AbuLaish to Sue Israel over Killing of His Daughters

They Do Not Want to Know the Truth

from DailyKos, by Assaf, who posted the video of Abulaish talking with the Israeli journalist. Assaf also posted some comments of his own, below the transcript.

Transcript of first 2 minutes:

Eldar: ...we have on the line Dr. Abu El-Aish, we have been talking with him over the past period... he [his home] was just shelled, his family is wounded, maybe I can replay...

Dr. Abu El-Aish: No one can get to us... (unclear)... Ya Rabi, Ya Rabi (my god).. [he continues to cry throughout while Eldar talks to the audience]

Eldar: They killed his family, over the past few days we have been... I think I'm a bit overwhelmed too because,... (tearing up) Dr. Abu El-Aish is a Tel Hashomer physician, [to the doctor] Abu El-Aish we are now in the studio, [back to the audience] and he kept fearing his family would get hurt, once this week he went on air to Gabi Gazit [another anchor], because this was the only way [apparently referring to the previous near-miss incident].... In short, he was now hit, who was hurt Abu El-Aish?

Dr. Abu El-Aish: My girls, Ya Allah, Ya Allah

[around 1:00 into clip]

Eldar: He has eight children whom he has protected throughout the war, at his home in Beit Lahiya, maybe the only thing we can do is to ask someone who can, maybe in the IDF, Abu El-Aish can you tell me where your house is, maybe they will enable ambulances to get there

Dr. Abu El-Aish: (unclear) ...to save them, to save them, but they are dead already they were hit in the head, it was in their heads [died] on the spot, on the spot, Shlomi, Ya Allah, ... what have we done, what have we done [repeatedly]... they killed the family... [more screams in the background]

The elipsis (...) marks in the anchor's speech are mostly not ommissions, rather Eldar was himself shaken and kept jumping mid-sentence to start new ones.

An IDF infantry regiment apparently responsible for the shelling,
has quickly claimed that there was sniper fire from the doctor's house. Previous such claims during this war (most notably with the UNRWA shelter
bombed a week ago killing from 30 to 40 civilians) have turned out to be bogus. They appear to be little more than a standard cover-all designed to hold until public attention turns elsewhere.

Meanwhile, as if on another planet, Israel Foreign Minster flew to the US in order to sign a cease-fire agreement with... Secretary Rice. I wonder how this is supposed to help stop the killing.

Please help stop this. Call your Senators. Call your House members and ask them to support the Kucinich bill to end the fighting. Call your Israeli consulate: apparently America is the only place whose opinion might matter to them, so please let them know what you think.

Please help stop this. There is no reason for this to go on even one more second.

UPDATE:

At the end of the clip Eldar asks to leave the studio and continue talking with the doctor in private. If I am not mistaken this happened Friday night (tonight) which is prime time news time of the week in Israel.

I understand there may be tech difficulties playing the clip. Mine didn't auto-play because of some missing media player upgrade, so I had to click a link inside the video frame (second link; the first one goes to a download page).

Also if there's anyone Youtube-savvy enough to cut the clip and post it there and bring the link here, that would help - thanks.

Also, if you are a native Arabic speaker and think I made a mistake transliterating the doctor's name, please let me know.

UPDATE 2:

My friend Tom to whom I sent this story, sent me back a related story running today on Democracy Now: Palestinian NASA astrophysicist from Gaza, whose 10-year old son was killed. This happened on the 3rd day of bombing - but the story is first aired today. He was just making arrangements to bring his family to America.

Thanks to the hands that brought this story to the rec list. I post this story here, because the world - and that includes the DKos world - needs to know what is happening,and that the people getting killed in Gaza are people just like you and me, stuck between the hammer and the anvil. The reality is complex, every reality is complex. The Israeli anchor was visibly shaken almost beyond words, and tried to help the doctor and his family, regardless of his own opinion about the war, Hamas, who's to blame, etc.

