Posted in
Events ,
Judaism ,
Revisionism ,
Zionism by Mohamed Omar on July 14, 2011
The study group Aguéli in Uppsala was honored by the
writer Israel Shamir presence. He belongs to the small
but mighty crowd of Zionism critic of Jewish descent who
rejuvenates the intellectual discourse in the West. By
his Swedish son, journalist John Wahlstrom, he has been
described as a Jew's equivalent of Salman Rushdie.
Shamir has endured much for his
outspokenness and his "blasphemy".
We know it's not as
opportune to provoke the Jews as it is to provoke
Muslims. Muslims must learn to endure jokes,
certainly, I agree, but should not this also apply to
Jews? I have read
Satanic Verses
and was not particularly impressed. It is not because I
am a Muslim. I distinguish between my religious and
literary taste. I would just appreciate the orthodox,
Muslim novelist, I had not many to choose from.
I do not think Shamir is a jew's
equivalent of Rushdie. I think he is much better. He is
a better thinker. But even bolder. Those who leave Islam
are received with accolades, but anyone who leaves
Judaism is insulted, blamed or ignored. Ex-Jews are
simply not as popular as ex-Muslims.
Trendy in the sioniserade,
Islam-critical sphere today is anglo-indian Ibn Warraq,
author of Why
I am not a Muslim. In it he depicts himself
as a sceptic of the Enlightenment and the English
liberal spirit that freed itself from the irrational,
religious dogma. Plenty so. Ibn Warraq has some points
in his speech about the modern West's merits. It's me
magnanimous enough to admit. But suppose that publishers
would publish a book entitled
Why I am not a
Jew? For sure, well even Judaism dogmas
irrational? It seemed at least enlightenment philosopher
par excellence: the antisemitic Voltaire. Just note that
it is not as politically correct to criticize Judaism
like Islam.
Maybe that Islamic extremism is a
bigger problem than any Jewish? For whom? It is a tricky
question. For the ordinary Muslim is of course Muslims
boorishness and pedantry of Muslims, particularly
Wahhabism, the greater a source of headaches and
irritation of everyday life than jew extremism and
Zionism. But you raise your sights and start to look at
media companies and the global financial elite we see
fewer and fewer acidic Wahhabi faces. Ask someone who
has just been robbed in a dark alley who he likes least
about: the robber or the currency speculator George
Soros? Ask an Afghan who had just had his hand cut off
by the Taleban, who he likes least about: Taliban or
Zbigniew Brzezinski, one of the brains behind the
introduction of Wahhabism in Afghanistan. Micro and
macro perspectives.
Ibn Warraq love to rant about the
free research tingling, questioning the pleasure, of
doubt and scepticism intoxicating sweetness, but then he
stopped short before the Holocaust religion grim priests
and throws himself down on his face in horror mixed
reverence. Where now is the cheeky grin of this
Voltaire? For the atheist Ibn Warraq, there are other
words holy temple in which you can not beat a trill.
Rushdie left Islam, which he has
every right to do, like Israel Shamir also has the right
to leave Judaism. But they have not only the right to
leave the religion, they also have the right to
criticize it. To seek and find, but also to lose or
throw away truths are part of life's adventures. Ivan
Aguéli writes: "One must however remember that we do not
exist without our free will and the more we follow our
free will, the more we are ourselves. To deprive someone
of his free will, or acquire it, in what you do to his
spiritual authority, or destroy it or falsify it, it is
a despicable crime than violence, despotism, or
homicide, or to bite out the eyes of someone who is
weaker than we. "
Shamir began his talk by explaining
why the small Palestine, the Holy Land, is so sought
after. To understand this you have to study geopolitics,
he said. Politics and history must be understood in
light of geographical conditions. Geopolitical analysis
is the basis for much of the Empire's plans and actions.
Empire's goals, said Shamir, is to rule the world.
Shamir then expressed his admiration
for Colonel Muammar Gadhafi that by arming the people
with machine guns proved that he trusts it and has its
support. Admirable too is his progressive Islamist
ideology that combines tradition and modernity, popular
rule and charismatic leadership. Today it is
Ahmadinejad, Gadhafi and Bashar al-Assad of Syria, who
represent the anti-imperialist forces. But they must
open up for changes, said Shamir. They need to let new
people. In particular, Bashar is in the hands of an old
stubborn security apparatus. "Democracy", he says, "is a
good thing." One of the things that made him so hated by
Zionists is that he advocates a democratic Palestine.
Apropos of Wikileaks Shamir said that
he never had any official position in the organization.
"I represent only myself, but I appreciate Julian
Assange work". The cooperation is as it were more
friendly than collegial.
Shamir's excellent collection of
essays
Flowers of Galilee was published in Swedish
by the Alhambra publishers 2003rd I interviewed him in
August 2009. Read it
here . The study group Aguéli hope that Shamir will
return with a new lecture next summer.
