - or keep them and be better neighbours. The racist concept 'Jews are not safe with goyim' should not be supported by the wild talk of evacuation.
> Yours, Israel Shamir, Jaffa

IN REFERENCE TO NON-VIOLENCE SHAMIR RETURNS TO THE SUBJECT VIA:A letter from a free Dutch thinker Joost van Steenis "is a respite from propaganda of non-violence we are exposed to recently":.....in many cases even small groups of masspeople get results by using some violence. Anyhow, violence brings something about that never can be achieved by peaceful means. Shocks, that contain always some violence, are indispensable to advance society. (see my series "Political Catastrophes"http://members.chello.nl/jsteenis/catastrophes.htm).

ARDESHIR: I have yet to see ANY data on something truly GOOD resulting from violence. Please, please, PLEASE, Shamir, Joost, point out to me some such thing! (Other, of course, than Christ's crucifixion: arguably the only good thing in all of history to result from violence ... but note that it wasn't CHRIST'S violence.)

NASHID: Tell me Ardeshir what natural law of gravity, motion, acceleration, force and physics did man break when he created a spaceship to make space travel MOST unnatural? What new laws did he bring into existence that caused his traveling in a spaceship to be so unnatural? Because something is man made, does that make it unnatural? No, man used, NOT created, the natural laws in nature. As such, he discovered, but did not create anything outside of the nature in which he and everything else in the universe is created. Self preservation, self defense and elimination of oppression and tumult are part of the grand scheme in the natural world. Every living creature has white blood cells in their biological nature that fights against what can harm it. Our natural response is to fight against anything that tries to harm us. Why should that be wrong???

>>>>>Jocelyn?(Sorry I have lost this letter re. Shamir in which he declares that the seed, which is Christ, becomes the tree,which is the Church militant as Christianity)Dear Nashid, it is Shamir's call to militant violence that is the problem and his derisive statement "We have all heard enough about non-violence by now...." Last year there was a cumulative effort in Europe to stop violence emerging at Peace marches and conferences from a black clad group, it was successful. It is true that protest by peace march seems to have little or no effect, but certainy violence undermined public confidence fatally and large numbers of people who came out in the early days did not appear again. It is the same in regard to the politicizing of peace movements.Here in Dublin that had to be broken up altogether and it is now only small groups with banners and infact they are encouraged to walk as individuals carrying a banner of their choice or own construction.The fact is that Dave Kersting has a completely valid argument as an individual and is not polarising anybody. He is asking for the recognition of the obvious.Regards,

NASHID: I see you must not have been following the "discussions" I have been having with Ardeshir. If you have I am sure you won't be approaching me with "it is Shamir's call to militant violence that is the problem" crap. I most certainly disagree with you and Ardeshir. I have to smile at the way you refer to 'violence' as if it is an entity that has a life of it's own that is pure evil. You talk in those terms as if 'violence' is a bad boogey man. But please let's not be so naiive. I speak from the legitimate G-d given right of every creature to defend themselves. The right to fight against oppression and not be subjugated by those who are selfish and greedy. For Palestinians to pick up the idea of non-violence and implement it would be worst than suicide.......This non-violence is the worst remedy for the Palestinian people. I will not go crazy like David and others and say that you and Ardeshir are Zionists for proposing non-violence as a way of having the Palestinians slaughtered and thereby helping the Zionist cause. I will just use the Solomon's words of "there is a right time and a right place for everything under the sun." There is no right time and no right place for non-violence from the Palestinians as a response to the Israelis. Perhaps you and Ardeshir seriously erred in your judgment.

ARDESHIR: On Sunday, September 26, 2004, at 05:08  PM, Peter Myers quoted Shamir
as writing:
>> Father of non-violence Mahatma Gandhi advised the Jews to commit mass suicide to shame their Nazi oppressors, while his political career ended with one of the biggest massacres in human history.>>>
This is a SHAMELESS distortion of history for the sake of making a point, and an apology is required from Shamir. He knows as well as I do that the massacres following Independence of India was due to the PARTITION, to which Gandhiji was so strenuously opposed that he said it would happen "over my dead body".
Shame! Shame! Shame, Shamir, for trying to score a cheap point with a deliberate lie!


