Despite their relatively small community in South Africa, and indeed their minority status in a lot of places around the world, the Jews have made a big mark. Hostile to outsiders, lavish in giving advantages to its own kind and filled with a persecution complex (all of which, it may be argued, have at least some rational basis), the Jewish community is a complex animal, as is the religion on which it is based.
(I was born to Jewish parents; however, regular Thought Leader readers will know that I am a firm enemy of all organised religion and religious beliefs, to which this is no exception.)
What makes Judaism complex is that it isn’t one thing: it’s not merely a religion, since many people who would call themselves Jews participate only nominally in the demanding rituals and practices prescribed by the religious texts. It’s not a race, per se, or even an ethnicity, since Jews after the so-called “diaspora” (Jews, I find, are fond of these proprietary historical labels) split off into quite distinct ethnic groups. It’s perhaps a cultural group, though what “culture” really means in this day and age isn’t easy to say.
Perhaps the closest thing one can say is that it’s a group that is linked by common ancestry and the self-defined boundary of the maternal line. The Jews, in what I have always found a supreme act of arrogance, state that a Jew is born with a “Jewish soul”. Try what you like (I offered to donate mine to a friend some years back), that’s what you are in their eyes. They might hate you for “assimilating” (another trendy catchphrase), but once a Jew, always one.
Judaism, I will say, is a religion with a strong scholarly and intellectual tradition. Unlike many strains of Christianity — particularly the abominable evangelical sects that have sprung up all over the place — that are based on the Bible alone, Judaism has countless secondary texts that are studied by the devout in depth and ad nauseam. The Torah — the Jewish scroll that contains the first five books of Genesis in Hebrew — is interpreted in many different ways.
Debate and discussion is deep and complex and engaging. The clever angle that Judaism has taken, however unconsciously, is that it can be an intellectually satisfying pursuit. This means that you will find scientists and philosophers and economists and all kinds of boffins poking around in the “yeshivas” (the religious colleges) marrying their core intellectual knowledge with their religious beliefs.
Let it be said that the underlying religious beliefs are no more inspiring or coherent than those of any other religion and, in many cases, sound more like the writings of JRR Tolkien than ancient spiritual practitioners.
There is still a God, the renowned Yahweh (sometimes called Jehovah), whose acts and attitudes in the Old Testament are a case study in brutality, xenophobia and cruelty. He routinely has entire nations slain, swallows up people into the Earth, drowns, burns, turns into salt and so forth. He is ruthless with even his most ardent disciples. (Example: Moses is denied entry into the “promised land” after countless years of wandering around looking for it with only God as his rather dodgy GPS, because he hits a rock instead of speaking to it.)
Leaving God aside, there are all kinds of bonkers stuff going on within the Jewish belief system. For example, they believe that the “oral law” was given to the people gathered at Mount Sinai by God via Moses and was memorised, word perfect, and then handed down through a gazillion generations until it was finally committed to paper thousands of years later.
Unlike their Christian descendants, the Jews don’t try to pretend that the writers lived concurrently with the key events. They insist that not one word was lost during all these years of broken telephone, and that this process itself proves that God exists because all the people at Sinai experienced this event. The circular logic here seems to trouble no one.
As one typical explanation goes: “Jews say that we have kept the Torah for thousands of years, not because of miracles or any other supernatural phenomena of Jewish history, but because we all stood at Mount Sinai and heard God speak and for generation after generation that very fact was passed down.” Apparently shared delusions are inherently impossible, according to this logic.
Likewise, there is the shady concept of “Amalek”, the shady archetypal enemy of the Jews, who (some argue) are embodied by present-day Arabs. They are told they must take from them a ring of power, and throw it into a volcano … well, not really, but it does get pretty weird.
Jewish mystical books also state that one can fashion a person-shaped pile of mud into a walking monster (called a golem). They contain prophecy like crazy, including (supposedly) a built-in prophecy machine in the Torah, a complex system of numbers that predicts all kinds of stuff (like George Bush and Saddam Hussein, for example). This has been dubbed the “Bible Code” by popular authors.
In fact, they believe the Torah contains, somehow, the entire universe (the “word is God”). It is so magical an item that there is nothing that is not in there if you know how to read it.
