|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
By Alan Sabrosky The basis of anti-SemitismNow, Jews inveigh often and loudly against anti-Semitism, which is itself a bit odd, coming from a people whose – well, "anti-Gentilism" (i.e. everyone else) for lack of a better term – seems embedded in their religion and culture. The Book of Judges and the Book of Deuteronomy are awash in bloodshed, with Deuteronomy endorsing the slaughter of people who worshipped a different God. Now, those people were not threatening Jews; they just had chosen a different way to seek answers to the eternal questions of life and death. But to Jews, at least in their core scripture, this sufficed for their extermination, and their livestock and possessions as well. This trait alone would make Jews unwelcome – how many people willingly reside next to their own executioners, simply for the crime of existing?
Then there is the problem of dealing with a people whose religion includes a major holiday – Passover (or Pesach) – based on mass infanticide. True, the side of the Passover coin presented to the world is that of God "passing over" the Jewish homes en route to punish the Egyptians for keeping them in captivity. But the other side of that Passover coin is the punishment itself, the killing on behalf of the Jews of all of the first-born of Egypt: not just of Pharaoh, or of Pharaoh's priests and ministers and generals, who might reasonably have been held responsible for that captivity, but of the poor peasants and fishermen and even prisoners as well, who had no conceivable role in it at all. Hating people who praise their God for murdering your children is not at all irrational – it would be as if America made the firebombing of Dresden and the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki into national holidays, and added some divine glorification to it as well. Not pretty, to say the least. The three faces of anti-SemitismFrom this derive the three faces of anti-Semitism, two defined by assorted gentiles and the third by Zionists. The first is essentially the Roman view, highlighted in the Jewish War that ended in the destruction of Jerusalem and the Second Temple and the dispersal of the remnants of the population. This did not see Jews as the problem, but rather an armed Jewish state – i.e. how Jews collectively behave in an organized polity. Even while the armies of Titus were battering Jerusalem down, thriving Jewish communities existed in virtually every city of consequence throughout the empire, including Rome itself.
Anti-Semitism reconsideredOf these three forms of anti-Semitism, the last is an understandable political ploy for a country that cannot survive open disclosure of its attitudes, internal practices and policies. Being nonsense does not make it ineffective, of course, given the extent of its media support and the money poured into political coffers on its behalf. The second is neither ridiculous nor nonsense. It is an exercise in criminal idiocy that merits condemnation, whether perpetrated by (e.g.) the Inquisition, the Black Hundreds or the Nazi SS.
But the first is on the mark, and the pragmatic Romans got this right. Whether the scriptural affinity for bloody-mindedness reflects the Jewish culture or affected it over time is immaterial. Either way the outcome is an exceptionally nasty people within an armed and independent Jewish state, at least up (or down) there with the Huns and the ancient Assyrians. Alan Sabrosky (PhD, University of Michigan) is a 10-year US Marine Corps veteran and a graduate of the US Army War College. He can be contacted at docbrosk@comcast.net.
Copyright © Redress Information & Analysis. All rights reserved. |