DAVE: The point is, we can very easily BEGIN to build some serious unity ONLY if we tell the truth about the basic racism of the problem and the basic need for equality. Most Americans really would support the Palestine cause if only they were permitted to KNOW that it is a simple matter of demanding the equality that would honor the Palestinians' basic human right to go back to what's left of the homes their families were driven from in the initial ethnic cleansing.
    Equality is upheld by our Constitution. It is espoused by our leaders. It is taught to all our children in all our schools.
    The main obstacle to the unity that would result from honesty about the racism of the Zionist program is the Zionist trick of fooling Palestinians and peace activists into thinking that we must not call for equality - and that it is "divisive" to say we should.
................."Once we get into this "anti-Zionism" business a little, we find that the most effective way to promote Zionism is to say lots of "anti-Zionist" things, while actually DELAYING the elimination of Zionism by arguing that we must not call for equality in Israel-Palestine - we must not play the anti-racist ace-of-spades.

ARDESHIR: Even if the boy in a (hypothetical) story (FROM KEN not included.JB) (hypothetically) gets away by using violence this time, he won't necessarily do so at a future time. To ALWAYS win in violent encounters he'd have to be better at fighting that ANYBODY at ANY TIME, and how many people, other than Miyamoto Musashi, can ever have boasted that kind of skill? That's what's meant by Jesus's admonition "If you live by the sword, you'll die by the sword."Or, to quote Sun Tzu in his classic *Art of War*, "The greatest skill is to win WITHOUT fighting."

KEN: You seem to have misunderstood the question. The option of the little boy responding with violence does not exist. He is too weak -- the bully is more than twice his size. Please answer within the framework of the query: should the little boy give his lunch money to the bully, or should he maintain principle against the bully's brutality? That was the first question.

ARDESHIR Of course he should give his lunch money, and even his life if necessary. "Render unto Caesar the things that be Caesar's and unto God the things that be God's"!If then God chooses to intervene, the bully will be toast. You seem to forget that God has super-powers!

JOCELYN: FROM A LETTER OF PREVIOUS DATE ARDESHIR YOU WROTE: "Religion has one great value for everyone, in that it forces us to FACE UP TO THE FACT that there are things we CAN'T think of, and problems we CAN'T solve, and that even when we THINK we can, we DO often make mistakes, even in this very modern 21st century - and that there is,
therefore, a Mind and an Intelligence and a THINKING and PROBLEM-SOLVING power greater than that of any of us."
What are these problems please?What problem solving by this "supreme being " occurs?Also, can we ever reach the limit in problem solving? The point is that there are always new problems, as the instability of the world has been manipulated by man to such an extent we now realise that self-destruction is going to be difficult to stop. Only for the fact that new infants with possible advances in ideas go on occurring, as for example our own appearance in this world, in which we have to admit that the present time of our own lives allows us only the possibility, and that unlikely, of affecting changes at a miniscule level.

AHMED: I dont think to rely on G-d to help him is enough. He should do his atmost to fight back this bully, while in the mean time having trust on G-d. G-d  help those who help themselves......................................He should tactically give him the money to avoid being irreversably hurt then later on he should find a way to fight him back. Specially if he can find one of this bully's weak points and use it to beat him. And perhaps he can joint his effort with his brother and whoever support them to get neutralise the strength of this bully


OMNIVORE:   Raising the sword is not the same as living by the sword... I think we can glimpse at a whole world between them : The criminal, the one who lives by the sword, will get it coming. The one, 'honnest guy', who raises the sword, because violence is at stake, can be a saint.

ARDESHIR: Quote:47    And while he yet spake, lo, Judas, one of the twelve, came, and with him a great multitude with swords and staves, from the chief priests and elders of the people.  
48   Now he that betrayed him gave them a sign, saying, Whomsoever I shall kiss, that same is he: hold him fast.
49   And forthwith he came to Jesus, and said, Hail, master; and kissed him.  
50   And Jesus said unto him, Friend, wherefore art thou come? Then came they, and laid hands on Jesus, and took him.   >
51   And, behold, one of them which were with Jesus stretched out [his] hand, and drew his sword, and struck a servant of the high priest's, and smote off his ear.  
52   Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.  
53   Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?  
You see, Jesus was talking, not of highway robbers, but ONE OF HIS OWN FOLLOWERS who took up a sword, maybe for the first time in his life