As wild as this all sounds, the fact is, most Jews don’t spend a lot of time on this stuff. They have adopted a lighter form of Judaism that primarily involves family events and their particular choice of friends and social circles. Since Jews are honour-bound not to intermarry (this they share with other faiths, but it is particularly strong in this community) they tend to stick together — Jewish socials, Jewish dating sites, even primarily Jewish suburbs.
My most ardent criticism of Judaism has been, ironically, that there seems to be a profound hypocrisy at work. Again, nothing too unique there, but it’s always shocked me that there is a strong pressure to attend, say, synagogue on Friday nights or Saturdays, but that most of the time is spent chatting about business between recitals of Hebrew prayers only vaguely comprehended, if at all. In fact, all religious events seem about as devoid of religious or spiritual content as a night at the movies.
In fact, Jews have packaged Judaism into something that is doable and acceptable in the modern times. Not all — there is a worrying fundamentalist resurgence in Judaism too — but many. That means they have dropped whatever bits of the religion are just too inconvenient to follow, or too embarrassing, or frankly would contravene human rights. No more stoning of men who work on the Sabbath or adulterers, for example.
For all that, there are some primitive rituals and beliefs that have taken a firm hold. Not eating pork, for example, is something adhered to with almost maniacal sincerity. “Because it’s unclean,” comes the explanation, whatever that means. Chickens that are bred in the kind of filth and disease that is beyond compare are famously made into virus-healing soup, no problem.
And then there’s male circumcision: the so-called “bris”. A barbaric act from a different age that is not only tolerated but also actively celebrated with cakes and snacks and cheers of pride. Typically performed in the parents home by a “moyle”, he of the sip of red wine and a trusty pair of snippers (real anaesthetics are apparently not part of God’s plan), it is a frightening event to behold. And the truth be told, everyone knows it. The mother cowers in a corner or in another room, and the women look faint as the child screams its poor lungs out.
Judaism, however, is under threat, certainly in its true form, but even in its loosest one. Many Jews are simply abandoning the religion, intermarrying and moving on. They may retain a cursory link to their “tribe”, but this religion is struggling to reinvent itself for a post-modern age. In a way, it’s too smart for its own good. Unlike reborn Christianity, whose childish and simplistic message can rouse people into a frenzy of irrationality, Judaism tends to be altogether too serene and dull. And many intellectuals use it as a stepping stone toward a more personal spirituality that doesn’t oblige them to tie little wooden boxes to their heads.
Assimilation (intermarrying, basically), I’ve heard it said, is “finishing Hitler’s work”. If that’s not the frightened call of a belief system fading into obscurity, I don’t know what is.
I cheer on its demise, simply because I find its insistence on separateness self-defeating; its notion that Jews are “the chosen” insulting to others and at odds with the kind of integrated world we so desperately need; and the mindless support of the brutality and violence of the state of Israel unconscionable.
And because, despite all the intellectualising, it’s still a belief in a single God, who judges, who listens to our prayers, who punishes the wicked. And that quaint fairytale, dressed up however you like, is an idea whose time has passed.
I guess I cannot reply about why Black Sash, ECC are perfiduous.
“hate speech” means any speech liberals, or on this blog jews, don’t like.
Jews are not all responsible for the crimes of the Israeli government (unless they agree with it). Israel’s supporters constantly spin any criticism of Israel’s actions as hate against the Jewish people. Indeed so desperate are Israel’s supporters to dismiss criticism of Israel while being unable to refute the actual facts that they have taken to describing Jewish critics of Israel as “self-hating Jews.” As they did to jarred.
Israel resorts to endless hacker attacks and online smear campaigns against web sites and authors whose only “crime” is to not go along with Israel’s agenda or of refusing to bury embarrassing scandals.
These phrases, “hate speech” and “anti-Semite”, are well-worn devices to shut up a critic of
Israel without having to answer the criticisms.
By screaming “hate speech” or “anti-Semite”, Israel’s supporters hope to shut down the debate without actually examining the issues involved.
They respond to any criticism by screaming, “He hates Jews!”.
In our politically correct society we are taught that it’s bad to hate at all, but I disagree. Hate can be a good thing. There are lots of things I hate and I am not ashamed to admit it. I hate political hypocrisy. I hate thieves. I hate drug dealers. I hate corrupt politicians. I hate child molesters and rapists, especially those hiding their crimes behind the church.