To the shrill few who have nothing but "Hamas fault, Hamas fault" to say to all these stories: even my 3-year-old toddler is beyond the stage of denying any responsibility for his actions.

I have been an IDF combat soldier, I have been to Gaza, there is no way in heck the IDF and Israeli government should be allowed to explain away all of this. The IDF spokesman unit in particular has lost all credibility over the past 8 years.

So grow up already.

(and to those who think this is a great occasion to say how Israel is the worst thing that happened to mankind: besides being wrong, you are not helping, in case you haven't noticed)

Y Net


Bereaved Gaza doctor to sue Israel

Izzeldin Abuelaish, who lost daughters in Operation Cast Lead, says state leaves him no choice

Uri Misgav
Published: 12.23.10, 20:31 / Israel News

Dr. Izzeldin Abuelaish, who lost three daughters when the IDF fired shells at his home during Operation Cast Lead, will file on Sunday a massive damages claim against the State of Israel.

Gaza Conflict
Gaza doctor: I shall not hate / Ali Waked
Dr. Izeldeen Abuelaish, who lost three daughters during IDF offensive, war writes of hope, faith in humanity despite pain
Full Story


"I didn't want to file the lawsuit, and until now I didn't want to discuss it," he told Yedioth Ahronoth in a phone interview from Toronto, Canada, where he immigrated following the tragedy. "I tried to take every step that would allow me to close this with love and goodwill, but they didn't leave me a choice. According to the law, the statute of limitations will apply to this case within a few weeks – but there is no statute of limitations on the blood of my daughters. It will stay with me forever. It's a catastrophe that's impossible to forget."


Abuelaish, a Palestinian gynecologist, has worked in Israeli hospitals for nearly two decades. On January 16, 2009, in the height of Operation Cast Lead, the IDF fired two shells into the window of his home, killing three of his daugters: 20-year-old Bessan, 15-year-old Mayar and 14-year-old Aya. His 17-year-old niece Nour was also killed in the attack, and his 18-year-old daughter Shada and other family members were injured. The Israeli public heard the horrifying incident in a live broadcast, as Abuelaish was preparing at that moment for a phone interview with an Israeli television channel.


Abuelaish instructed his lawyer to avoid a lawsuit and reach a settlement with the security forces, which would include recognition and compensation. But no such settlement was reached: The Defense Ministry's legal adviser, Ahaz Ben-Ari, announced this week that Abuelaish does not deserve compensation.



"Despite the severe outcome, from a legal standpoint our stance is that the operation during which Dr. Abuelaish's family members were hurt was an operation of war," Ben-Ari said. "Therefore, the State of Israel does not carry the responsibility for the damage it caused."



'Palestinians and Israelis are Siamese twins'

Attorney Michael Sfrad, who represents Abuelaish, called the ruling a disgrace. "The Defense Ministry's decision does not only demonstrate cruelty and insensitivity, it also lacks wisdom," he said. "The State of Israel will suffer an immense blow from such a lawsuit, and eventually it will have to pay compensation. I am not just angry as Dr. Abuelaish's lawyer, I am ashamed as an Israeli."


Abuelaish told Yedioth Ahronoth that he has not lost hope for reconciliation and peace. "I wake up in the morning and hear my daughters telling me, 'don't be angry, turn the anger into something positive. Save lives, continue with the message that you brought us up with,'" he said. "I swear to God and swear to my daughters that I will not stop until I meet them and can tell them, 'I brought you justice, and your blood wasn't (spilled) for nothing but changed something in the world.'


"The situation will not change if we don't change something in our heart, thoughts and soul. We need to think of our children and our future," he added. "Palestinians and Israelis are like Siamese twins – attached at the heart and at the head. We must move forward, build bridges and get over barriers. We have no choice."



A Defense Ministry spokesperson said in response that "The Defense Ministry's hearts go out to the family that was stricken by the tragedy. Unfortunately, we can only act according to the law, and we will gladly assist Dr. Abuelaish as much as we can correspondingly."