ARDESHIR: This approach doesn't solve the problem of the lingering hatred that always follows a violent encounter. Hatred can never be put to an end by violence! That is why Jesus advised turning the other cheek. Suppose you win a fight: will not the loser want to take revenge on you at some future time? >
> As I said, if someone wants to take the path of violence, then they have to be ALWAYS more violent than their adversaries: they cannot afford to lose even ONCE, for every time the adversary loses, he plans a new attack some time down the road, and this time an attack which will avoid the mistakes of the past. Is that kind of life worth living? Always looking over one's shoulder with the fear that one will be ambushed in a dark alley? Always armed to the teeth for fear that your enemy will be even more heavily armed? That is the way of the Mafioso, not the way of a civilised person.
.................................Lao Tzu said it best: [QUOTE] To rejoice in a military victory means rejoicing in the slaughter of men, women and children! How can the government of a nation be entrusted to people who rejoice in such things? [END QUOTE]
THIS is the point that everybody who promotes violence must bear in mind. If they wish to justify their position in any particular instance, they MUST explain how their violence will NOT result in at least SOME suffering!

JOCELYN:
Hi, I think it is necessary to superimpose some actual realities on the situation. Realities of human nature. You and Israel Shamir and others may have a notion of voting principles that in my opinion can never be realised, or have never been realised (except possibly recently in Spain, a brilliant result) and certainly was not realised under Communism. I believe Chomsky is advocating the same thing. Giving the vote does not solve the problem because we cannot at this point in time in anyway trust Israeli advocacy of a genuine desire  to solve the problem to the benefit of those who want peace. Sharon keeps war going on in Gaza because he must not let the army rest for a minute incase the pause is sufficient for the huge backlog of complaint re. the army in both nation and army itself to strike a strong note in conscience on a WIDE SCALE. The Israeli jews who aspire to the expansion of Israel and the formation of an Israeli "empire" never retreat into a rational caucas with whom argument or negotiation could be carried out. Internet debate "togethernet" unfortunately gives lease not to discussion of new.or shared rational and conjecture, culminating in Shamir's desire to moderate a group with rigour. I personally believe that Israel Shamir is so set with hatred of Jews as a psychological stain of ultimate guilt that he is constrained by history and cannot understand that historical truths are subject to conditions ofTime, or Timing that they are involved in. That is why Barghouthi was misunderstood whose statement : I would like to say that the Palestinian case is not a negotiation dispute, and it is not a case of a dispute between two parties that can be described as equal parties; this is a struggle for self-determination. is merely stating the facts of military engagement, the repulse by Sharon of any peace seekers, the prison system combined with physical hardship related to lack of food and clean water. Ofcourse Palestinians are in a weak position.  To move on to the dispute over racism we have to think about other things.Regards, Jocelyn


JOE SIXPACK: Shamir's critique of pacifist dogma, if addressed to the Palestinian resistance, is a recipe for suicide, not victory.  The issue is one of pragmatism rather than principle, for the resort to violence of the Palestinian resistance is quite within the acceptable of both the American and Zionist mainstream moral frameworks--if their norms were applied with any consistency.  And the "propaganda of nonviolence" and its fellow travelers--the one-way right to self-defense; the merger
> into one of "innocent" and "civilian," particularly in relation to democratic groups; the "civilian" and "combatant" dichotomy; the purported distinction between "murder" and "collateral damage"--are probably deserving of critical scrutiny.
> But a choice of strategy for change must take into account the relative strengths and weaknesses of the resistance and the enemy, on a case-by-case basis.  Thus, it may be possible for a proponent of justice and democracy to support vioIent resistance in Baghdad, but not in Jerusalem.  In Palestine, we have already a natural experiment with violent struggle.  That alternative has had a 60-year run, it has had its chance.