These are hates that are good for the people to have.
I hate those who presume to decide for us what we can and cannot see, hear, or read. When the Israeli lobby coerces the media to cover up stories should we be less outraged at the concealment simply because the censors are Jews?
To NOT speak out about a crime because the perpetrators are Jews is racist. Should we ignore Jewish shenanigans because it makes all of the Jewish people look bad? Then we should ignore white pedophiles because it makes whites look bad.
Arial Sharon openly bragged “We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it”. Is this not offensive?
Why should we not feel something less than affection for a group with such ambitions?
We hear the shrill cries of “hate speech” and “anti-Semite” hurled at anyone who dared presume to notice or comment on what Israel has been caught doing. And we are not supposed to be offended at such bias?
If you want to know why Israel is so much in the news it isn’t because of “hate” and it isn’t because of “anti-Semitism”, it’s because of their own activities.
There is a double standard at work. Jews shout “hate speech” at those who focus on the embarrassing truths Israel. They have screamed “hate speech” and “anti-Semite” so much that the phrases have lost their shock value, which means they have lost their value to silence.
Jewish intolerance of any criticism goes so far that they even censor jews who make a critical statement, as they did to Ronnie Kasrils. Becuase you don’t agree does not give you right to censor.
The Freedom of Expression Institute issued a media release on 17th November 2006 on the censoring Minister of Ronnie Kasrils by the South African Jewish Report.
The South African Board of Jewish Deputies (SABJD) subsequently accused the FXI of ‘ideological bias’.
The Jewish Report refused to publish a response by Minister Ronnie Kasrils to an article published about him. Is it fair to slander a man and refuse to publish his response? On of our very own TL commenters was one of the ones responsible from the SABJD side.
It appears thre is no right of reply where the jewsih media is concerned. No publication should refuse somebody the right to reply to an article that attacks that person by name.
The Jewish Report makes reference to ‘deeply offensive statements’ made by Kasrils and then refers to his piece as ‘hate speech’. See the pattern? Even a Jew is accused of hate speech if he questions the Zionist view.
I am not a supporter of Kasrils, or any of the ANC, but I abhor such blatant discrimination and unfairness.
Clearly, the jewish media is distorting the meaning of hate speech. Hate speech is not simply hateful speech and it is certainly not offensive speech. The crucial element of incitement to cause harm must be present for any speech to be regarded as hate speech.
Incitement means calling on people to engage in harmful actions; the call to action must be unambiguous. Likening certain policing or military measures of Israel uses to nazis does not meet this objective test of hate speech. Any reasonable person good debate Kasrils and show why Israel and nazis are very different. I for one would debate it and disagree with Meneer Kasrils.
To refer to what I say, or Kasrils, or Jarred as ‘hate speech’ implies that “criticism of Israel or jewish practices implies Israel must be destroyed as an evil entity”.
Where has anyone called for that?
It is tedious to have Jews and liberals increasingly use the “hate speech” exception in our constitution to stifle what they consider to be disagreeable speech. or emabrassing things they cannot defend. It appears Zionism’s repressive ways are extending.
If a government Minister like Kasrils can be treated in such a censorious manner, then what chance is there for normal people to be heard if they voice dissent against the Israeli state or of any Jew?
I find it strange and fascinating that the activities of some Jews can make me a supporter of a communist ANC official, two causes I do not support.
Here are some examples of the Jewish abuse of the Hate Speech clause:
Dr Y Cohen vs SABC: SABC Interview with professor of history on his theory that pro-Israel Jewish right-wingers influenced the USA to wage war on Iraq. Tribunal found that interview and theory not of such inflammatory nature as to exceed the bounds of tolerance. Tribunal also found that there was no incitement to cause harm. Second point of complaint that there was imbalance in the programme because broadcaster failed to air opposing view. Tribunal found on the facts that an invitation was extended to the Jewish Board of Deputies but the Board failed to put forward its view. Offer by broadcaster to present an opposing point of view not accepted by representatives of Jewish viewpoint who set conditions, unacceptable to the broadcaster, for participation in programme. No contravention of Code. The complaint was dismissed.