Just take a look at the photo of Abu Laish that YNet chose/cropped/published: it makes him look like an animal. God damn Pisrael.

But it gets worse:

Report: Hamas may have murdered children of Gaza doctor

* Posted by Israel Insider on January 20, 2009 at 10:00pm
* View Israel Insider's blog

Medical evidence indicates that the shrapnel that hit a member of the family of Gaza gynecologist Ezzaldeen Abulaish came from a terrorist weapon, not the military-grade ordnance used by the Israel Defence Forces.

Abulaish lost three children and a niece in an explosion that he ascribed to an Israeli tank shell.

Channel 1 Israeli government television reported Sunday night that medical imagery taken at Barzilay Hospital, where his wounded niece was taken, indicates that a round object that appeared to be a ball bearing was lodged in her brain. Ball bearings are used by Hamas in their munitions along with other sharp objects to maximize their lethal effects. The IDF uses nothing similar in its tank shells.

The IDF admitted that shells were fired at a sniper in or near the building. However, it is also conceivable that the Gaza Doctor, who was an outspoken critic of Hamas, and on excellent terms with Israeli reporters and medical personnel, was in fact targeted along with his family, by the Islamic terrorist organization.

Hamas used the fighting as a cover for settling scores with political enemies and what it termed "collaborators" by summary executions. At least 8 Fatah activists were reported lynched by Hamas, and the possibility that Hamas might have set off a bomb to kill an Israel-friendly peace activist and get Israel blamed for the event can hardly be discounted. Similar murderous actions are suspected of having been carried out near the UN school where victims were killed by an explosion not considered consistent with an IDF shell that fell near but not on the school.

Hezbollah is believed to have exploited a similar incident in the village of Kana in the 2006 to get Israel blamed for killing women and children, some of whom may have been dead before the explosion.

The possibility that Abulaish may have been targeted by Hamas is increased by the fact that the Doctor had been featured prominently on Israeli TV just a day or two before worrying that an Israeli tank was near his house. In that case the IDF moved the tank and marked the house as not being a target.

The evidence has been turned over to the military's ballistics experts, and a final determination is expected to be issued in the coming days.

The Heroes of Egypt Feb 2011 Video Egyptians Protesting in London - moving

Jew1sh Extrem1sts 1n France v1de0

One Family in Gaza -- Video re 12 yr old Used as Target Practice by IDF

One Family in Gaza

One family in Gaza http://mondoweiss.net/2011/01/one-family-in-gaza.html

"Never Again."

don't know if it's still there; last time I was in DC near holocaust museum, the theme of the posters surrounding the exterior was,

"Remember what you saw."

I saw that "Family in Gaza" video on Mondoweiss a few weeks ago and I can't get it out of my brain. I dream about seeing a lump of flesh just beyond my reach, in the street in front of my house. I can't get it out of my mind. It drives me crazy.

"Remember what you saw."

Dr. Sanho Tree and Dr. John Dower, "Cultures of War" --
(Sanho Tree speaking):

"To take an 18-year old . . .and be able to turn an 18-year old into someone who is capable of doing truly horrific things to complete strangers for reasons of state is a very unnatural act -- it takes a lot of conditioning.
And so there's a lot of dehumanization that goes on, both of the perpetrator as well as the the victim.
And I think this carries over -- in order to do these things you have to dehumanize, but if you dehumanize, you can't really get into the mindset of your adversaries. And if you can't get into their mindset, you can't really understand what is motivating them. If you don't understand what motivates them, you can't get them to stop doing whatever it is you went to war to get them to stop doing in the first place.
Misunderstanding the psychology of the adversary."