ARDESHIR: As I have already challenged those who believe in the dogma of violence, PLEASE give an outline - just a mere OUTLINE, I'm asking for nothing more! - of a WINNING strategy for the Palestinians using violence as your method of choice! Those who advocate violence, and expect to actually WIN using violence as a strategy, must have NO idea how BLOODY expensive it is. Do they KNOW how much a modern Navy costs? And that's not even counting an Army and Air Force and Marines to go with it. If we HAVE that kind of moolah, wouldn't it make much more sense using it to buy up all the MEDIA all over the world, starting with America, and then making sure the world KNOWS THE TRUTH? Wouldn't THAT put the squeeze on the Israelis and make them behave, without a single shot being fired? It's a no-brainer.
But all I have heard in reply to my challenge is a deafening silence. Come ON, all of you pugnacious people! WHAT is it? What IS your winning strategy for justice in Palestine using violence? ;-)
>

JOHD: ...............it is our job to present strategy options and programs, as you have done in advocating the `Zero Tolerance for Racism' message. However, It is also important that we reign in our exuberance when the issue becomes divisive. Arguing `Zero-Tolerance' with Zionist is quite different from arguing `Zero-Tolerance' with Palestinian factions or with Barghouti. .................I presume that people have their own reasons to be for and against things. I do not presume to dictate why they should be for what I am for. For me, a zero-tolerance diktaat is a problem, particularly so, when it is so fanatical that it labels people as being what they clearly are not. 

SHAMIR: Our job is to produce narrative, the discourse, to work out answers for questions from different angles, from left and right, from religious and secular viewpoint. To shape the general discourse on the web. To answer 'why palestine?', and 'why we?' and 'why now?' to many people. To integrate Palestine into local and regional discourses. To undermine the Judaic hold on minds. To set the general discourse free. And that is to start with :-)


......................................................................................


SHAMIR writes:Dear friends, Togethernet is drifting into less desirable waters. There is a lot of trash and circular argument going on. People leave, there are too many forwards. There is a proposition as follows: Perhaps we should experiment with a period of personal invitation to various thinkers with Shamir being the sole moderator and doing the inviting. We can suggest people he can approach and he can ask others here to engage them in selected issues. We should seriously cull the shit. This would then not be targeting individuals, but content, and would apply across the board. It would also make for more interesting reading. There is no shortage of venues for undisciplined expression. If togethernet is a Shamir list, it should be badged by Shamir's agenda.
Indeed, we shall try to moderate the messages more strictly repetitious Dave-Ken-Ardeshir discussion of Barghouti and Shamir - should be taken off the list, for the participants endlessly repeat their arguments.

>DAVE replies: >
>     Shamir cannot be expected to read it all. Indeed, my argument has been challenged on all sorts of grounds, some of them tediously repetitious - but if Shamir had followed the thread, he would know that no one has offered the slightest rebuttal of the argument itself.
>     A painstaking effort to deal with each challenge is only proper - perhaps even a sensible precaution, lest it be said that I bailed from the debate when I could not answer a challenge to my position. It is also right that each of my careful answers would return attention to the argument - which remains unanswered.     A cursory reading of the sequence could allow an impression that the
> argument, still unanswered, is repeated pointlessly, but using so ill-founded a conclusion as cause for banning that argument, still unanswered, would forever seem to be a final act of evasion, after all
> previous evasions had failed - like a frustrated chess-player sweeping the pieces off the board so as to deny that he was about to lose the match.
>
ARDESHIR: Frankly, I am totally APPALLED at this suggestion. Are we not all reasonable adults, capable of discussing things sensibly and without rancour? Do we need "minders" who will tell us in subtle ways what to write, as they do on Fox? Are we all now to accept ONE person's view that a particular argument is "circular"? Are we SO very afraid that people might disagree with us, or call us names (as for example "wanker", as JohD called me?) Are we SO incapable of defending our positions? The only reason we need moderators on "togethernet" is to eliminate
>> SPAM. If we are going to also eliminate DISCUSSIONS, even hot ones, then I shall bid you all farewell

AHMED: I thought our main objective is to discuss  the suffering and the injustice that befall on the Palestinians, which is  horrifying enough to make us exhaust all our efforts to do something to end this  suffering. You are right people  can use the delete button, but I don't think this the main concern. Our  major concern is that we lose your important contribution and skilled in serving  the Palestinians cause. I believe that in  togathernet we should focus our efforts to the cause of justice and fairness to  the Palestinians, which might eventfully leads to peace and prosperity to  everyone.