South African Jewish Board of Deputies vs Radio 786: It was about a broadcast a programme called “Zionism and Israel. Dr Yaqub Zaki, expressed a number of controversial views, including that Jewish people were not gassed in concentration camps during World War 2, but instead died of infectious diseases. Questioning the Holocaust is hate speech?
@Ce
Well I was a member of the ECC and I am poroud of what we did. During WWII my father in law served in the UDF in Egypt. That was a volunteer army and they fought for freedom against the Nazi’s that you seem to love so much. The same Nazis’ who murdered 6 million jews and 10 million Russians. Whe performed medical experiments on twins etc etc. Now I know you will put up all sorts of websites to show how this never happened. This is an example of how you try to rewrite history. Whether or not the state of Israel is abusing this for propaganda is a secondary issue. The Afrikaners used their experiences in teh Boer War as an excuse to justify all the wrongs of apartheid so you are in good company there I would think. YOu my friend can speka up about things you do not like such as AA or BEE, that is what democracy is all about. How much democracy did the Nats who you also seem to love so much allow. They simply murdered their opponents or sent them letter bombs or tried to poison them. Ask ALbie Sachs or Frank Chikane. I would say ask David Webster or Steve Biko or Neil Agget but they are dead murdered by the apartheid security forces. You have thd gall to say Israel is rascist but deny that apartheid was a fould rascist system.
Hate speech is not questioning a policy like AA or questioning teh behaviour of teh state of Isreal, but trying to change the facts of history by denying things like the holocaust or apartheid atrocities is. Because then you are trying to get people now to support those terrible systems. I for one would be happy to see you thrown off these blogs. Because you are trying to make us forget where we come from.
Politically Corrected language, disinformation, hysterical ravings, revised history, verbal bullying, and the informational pollution known as “Spin” are all pressed into the Liberal’s service under the rubric of “Free \
I mena you are a fine one to talk about revised history. Christi’s book has it all. How the Nats stole the 1948 election, how you had to intimidate the judiciary and committ all sorts of shennanigans to get the coloreds off the voters roll. How SANLAM, VOLKSKAS, EVKOM KRYGSKOR etc were fronts for Afrikaans economic devlopement. Now you moan on and on about the ANC doing similar things. I would have a modicum of empathy for you if you could openly acknowledge the past wrongs of the system you are advocating here but with typical self righteousness you carry on moaning. You should be grateful that the ANC is as gracious and forgiving as it is.
Minister of Intelligence R Kasrils Hate speech case:
The SAHRC found that the contents of the articles published in the Mail and Guardian by Ronnie Kasrils, do not amount to hate speech.
Kasrils’ comments were characterised as hate speech by Helen Suzman (the perfidious Black Sash gang again) and the South African Jewish Report.
The issue which the Commission had to conclude was whether Kasrils’ statements and comments were of an extreme nature and whether they advocated and implied that Jews or Israelis are to be despised, detested, scorned, denied respect and made subject to ill-treatment on the basis of their religious or national affiliation.
In the Commission’s opinion, the comments made by Kasrils in the articles referred to above do not amount to the advocacy of hatred and it is the Commission’s view that the obvious and true purpose of the articles was to condemn what is perceived as disproportionate, excessive and counter-productive reprisals by the Israeli government. He was participating in a legitimate political debate, the Commission found.
The Commission therefore encourages those who disagree with Kasrils’ comments and his analysis and conclusions to engage in a dialogue of ideas.
Tough break for the SAJBD wasnt it? You have to debate rather than vilify and accuse. Hasnt the lesson been learnt yet? The days of parting the Red Sea and silencing people who oppose with accusations of anti-semitism are over. You must now debate like the rest of us.
In this case i take my hat of to the ANC and former MK protagonists. Viva.
@ Consulting Engineer,
You write:
“These phrases, “hate speech” and “anti-Semite”, are well-worn devices to shut up a critic of Israel without having to answer the criticisms.”