If you stir into this "conditioning-dehumanizing" formula the realization that Jewish Israeli schoolchildren are conditioned to feel hated, to which they respond by hating the other, as is recorded on the video, "Defamation:"--> the rising Israeli public is conditioned to hate.
AND, stir into this formula the Jewish trait of assumed intellectual superiority, which Milton Friedman asserted, in a 1972 speech to Hillel at University of Chicago: --> Israeli Jews assume they know best how to "understand" Iranian intentions, motivations, behaviors, but they are looking through eyes conditioned to dehumanize; Israelis who interpret Iran are looking in a mirror and seeing their dehumanized selves.
AND, stir into this formula that media is dominated by Jews -- "Iranium" is the latest manifestation.

The outcome is explosive.

Can it be neutralized?

Gilad Atzmon: Zionism is AntiSemitic

Milton Friedman: Capitalism & Jews (video)

There are problems with Milton Friedman's version of history:

1. he insists that "governments did not protect Jews."
a. But did "governments protect" ANYBODY? Was it not just Jews that were not protected by government? Was it ONLY Jews who were oppressed by governments? ie. Bank of St George: did that bank protect Italians in preference to Jews?

2. Friedman says, since governments don't protect Jews, and Jews have been persecuted for 2000 years, Jews do better in free competition. Therefore, Jews prefer free markets and minimal government -- "it's good for the Jews." BUT IT'S NOT GOOD FOR EVERYBODY ELSE. Jews don't care: as Friedman says, Jews have never had universalist ethics, only tribal.

3. Alan Greensapan's theory was WRONG; he said so in Senate Hearing Aug 23 2009 (I think). The entire US and much of West suffered because Greenspan was wrong.
Friedman was WRONG. Presumably, it was at his insistence that Glass Steagall was struck down, via Phil Gramm. The entire US and must of the West suffered because Friedman was wrong -- but it was good for Jews: Jewish bankers like Citicorp, AIG, Goldman, got government bailouts.
see Chalmers Johnson on Apr 21, 2000, C Span, re "Blowback," and Jacob Heilbrunn's refutation of Johnson's thesis. Heilbrunn ended his comments with: "Was Chalmers right or wrong? Was he a prophet or King Canute?" Heilbrunn had argued that Robert Kagan's theory, that US should impose democracy throughout the world, was "right" and, presumably, would bring about Canute-style peace at home and abroad. Eleven years later, we see that Heillbrunn/Kagan were wrong; Johnson was Prophet.
If these Jewish intellectuals have such a record of being so wrong, with such negative consequences for so many, why are they still revered as intellectual giants, or even competents? They are faqirs!

4. Friedman said that Jews did not thrive in Nazi/socialist Germany, but he is wrong. Rothschild and Warburg set WWI in motion and also profited from WWII, as well as in zionism. Reasonable hypothesis that Nazism was a resistance movement to zionism.
1933 Transfer Agreement: the thousands of Jews who took money out of Germany.

Friedman says Jews thrived in Hollywood because they created the industry, but he's incorrect: Jews in Hollywood followed on Germany creativity, traded mostly with Germany, UNTIL 1933, when Jews in the US, flush with money taken out of Germany in Transfer Agreement, were able to separate themselves from Germany and started to create propaganda films AGAINST Germany, and so urged US to wage war ON Germany, in suppport of British imperialist wars, waged by Churchill, contrary to FDR preference.

re WWI, see Chris Hedges: European bankers forced Wilson into war. (Recall: Jekyll Island, 1913; WWI, 1914. Niall Ferguson: Rothschild most powerful man in Europe; if he wanted war, there was war.

Friedmann twists history to suit his narrative.


from Gilad Atzmon,

Monday, January 3, 2011 at 9:37PM AuthorGilad Atzmon

Given the severity and uncertainty of the economic crisis we are all experiencing, I suggest we look once more at the work of Milton Friedman, the leading economist and a staunch advocate of hard capitalism.

During the 1960s -80s Friedman was regarded by many academics, politicians and world leaders as the most important post- World War Two economist. Friedman was chief economic advisor to Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher and Menachem Begin. He also went on record advising the Chilean military dictator Augusto Pinochet.