JOE SIXPACK to Ardeshir (I consider both you and Shamir, by the way, as two of the most articulate advocates for justice in Palestine/Israel in the world today.) It is unfortunate that Shamir sees no utility in further discussion. Exposition of the need for equality in Palestine--the embrace of a
> civil rights--by the mainstream Palestinian leadership is the one thing that would immediately galvanize the movement.  Meanwhile, we labor paintstakingly to build, in increments, awareness on the outside.  But one Barghouti would be worth 40 million of us.  (With all sincere respect to all here.) Shamir, I won't push my luck on this issue, but I would be curious what you see "our job" as being. Unfortunately, all this may already be too late.  I suspect the West Bank wall is as much an effort to forestall a future nonviolent civil rights mobilization as it is a bulwark against armed struggle.
>
ANTHONY:Most of the time I listen and read, but today I choose to contribute in a more substantial way because I love this Group and what it stands for and because I want it to endure, and evolve out of its growing pains so that it can mature, strengthen and become the best of its kind... It is always a trying and thankless task to weigh the needs of the many against the needs of the few. This is the crux of what Shamir is addressing. You'll always have those few who do not understand that the point here is about "style" more than substance. Their presence is valued, their opinions are valued; their style is not. Is that so difficult to understand?...............9 months ago I piped up strongly and complained against a wave of postings on issues that had no direct, tight relevance to our Palestine/Israel focus, (such as the evils of capitalism, occult control of the World Bank, Jewish banking control of the Federal Reserve, etc.) Obviously, EVERYTHING has a bearing on Palestine/Israel, from disease to divinity, from climate change to toilet paper usage per capita, but there are gradations of relevance that must be respected or else Togethernet as an exchange becomes diluted and loses its potency and usefulness as a sharp, effective and distinctive tool of thought.....................Finally, to focus our resolve and out attitude towards this Group, let us remember that the countries of the Middle East in general, and millions of Palestinians in particular, are at the bloody mercy of a desperate occupying power, armed to the teeth, insanely belligerent, drugged with weaponery, drunk with vainglory and pride and merciless in its greed; frankly, some postings seem to forget the reality of horror on the ground and roam to easily into facile, intellectual
abstractions

HAL:   I want to apologize to Israel Shamir for my serious fault in last few years of having failed to reprove him for by far most of his numerous grievous errors.  Such frank and careful response, of course, constitutes one of the first duties of friendship. In my defense I can plead some extenuating circumstances for my prolonged delay, to be detailed later. This world being so very full of wickedness, deceit and crime; the reason Shamir's mistakes deserve serious attention lies precisely in his redeeming candor, talent & learning in which the flaws are embedded.