The legitimacy of such “devices” is, of course, debatable. However, there are “editorial guidelines” with regard to racism that you have breached.
well lets just see…
could we re-title this article ?
what would our re-title be… hmmmm… umpteen reasons I like the Jews ??? (doesn’t seem to fit)
ok… lets try… umpteen reasons I hate the Jews (a bit strong)…
ok… lets try… umpteen reasons I hate religion (still a bit strong)…
ok… lets try… umpteen reasons I cant stand the Jews (seems a little more fitting)
or… maybe lets try… I’m not here to discuss why I cant stand the Jews, I’m just publishing… pls don’t try and converse…
or… maybe lets try… umpteen reasons I am offended about Jews (ahhh… a better fit) (some arm chair psychologists might just suggest that… the title should then be… umpteen reasons I am offending Jews)
FWIW: Google suggests a definition of hate speech as –> type of speech which is used to deliberately offend an individual; or racial, ethnic, religious or other group
What ever happened to a Thought Leader being about Thesis, Antithesis to get to Synthesis ?
PS: it looks like there are too many ppl here looking for OK stickers…
Consulting Engineer, and other verbose posters, your lengthy diatribes are not being read by man nor beast.
Keep it concise, please.
My recommendation to the Thought Leader editor is to remove this blog post and it’s associated comment thread.
Jew bashing is passe. Indeed any posts bashing religion are old hat before they have even been conceived. Religion and a belief in gods or (one) God has been bashed for millennia and yet humankind still has a great desire for the satisfaction that religious belief brings them.
I expect it will continue in this fashion uninterrupted by the passage of time until humankind is extinct. The vast majority of the human race will always be adherents of some form of religion or another.
And there will always be those among us who consider all religion to be ridiculous and worthy of belittling, to little avail.
As far as I am concerned Atheism is just as much a religion as any other kind.
Judaism and Christianity have served humanity greatly by transforming modern society from the brutal existence that humans suffered under when the Ancients worshipped their old gods. We live in a much kinder and gentler society as a direct result of the influence of those two religions.
Paul
You are simply wrong about Sanlam and Volkskas. The government had nothing to do with the establishment of those organisations. I speak under correction, but I think they had been founded in the 1930′s already – as an initiative of civil society and precisely because the government didn’t step in to solve the poor white problem. As for Eskom, when my stepfather worked there in the 1980′s the English were overrepresented in the management ranks. The CEO at that stage was an Englishman, Ian McRae and many of my stepfather’s colleagues had actually been recruited from England. I suspect the same obtained at Armscor, as I knew a guy whose father had been recruited from England.
The only thing that changed after the Nats came to power was that Afrikaners had henceforth an equal opportunity at getting employment in government and its agencies. There wasn’t reverse discrimination, such as employment quotas or tender quotas. As I mentioned previously, the first tender to be awarded to an Afrikaner owned civil engineering firm was in the 1960′s.
The most significant proof against your assertions, however, is that the English population were the economically dominant group right up to the end of apartheid, even though they were only half as big as the Afrikaner group. As late as the 1980′s they still controlled 80% of the listed capital on the JSE and enjoyed significantly higher average per capita income right up to the end of apartheid.
@ Cosulting Enginneer,
You write:
“It appears there is no right of reply where the jewsih media is concerned.”
Are you now implying that a “non-Jewish” media might exist? Have you forgotten what you also wrote abot the Jews?? … “And these are the people who control the world media?”
Consulting Engineer,
You write:
“There are far more shenanigans by the Chosen destabalising nations and profiting from misery.”
Is this something that you copied from Adolf Hitler’s autobigraphy, “Mein Kampf”?
I have a friend, like Jared who would consider himself against religious structure and beliefs. But what many dont seem to udnerstand is that Jarred, like my friend, is still a Jew. Jews dont need to be baptized, naturalized or converted to be Jewish (althought non-Jews can convert).
Jarred’s argument is circular in that he criticizes the social or movie going packaged Jew. I guess, the definition of being Jewish is unique and gets lost in translation. It is not just a religion, or just a culture or just a nation. One could call it a way of life. Some people emphasize certain parts of the identity over other parts, but nevertheless, all aspects of the identity are inextricably linked.
And after all this nothing has changed or has it?
I have, for once, chuckled a bit through a Cinman blog. But in the final instance, I have to agree with Chris, highly intelligent, maybe, but with a lingering small mindedness.
Oy Vey. In all the various writings on Jews and religion that flood the web daily, this has to rank in the lowest possible category through head-slapping obliviousness and pure ignorance. If bringing blogging into disrepute was an olympic sport, Jarred would be heading to Beijing.
Must say this piece left a bad taste in my mouth. But mostly I am left asking, what’s the point of this article other than just a personal rant?