It is far from surprising to note that more and more commentators have realised in recent years that it was Friedman’s ideology and advocacy of free enterprise, zero governmental intervention and privatisation that has led to the current financial turmoil. It was Milton Friedman’s philosophy that also contributed to the transformation of the West into a service economy.

But Friedman wasn’t just an economist: he was also a devout Zionist and a very proud Jew. Friedman was interested in the role of the Jews in world finance and politics. He also attempted to analyse and understand the attitude of Jews towards wealth. In 1972 Friedman spoke to The Mont Pelerin Society about “Capitalism and the Jews”. In 1978 he repeated the same talk, addressing Jewish students at the Chicago University’s Hillel institute.

I'd suggest that Friedman deserves our immediate attention, since he contributed to the rise of an ideology and school of thought that bears some responsibility for the rearrangement (some might say dismantling ) of the West's economy.

The Jewish Paradox

Friedman was, no doubt, a sharp intellect, and could offer sharp and succinct criticism. Yet, Friedman was not entirely 'a cosmopolitan' in every sense of that word, since he was deeply involved in Jewish concerns and Zionist affairs, and he was deliberately open and transparent about being so.

In the talks he gave in 1972 and 1978, Friedman examined a unique Jewish paradox : “Here are two propositions,” he said. “Each of them are validated by evidence yet they are both incompatible one with the other.”

The first proposition is that “there are few peoples if any in the world who owe so great a debt to free enterprise and competitive capitalism as the Jews.“

The second proposition is that “there are few peoples or any in the world who have done so much to undermine the intellectual foundation of capitalism as the Jews.”

How do we reconcile these two contradictory propositions?

As one may gather by now, Friedman, the free enterprise advocate, was clearly convinced that monopoly and government intervention were bad news in general; but, more crucially for him, they were also very bad for the Jews.

“Wherever there is a monopoly, whether it be private or governmental, there is room for the application of arbitrary criteria in the selection of the beneficiaries of the monopoly—whether these criteria be color of skin, religion, national origin or what not. Where there is free competition, only performance counts.”

Friedman, clearly prefers competition. According to him “the market is color blind. No one who goes to the market to buy bread knows or cares whether the wheat was grown by a Jew, Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, or atheist; by whites or blacks.”

Friedman’s elaborates further: “Any miller who wishes to express his personal prejudices by buying only from preferred groups is at a competitive disadvantage, since he is keeping himself from buying from the cheapest source. He can express his prejudice, but he will have to do so at his own expense, accepting a lower monetary income than he could otherwise earn.”

“Jews” Friedman continues, “have flourished most in those countries in which competitive capitalism had the greatest scope: Holland in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, and Britain and the U.S. in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, Germany in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century.”

According to Friedman, it is also no accident that Jews suffered the most in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, for these countries clearly defied free market ideology.

One may suggest at this point, that though it is undoubtedly true that Jews suffered in Soviet Russia and in Nazi Germany, and though it is also true that these countries defied free market ideology -- Friedman fails to establish a causal or even rational relationship between the opposition to the free market, and anti Jewish policies.

However, the message Friedman conveys is clear -- Jews do benefit from hard capitalism and competitive markets.

Yet, Friedman is also genuinely intrigued by Jewish intellectuals' affinity with anti-Capitalism : “Jews have been a stronghold of anti-capitalist sentiment. From Karl Marx through Leon Trotsky to Herbert Marcuse, a sizable fraction of the revolutionary anti-capitalist literature has been authored by Jews.”

How could that be, Friedman wonders? Why is it that, despite the historical record of the benefits of competitive capitalism to the Jews; despite the intellectual explanation of this phenomenon that is implicit or explicit in much liberal literature from at least Adam Smith onwards, the Jews have been disproportionately anti-capitalist?

Friedman considers some answers --

Rather often we hear from Jews on the left that their affinity to humanitarian issues is driven by their ‘Jewish humanist heritage’. More than once I myself have commented that this is an utter lie. There is no such a Jewish heritage. Driven by tribal precepts, both Judaism and 'Jewish ideology' are devoid of universal ethics. If there are some remote patches of humanism in Jewish culture, these are certainly far from being universal.