>
JOE SIX-PACK:
I am puzzled why the Barghouti/Shamir/Kersting discussion is being  canned just when the various participants appear to be making progress in  understanding what each one is actually saying.  Despite occasional logical  fallacies, the discussion has proceeded to dispel misunderstandings and to clarify  positions and thus is beginning to play itself out, if it does not in fact lead  us into important new terrain. And, frankly, the discussion has covered some of the most important  issues facing advocates of justice in Palestine today:
1.  Equal rights in a single state.
2.  The inability or unwillingness of Palestinian leadership to  embrace this position.
3.  How to address, in the context of our advocacy, individuals who  identify themselves as Jews.
>> Redundant?  Circular?  Unpleasant?  What are we here for if not to  discuss these things? Here's an interpretation of the dialogue: Shamir wrote something that was soft on Barghouti's reluctance to  advocate equal rights in Palestine. Dave criticized this position of tolerance for apartheid rhetoric in  fairly categorical terms that evinced suspicion that Shamir might not be  either fully committed or fully sincere regarding equality.  On a less charitable  reading of Dave, it seemed Dave was being uncharitable to Shamir,  particularly in light of what seems to have been Shamir's consistent advocacy of full  equality in Palestine.  Thus Shamir, Ardeshir, Joh, and Ken's perplexity and  call for evidence. I believe that on Barghouti, Shamir was really writing pragmatically, compassionately to defend an *individual* (and possible ally) in a  *particular situation* from perhaps reflexive condemnation.  I.e., it is  understandable if not justifiable for Barghouti to take that position.  If Shamir has  given up on Barghouti, it does not necessarily follow that he has given up on  full democracy, either in practice or in principle.  Of course,  "pragmatism" may smack of Chomsky's absurd and possibly dishonest arguments from  "pragmatism" in the Mars Seminar. And so, because the opportunity to "move forcefully ahead" in  resolving the conflict through adoption of a civil rights strategy appears so  obvious to many of us on the outside (and on the inside:  see Ehud Olmert), the Palestinian leadership's failure choose this path should be  scrutinized, discussed, and even criticized (or not).  And Shamir should expect to  be challenged when he appears to apologize for it.  Dave has asked, and  many of us are waiting, for further explanation from Shamir.  He has not  obligation to give one, but because this issue is not irrelevant--it is central and crucial--I would think he should want to.  It merits, possibly, more  than an anecdote from the Soviet Union and a poem. And with respect to Dave, Ken's last posting expressed a desire to  understand where Dave is coming from.  Hopefully, Dave will clarify. So what we have seen is an occasionally "unpleasant," but mostly good  faith effort to understand one another and to debate strategy.  The debate  has revealed how much work many of us need to put into perceiving and communicating, and however valuable the discussion has been  substantively, it is also necessary for us to practice to refine those skills.  Thus, I  hope Shamir will be persuaded to have more patience to leave people room  to grapple and understand. I actually don't believe Shamir and Dave have significant  disagreement on the equality issue.  The most vital disagreement, I believe, is on point  3.  I hope I will be permitted to post soon on that issue.

DAVE: Thanks.    These tangles would be tough, I think, even if we were all perfect.      I think we’re all humanly equal in that department too.      It is essential, in these critical moments, to have sensible  observers, like yourself.

RAJA: If my opinion counts...All Palestine is occupied !! Tel Aviv , Lodd , Haifa are also occupied Land...............if there is to be one-land-solution, then it has to be Palestine...... what is this academic discussion ?? to be or not to be !!There is a robbed-land and the robbers....what is there left over to talk about ?? Must we reward the Robber, or must we forgive to the Robber only because he is militarily stronger than us ??? or forgive to the Robber because some European-anti-Semites did persecute him , while we never did !!! Those Pirates do not want Peace because it will cost them one third of the looted Israel/Palestine, if they eventually will have to give it back, like they did in Sinai.
Drop your pens !! , all of you and pick up the stones !!


SHAMIR:............................... The Sword of St Michael, By Israel Shamir

In The Dune, a visionary film that predicted the US invasion of the Middle East, the spiritual leader of the Resistance is asked:

         Will we ever have peace?

         We’ll have victory, - he replied.

Indeed, the invader may relent and seek for peace; an attacked must seek victory until the invader will seek peace. Thus, during the Vietnam War, good Americans demanded ‘peace’, but people of Vietnam and their supporters elsewhere sought to defeat the invader. The rule is often forgotten by modern proponents of pacifism and non-violence. They preach non-violence to the oppressed as the panacea for their troubles. Not surprisingly, non-violence gets very good media coverage and is supplied for downtrodden in great abundance.

The Holy Land received recently a grandson of Mahatma Gandhi who went teaching non-violence to the Palestinians in Ramallah. Good idea, wrong place: non-violence is the daily bread of vast majority of Palestinians, while their ‘violence of the oppressed’ is a rare and precious thing; without it, non-violence has no meaning. The lion's share of violence is done by the Jewish state, though it is often “suspended violence”, as an Israeli philosopher and a friend of Palestine, Adi Ophir, has called it -- violence suspended as the Damocles sword, as a suspended sentence ready to uncoil any moment. Pacifiers leave the suspended violence in place; that is why instead of seeking peace we may seek victory.

What is more annoying is an attempt to establish non-violence as the only acceptable way, as a religiously orthodox norm of dissent. “Nothing justifies violence”, or “Two wrongs do not make a right” – one hears these pseudo-wisdom cracks daily. It is not true from any point of view; even from the highest moral ground: violence is justified and commanded in order to save another person’s life and dignity. A saintly man may follow the Sermon of the Mount advice to the dot and turn his right cheek to be slapped; but he may not pass by a rapist or a murderer at his vile deed and leave him unchecked. He must kill him, if there is no other way to stop the murderer. We are free to give up our life and dignity, but we have a duty to defend others. Equally, justice is “doing wrong” by imprisoning, fining or executing a man for he did “wrong” by murder or rape; in such a way “two wrongs make one right”, indeed.