The blogger "I want to be dangerous"
has written
a report from the evening.
1
comment
One comment
-
Markus Andersson said, July 14,
2011 at.
10:41 pm
Thanks it was an interesting lecture,
in particular, I like Israel Shamir simple and
straightforward words of wisdom "try not to ask
silly..." that is, pay attention to the information and
misinformation that surrounds us every day and try to
see and think from multiple perspectives when we read,
see or hear anything.
Thursday, July 14, 2011
Israel Shamir in Uppsala
This weekend the celebrated Julian Assange his fortieth
birthday at the mansion in England, where he is under
house arrest. Celebrities such as
Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie were invited and
the invitation contained instructions on where to
land with a private plane and how to get to the castle
by helicopter. No such instructions were not to get to
the basement room in a student area in Uppsala, where
Israel Shamir gave a lecture yesterday. In fact, the
open invitation of Mr Mohamed Omar's blog, there were no
instructions at all, not even an address. Possibly it
was to avoid problems with the protesters or the
landlord (which has hit other people who spoke before
the Study Group Aguéli). For Israel Shamir is a
controversial person (more
here ). The mere suspicion of a link between
Wikileaks and him have been enough to create
a scandal (more
here ).
But the event last night was very quiet. About twenty
people gathered in a basement for two and a half hours
of lecture, questions and conversations. There are some
books for sale and in the break are treated to coffee in
plastic cup. Age distribution is large, gender
distribution is more uniform (a woman in the audience).
About half the audience seems to have foreign ancestry
which is not totally irrelevant task: Israel Shamir
often accused of being anti-Semite and a review of the
study group's list of speakers shows that the group
could easily be placed in the tray "extremist" but
things are not always as simple as you might think.
Well, if Israel Shamir's anti-Semite as he seems (at
least in the lecture yesterday) have a surprisingly weak
focus on Jews and Israel. He begins by explaining what
he believes is behind the whole Plestinafrågan. The
answer is geopolitics and the British imperial ambitions
in the late 1800s. According to Shamir, one can find the
response of the British academic,
Halford Mackinder , who introduced "hjärtlandsteorien".
Under that have an empire that would rule the world to
master some key points on the globe and one of them is
Jerusalem.
Since the British had no natural allies in the region so
created and supported the British intelligence Zionism.
Even today, Israel fills the function of a tool of
empire (which today has released the thought of being a
British Empire) to control Jerusalem. An explanation
based on geography rather than metaphysics. When asked
which currently govern the Empire to respond Shamir
after some reflection that we can not know (particularly
with reference to
Leo Strauss' ideas about exoteric and esoteric
message in politics (read more
here )).
After this introduction, Shamir goes on and talks about
the "Arab spring". He believes that it is difficult to
know not only what will happen, but what has happened.
That revolutions have been started, or at least
supported, by the Empire believes he is beyond doubt,
but why is harder to understand. In several cases, the
regimes that overthrow allies of the Empire (eg Egypt)
and lived up to the old saying, "He May Be a son of a
bitch, but he's our son of a bitch". But maybe it got
tired empire that only have power over leadership and
wanted to redo all the countries and people. Empire
would crush the old structures and traditions and
reshape the entire society. Here, says Shamir, is a
challenge to the Empire's adversaries: how to preserve
the old society without succumbing to pure conservatism
("we want it as it was a hundred years ago")?
In some other parts of the "Arab Spring" seem Empire
motifs be easier to understand. Both Libya and Syria are
anti-imperialist states whose regimes Shamir hope could
remain in power. However, he seems to see the great need
of reform especially in Syria while he feels great
admiration for Gaddafi and his relationship to his
people. In order to follow what is happening in Libya
recommend Shamir his friend
Thierry Meyssan . While Shamir says that democracy
is good governance so does a strong leader to follow the
popular will as well. "The Arab Spring" is not the first
example of how the Empire tried to transform and
integrate their allies. In the 60s, says Shamir, Sweden
was a great country. Anti-imperialism was strong and
understanding of the Soviet Union great. Today, Sweden
has instead troops in both Afghanistan and Libya. What
happened? Well, a major campaign to change people's
attitudes in which they fabricated submarine violations
were a central part. These aroused distrust of the
Soviet Union and the people were deceived.
So back to the Preamble theme: a few direct questions
Shamir speak a little about Wikileaks. No, he has had no
official role within the organization but he knows
Assange and admire his work. If Assange would go to
prison, it is doubtful that Wikileaks would survive. It
was said then therefore no real controversy yesterday?
Basically no, but Shamir also chose to avoid it. Asked
what he
thought about the Holocaust of Jews during World War
II were answered with "we can not talk about this."
Mohamed Omar's version of the evening
here .