Friedman, however, offered a further take on the subject: In direct reference to Lawrence Fuchs who argues that the anti-capitalism of the Jews is a “direct reflection of values derived from the Jewish religion and culture,” Friedman wonders -- if Jewish culture is, indeed, inherently anti capitalist (as Fuchs suggests) how is it then, that Jews failed to successfully combat Capitalism and free markets throughout their history? Friedman analyses that whilst “Jewish religion and culture date back over two millennia; the Jewish opposition to capitalism and attachment to socialism, is at the most, less than two centuries.”

Being a sharp intellect then, Friedman managed to dismantle Fuchs’s argument. He managed to counter the argument that Jewish culture is inherently socialist or humanist. If Judaism is, indeed, inherently and innately bound to such ethics, how is it that this humanism failed to become dominant throughout Jewish history?

Friedman also reflects in a surprisingly respectful manner, on the writing of alleged anti Semite Werner Sombart’s The Jews and Modern Capitalism. Sombart identifies Jewish ideology at the heart of capitalism. “Throughout the centuries, the Jews championed the cause of individual liberty in economic activity against the dominating view of the time. The individual was not to be hampered by regulations of any sort. I think that the Jewish religion has the same leading ideas as capitalism . . . “(1)

Though Jewish intellectuals at the time were largely unhappy with Sombart’s book, Milton Friedman is brave enough to admit that there is nothing in Sombart’s book itself to justify any charge of anti-Semitism (though, he argues, there certainly is in Sombart’s later work). Friedman, a proud capitalist, tends actually to interpret Sombart’s book as “philo-Semitic”.

“If, like me”, says Friedman, “you regard competitive capitalism as the economic system that is most favorable to individual freedom, to creative accomplishments in technology and the arts, and to the widest possible opportunities for the ordinary man, then you will regard Sombart’s assignment to the Jews of a key role in the development of capitalism as high praise. You will, as I do, regard his book as philo-Semitic. “

Milton Friedman may even agree with early Marx, that Capitalism is Jewish 'by nature'. Yet, while Marx believed that in order for the world to liberate itself from Capitalism it had better emancipate itself from the Jews (3), for Friedman capitalism is of profound value and to be respected, and Jews should be praised for their inherent bond with this philosophy and its diverse ramifications. As far as Friedman is concerned, for Capitalism to prevail, Jews should continue to do what they are good at: and that is to trade freely in an open and competitive market.

Friedman seems to dismiss the presumed 'intellectual honesty' behind Jewish affiliation with the left and anti capitalism: He tends to argue that the Jewish intellectual inclination towards the left is a direct outcome of some political and historical circumstances, rather than ethical or ideological choice. He explains that, in his view, Jewish affiliation with the left is the product of a particular occurrence in Europe in the nineteenth century.

“Beginning with the era of the French revolution, the European political spectrum became divided into a “Left” and a “Right” along an axis that involved the issue of secularism. The Right (conservative, Monarchical, “clerical”) maintained that there must be a place for the church in the public order; the left (democratic, liberal, radical) held that there can be no Church at all . . . .”

It was only natural, then, for the Jews to join the left -- in fact Jews could only join the left.

“The axis separating left from right also formed a natural boundary for the pale of Jewish political participation. It was the left, with its new secular concept of citizenship, that had accomplished the Emancipation, and it was only the left that could see a place for the Jews in public life.”

Such a reasoning, then, views Jewish affiliation with the left as a politically opportunistic move instead of a form of ‘moral awakening’.