This simple rule is sometimes forgotten, often intentionally, by non-violence preachers. In the T-net discussion (reproduced below), a pacific Indian-Canadian, Ardeshir Mehta claimed that: “One can be a Christian, or one can advocate violence, but one can't be both.” He was neither, but words of Christ are often quoted with the same ease Nietzsche quoted Zarathustra. The radical South African, Joh Domingo retorted: “Do I justify Palestinian violence? No, I support it”.

Is violent resistance wrong and non-Christian act? This question brought to my mind a picture I have seen in Medina del Campo, a small Castilian town that hosted an exhibition in memory of Isabella la Catolica, the Queen of Columbus and Granada. The picture by her contemporary El Maestro de Zafra (Alejo Fernandez) was one of the most striking and impressive of the art of his period, of any period, period. In the midst of an Apocalyptic battle, amongst saints and angels, devils and dragons, on the deep blue background, shone a handsome, calm, serene countenance of St Michael with raised sword in one hand and the embossed shield in the other. A visage of supreme beauty, somewhat androgynous as angels are, the serene St Michael knew no hate; fury clouded not his calm blue eyes; anger furrowed not his brow crowned with cross; but his sword was not a toy, and it was raised to smite.

Tucked away in a deep valley lies the Palestinian village of En Karim, where red and purple bunches of bougainvillea embrace its delightful VisitationChurch, which marks the meeting of the two expecting mothers. In its second storey, there is a big painting of the Lepanto maritime battle, with the Virgin as the battle spirit, the Commander of the Celestial Army and the Defender of Faith, akin to the St Michael of Castilians, to Nike of Greeks and to Valkyries of the North; a manifestation of Christ, who said, 'I've brought you not peace but sword’, the sword of St Michael.

The Christian faith contains seemingly contradictory ideas; this is one of its unique qualities. It includes the example of St Francis of Assisi who considered it his best pleasure to be humiliated and thrown into snow. But it also includes the risen sword of St Michael. These two opposites are harmonised by our love to God and to our fellow human being. This love can cause us to give everything including our life, and it can cause us to take life, as well.

As our friend and philosopher Michael Neumann eloquently stated,

“Christianity is a religion of love, but not of cloying, hippy-dippy love. The repentant sinner is loved. The sinner persisting in sin is abhorred, but receives God's love if or when he receives the grace to repent. Think of Tertullian: what we learn on Judgement Day is who, in the end, is hated. We must always love our enemies, but not the enemies of God.”

Too often, non-violence grows not out of humility and self-sacrifice, but out of self-preservation and fear; fear of supporting the right side in the war. It is easier to be “against wars and violence” in general than it is to stand against an aggressor and invader, especially if your country happens to be the aggressor and invader.

Thus, in Italy, Communist leader Fausto Bertinotti has proclaimed that he is “against the Iraqi War for he is a pacifist and against wars in general’. After such a statement, he had no reason to demand the return home of Italian soldiers. And he did not. What a change for a party that had once taught the ringing words of that great rebel, Chairman Mao, “Power grows out of the barrel of a gun”!

True, the Italians have found themselves in a tight corner. For the second time in the last sixty years their country has chosen a wrong partner - two times too many! Sixty years ago, young Italian soldiers went with Hitler to Stalingrad; today, their sons and grandchildren proceed with Bush to Baghdad. Still, then as now, a painful duty of an Italian man of conscience is to wish the speedy victory to the people who shoot at Italian troops, be it Russian soldiers on Volga River or Iraqi resistance fighters on Euphrates.

Some wars are silly: nobody knows why the WWI was fought – there was not even a Helen to be brought home from the banks of Spree River. In such a war, one should not fight. But in this war we have a right and a wrong side, and we are duty bound to support right against wrong.

Regarding the Third World War waged in Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere, it is not enough to be “against the war” and preach non-violence “to both sides”. One has to give full moral support to the fighters who resist the invader just as the Russians resisted the German and Italian aggression in WWII.  In the same way, good Americans supported the Viet Cong against their own army; and good French – like our friends Ginette Scandrani and Serge Thion – supported the Algerian resistance. Pacifism offers a coward’s escape from facing moral choice.

The moral record of pacifism is far from perfect. Many readers have heard of a wartime American book by a Dr. Kaufman who proposed to sterilise the Germans to get rid of the war drive. The German propaganda ministry reprinted this book by the millions to steel the spirit of their fighters and to remind them that they were defending not only their Fatherland but their Fatherhood as well. Not many people know that the same Dr. Kaufman proposed to sterilise Americans, too – he was a convinced pacifist and thought there was nothing like mass sterilisation to bring universal peace.

Another great pacifist, Lord Bertrand Russell, advocated nuking Soviet Russia in order to bring peace. Father of non-violence Mahatma Gandhi advised the Jews to commit mass suicide to shame their Nazi oppressors, while his political career ended with one of the biggest massacres in human history. In short, pacifism is a quirky, doubtful and unsuccessful idea.

In the past, the enemies of Christ tried to convince Christians (in my view Muslims are Christians too, for they believe that Jesus is Christ) to accept non-violence and pacifism by various sophisms. The entertaining (if anti-Christian-to-extreme) Judaic best-seller of the fourth century, Toledot Yeshu, tells us of a cunning Jew who came to the first Christians and told them he was sent by Christ. He indoctrinated them (the book says) in the name of Jesus:

“Christ suffered in Jewish hands, but he did not resist. Likewise you should suffer whatever Jews do to you and not cause them any damage just like Jesus. If a Jew demands that you walk a mile, walk even two miles; if a Jew hurts you, do not hurt him back. If a Jew strikes your right cheek, offer him your left cheek out of your love to Jesus and do not cause Jews any trouble, big or small. If a Jew insults you, do not punish him but tell him: “It is your arrogance that speaks;” and let him go freely. If you want to be with Jesus in the Better World, you should suffer all the evil caused to you by Jews and repay them with good deeds and mercy”.

We do not know whether such an indoctrination attempt ever took place in the murky years preceding Constantine’s conversion, but if such an attempt was made, it failed profoundly as many an insolent Jew learned to his peril. It is not that Christians forgot the words of Jesus (his pacific message did not relate to Jews in particular), but the Christian faith is not a collection of his sayings; it is manifested in the living body of the church, in her doctrine and praxis, and it includes the flowers of St Francis and the sword of St Michael.

The society, like everything in the universe, is in the best state when there is a balance between the yin (the passive, female principle) and yang (the active, masculine principle). Christendom was powerful when its yang was strong. Then, the church blessed many warriors and was blessed by them. St George the Dragon Slayer and St Joan of Arc wielded sword. The Western Church knew Knights Templar and St John’s, and the Eastern Church venerates St Alexander Nevsky who defeated the Germans and St Sergius who prayed for victory over the Tartars. For war may have a spiritual meaning; and we may acknowledge that “war is a possible ascetical and immortalising path”, as Julius Evola summed up the medieval Christian tradition. Our Muslim brothers implied it by their double concept of a Minor Jihad (war for faith against the oppressor) and the Major Jihad (war for faith in the soul of man).

Now yin element won over the spirit of the west, while its natural un-subdued yang parted with harmony. The Peace movement is dominated by women, and it is not a coincidence. In his article Little Old Ladies for Peace, the reviewer of the Pardes, Owen Owens notes the makeup of the Peace Camp crowd as “female, old and short”. For sure they are blessed, but their prevalence is a sign of misbalance. Beside the Yin Peace Movement, there is – or there should be – the Yang Victory Movement. They, the fighters with AK machineguns cautiously treading the narrow streets of Nablus or Faluja, the French farmers of Bove crushing McDonalds with their bulldozers, the demonstrators of Seattle and Genoa, partisans of Che Guevara and rebels of Mishima are the latter day Christ warriors, holding out against the ultimate anti-Christian force in the history of Christendom. Hail the warriors; hang not on their shooting arm. Maybe we won’t have peace; but we’ll have victory. END