Such a reading of the 'Jewish left' reaffirms my own critical assessment. It also explains why some Jews join the left -- they support cosmopolitanism, solidarity, an international working class; and yet, they themselves often seem to prefer to operate within ‘Jews only’ racially orientated cells such as the Bund, Jewish Socialists or even Jews For Boycott of Israeli Goods. Friedman’s reasoning might also explain why so many Jews who had their roots in the so- called ‘left’, ended up preaching moral interventionism and Neo Conservatism.(4)

Friedman argues also, that Jewish affiliation with the left might be better understood as an attempt to disown some anti Semitic stereotypes of the Jew as being “a merchant or moneylender who put commercial interests ahead of human values.”

According to Friedman, the Jewish anti capitalist is there to prove that, far from being money-grabbing, selfish and heartless, Jews are really public spirited, generous, and concerned with ideals rather than material goods. “How better to do so than to attack the market with its reliance on monetary values and impersonal transactions and to glorify the political process, to take as an ideal a state run by well-meaning people for the benefit of their fellow men?”

And yet, in Friedman's logic then, it is not a ‘moral awakening’ that moves the Jew to the left; it is neither humanism, nor solidarity and nor is it kindness, but, instead, it seems to be a desperate attempt to replace or amend the Jewish image.

Surprisingly enough, I find myself in total agreement with Friedman, though I would phrase it differently. I do differentiate between ‘the leftist who happen to be Jewish’- an innocent category inspired by humanism, and ‘the Jewish leftist- which seems to me to be a contradiction in terms, for the left aims to universally transcends itself beyond ethnicity, religion or race. Clearly ‘Jewish left’ is there to maintain a Jewish tribal ethno-centric identity at the heart of working class philosophy. 'Jewish left' is there to primarily serve Jewish interests

I noticed that Richard Kuper, the European Jewish activist behind the recent Jewish Boat to Gaza, was quoted as saying that their goal was to show that “not all Jews support Israeli policies toward Palestinians.”

It seems to me that the message Kuper conveyed was pretty clear: Rather than being driven entirely by a genuine care for the Palestinians in Gaza, the Jewish boat was also engaged in a symbolic exchange. It was also there to save the image of the Jews rather than solely providing humanitarian support. This fact alone may explain why the Jewish boat hardly carried any humanitarian aid for the Gazans. Rather than a ‘humanitarian aid mission for the Palestinians,’ it was probably also an ‘image rescue for the Jews’.

Seemingly then, Friedman managed to resolve the paradox between his two initial propositions (Jews being the benefactors capitalism vs. Jews being profoundly anti-capitalist) by offering an historical and political explanation: Jews or Jewish intellectuals are not really against capitalism; it was just the “special circumstances of nineteenth-century that drove Jews to the left, and the subconscious attempts by Jews to demonstrate to themselves and the world the fallacy of the anti-Semitic stereotype.” It was neither ideology nor ethics.

This interpretation explains why left Zionism was doomed to disappear. During his talks, Friedman reviewed the right/left political division in Israel. He noticed that two opposing traditions were at work in the Jewish State: “an ancient one--going back nearly two thousand years-- of finding ways around governmental restrictions (and) a modern one-- going back a century-- of belief in “democratic socialism” and “central planning.” Friedman was clever enough to gather already in 1972 that it is the “Jewish tradition”, rather than ‘socialism’, that would prevail. Friedman noticed already in the 1970’s that Israel was capitalist to the bone. He predicted that the short phase of Zionist ‘pseudo socialism’ was foreign to Jewish culture.

Yet. It isn’t just Israeli left that was doomed to die. Friedman's reading of Jewish culture also explains why the Bund (5) died; it didn’t really spread to the West; it also explains why the legendary Mazpen and other Jewish tribal anti Zionist revolutionary groups have never attracted the Jewish masses.

Self-Fulfilling Prophecy

Friedman is not free of fault. In spite of his succinct reading of the Jewish left/right divide there are a few crucial points that have to be made about Friedman’s reading of Jewish culture, and his reading of capitalism.

Friedman argues that the free market and competition is good for the Jews. Yet he is also adamant that Government intervention is a disaster that leads to anti Semitism and other forms of institutional bigotry. If Friedman’s model is valid, then Jews in the West had better brace themselves, for Western Governments are currently intervening in the markets in a desperate attempt to slowdown the inevitable collapse of what is left of our economy and relative wealth.

If Friedman’s model is correct, and intervention is indeed bad for the Jews, then anti Jewish bigotry could be immanent, especially considering the gigantic bailout intervention schemes put up by states in an attempt to save what remains of the Western economy.

But it goes further -- it is also plainly clear that the bailout schemes are there to amend a colossal disaster caused by the endorsement of Friedman’s own ideology. We are all paying a very heavy price for free enterprise, hard capitalism, or, in general, the ideologies Friedman was so enthusiastic about.

There is something Friedman didn’t tell his listeners in the 1970s -- He himself probably did not realise the full meaning of his economic model. He himself did not realise that the adoption of his philosophy by Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher would eventually bring the West to its knees. He himself did not realise that it was his own advocacy of hard capitalism that would lead Western continents to poverty and deprivation. He perhaps did not realise back in the 1970s that it was his model that would eventually eliminate productivity, and every positive aspect of the welfare state. Milton Friedman did not realise at the time that service economy that suited some ethnic minorities for two millennia wouldn’t necessarily be a successful model once adopted into a macro model. As Friedman had gathered, throughout their history Jews and other ethnic minorities were very effective operating as service economy within competitive and productive markets. However, Jews and other ethnic or religious minorities did well because others were there to work around them. The transforming of the West into a service economy driven by relentless greed, a process that followed Friedman’s economic precepts, is now proving to be a disaster. It means poverty and global depression. It is translated into alienation from labour and productivity.

Friedman may have been correct when he predicted that governmental intervention may lead to anti Semitism -- yet, he probably failed to realise that it was largely his own intellectual heritage that would be responsible for the current financial disaster. It is in fact his own economic model and prophecy that could also introduce Jews to far more suffering.





(1)(http://classiques.uqac.ca/classiques/sombart_werner/Jews_and_modern_capitalism/sombart_jews_capitalism.pdf (pg’109-110)

(2)ibid 174

(3)“What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money. Very well then! Emancipation from huckstering and money, consequently from practical, real Judaism, would be the self-emancipation of our time.” Karl Marx On The Jewish Question, 1844

(4)David Miliband, David Aaronovitch and Nick Cohen are all good examples of the above.

(5) East European Jewish Socialist Party was formed in 1897 as the tthe General Jewish Labour Bund of Lithuania, Poland and Russia.

Lobbying and tricks and traps in increasingly complex legislation

Steven Brill, "The Best Laws Money Can Buy" On lobbyists and their power.

Brill writes for Time magazine. His comments were very balanced.

There was a great deal of discussion of the huge size and comlexity of recent legislation. Brill noted that (some government agency, I've forgotten which, back in 1930s?) was created by legislation covering 8 pages; he compared it to current legislation that sprawls over 2000 pages of dense and complex clauses and protections of this or that special interest.

Perhaps the most important observation Brill made, toward the end of the interview, was that the act that created the department of homeland security, which was Joe Lieberman's project, even if he stood aside to let another put his fingerprints on it, is NOT a new legislative initiative but a cobbling together of existing criminal statutes, under one central and comprehensive authority.

Jews, of course, excel at this sort of talmudic, pilpul discourse; Elizabeth Warren calls the deliberate complexification of contract terms, "tricks and traps." Perhaps it is not a specifically or exclusively Jewish practice, but it's difficult to avoid the recognition that Jews are at the forefront of lobbying on recent key legislation -- bank bailout, finance reform, homeland security, patriot act, wiretap, health care, and also that Jews and Israel are prominent stakeholders in the industries favored to benefit from the "tricks and traps" built into these talmudic laws.

Counterpoint: Ariely's discussion and the thesis of his book, "Irrational," and the reality of Jews' deep understanding of how to twist human psychological responses.