The promises of the Earth

Arlene’s Clemesha argument in the article “Promised Lands” published in a São Paulo newspaper on 11/25/23, although it carries more self-references than references, it does not bring either the density or the necessary intellectual accuracy, especially when it comes to insinuations and statements so peremptory in in relation to the ongoing conflicts in the Middle East.

The author makes a case of historical revisionism, based on the “orientalist” theses of Edward Said and the ideological fantasies of the author Ilan Pappe , supported by the corresponding bibliographies. A kind of bibliographically referenced craft thesis or misinformation hidden by erudite mimicry. That is, they give certainty that certain “new discoveries”, (a euphemism for revisionist theses) always repeating a selection of favorite authors, and presenting them as if they were the last word in terms of academic reading.

Said, using a thesis of “rereading” all orientality , which according to him, was deconstructed by the West, makes historical revisionism a militant and ideological test of what he believes, like an omniscient narrator, to be a kind of historical reparation . In fact, what Said produces is a great politically motivated libel not only to delegitimize the Democratic State of Israel, but also to exalt an undeniable justificationist version of jihadism that would henceforth take on secular features. I’m mistaken.

The writer, poet and columnist Nelson Ascher had already scrutinized and foreshadowed Said’s juggling with historical facts in 2003:

“A year later, in 1979, his other “classic” would come out, “The Question of Palestine”, a book that aims to narrate the tragedy of his people, but whose contacts with historical truth are, at best, tangential. Among the countless mystifications on which this distorted version of the past is built, the most scandalous is the mysterious disappearance of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Hadj Amin Al Husseini (1893-1974). The main political leader of what Said calls Palestine, the trigger and leader of the anti-British revolt of 1936-39, the ally of the Nazis who tried to convince Adolf Hitler to exterminate the Jews of Tel Aviv and Haifa, the personality who dominated the lives of Arabs of the region between the 20s and 60s, leading them from catastrophe to catastrophe, appears only once, in passing, in the entire book. This is equivalent to writing about the USA or Italy from the same years omitting the names of Roosevelt and Mussolini respectively.” (FSP, 09/29/2003)

Well, this notable omission of Al Husseini ‘s role strategically persists in most subsequent analyzes carried out by revisionists and it is understandable why: the uncomfortable association of Nazism with the revival of Judeophobia in the holy land, and, as some authors have pointed out, one of the inspirations for the so-called “final solution” that culminated in the extermination of 6 million Jews.

In fact, we are well aware of this type of exhortation that is more similar to libels inspired and based either on the booklet produced by the tsar’s political police, or on neo-Marxist doxology and on the already mentioned revisionist theses, rather than actually analytical work, the reason for being, in truth is the only raison d’être of academic hermeneutics. And we also know that, the last times these libels triumphed, we had as a result structural anti-Semitism – which seems to want to redesign itself – which culminated in the Shoah , the Holocaust, an event that many authors have already defined as the greatest drama in Western history. .

The orientalist theses of Said and his more contemporary successor end in the same sandy source: when claiming to defend anti-colonialist and libertarian theses, they fall into one of the most simplistic arguments, when trying to revive Gamal Nasser’s theses on Arab nationalism to retell the “myth ” of the creation of the State of Israel.

In order for the reader to better understand the exhortation for the revival of nationalism and pan-Arabism by these authors, it is basically based on what is most retrograde in terms of customs, as it is anchored in a reactionary anti-Western and, to a certain extent, retrograde and undemocratic.

Ascher ‘s text to denounce the abuse of concepts brought by Said and other more contemporary revisionists:

“His “classic” (by Edward Said) is a confused, uninformed and angry diatribe that amounts to the application to a particular case of the well-worn generic thesis according to which intellectuals are, for the most part, lackeys of the ruling class. What “Orientalism” tries to expose with half-truths, with one “non sequitur” after another, with abstruse examples and exceptions converted into rules, is that orientalism, the discipline, or rather, the set of disciplines dedicated to the study of peoples and cultures in Eastern Europe are nothing more than the theoretical arm of imperial practice. Put simply, anyone who has delved into the study of difficult languages such as Chinese or Sanskrit, translated and annotated ancient or forgotten works from Persia or Japan, located and restored the ruins of buried temples and palaces has done what they did. so that London or Parisian capitalists could comfortably extract the surplus value generated by distant peoples.” (same source)

The alibi that justifies terror based on “occupied lands” can be discussed from the point of view of ethics and philosophy, but it would be more appropriate to also direct the discussion from the point of view of the cultural logic of our time. The author of the aforementioned article intends to destroy the “myth of the voluntary exodus of the Palestinians in 1948” (sic) by omitting the context of who was the first aggressor – a coalition of national armies led by Egypt, Syria and Jordan — as soon as the UN proclaimed the division of the region in the historic year of 1948.

And, at the same time, the author hides from readers the exodus of Jews expelled from Arab countries, this exodus, yes, blatantly involuntary. Let’s take a quick look at the numbers to understand this point.

135,000 Jews were expelled from Iraq, today 4 live, from Syria 40,000, from Lebanon 20,000, today 29 live, from Libya 38,000, today none, from Tunisia 105,600 today live 1000, from Morocco 265,000, today live 2100, from Egypt 63,500, today 3 live, from Algeria 140,000, today live 200, from Yemen 60,000, today only 1 lives, and hundreds of thousands more from neighboring countries. Apart from those expelled from non-Arab countries, such as Iran, where more than 100,000 Jews were invited to “move”, today only 1000 live in the Persian country. In Gaza there lived 7,947 Jews, today none.

The right question should be: where are these expelled Jewish populations today?

There is no answer that is politically bearable for those who create fabricated theses to misinform.

Therefore, if the subliminal accusation of ethnic cleansing (a slogan that continues to win over the unwary and those who do not want to look into the facts) had the slightest foundation, we would see another reality on the ground: not just other numbers.

In the specific case of the current conflict in Gaza, the “Hamas Ministry of Health”, whatever it means in terms of reliability, seems to have plenty of time to count in record real time all the identification records of the victims of the war. Civilian victims and innocent injured are always a tragedy to be lamented, however the circumstances are increasingly transparent: Hamas not only uses them in an instrumental way, but also desires the death of civilians. And it uses the distortion of facts to leverage its genocidal agenda against Israel, Jews and all “infidels” in the world. Just check the exact number of civilians that terrorists claim have died in Gaza. Note that among them there are no combatants, no armed terrorists. If Israel’s military capacity were fully exercised, we would certainly have a different type of outcome.

The omission or leading role of the international community in finding a solution of civilians used as human shields, the military use of hospital facilities, and the international financing of terrorist groups are also part of the equation.

Therefore, it is astonishing that the public space of a periodical is used to spread slogans without consistency. For what purpose does the persistence in misinforming continue? Promote known anti-Zionist tendencies? Reaffirm theses that are not very empathetic towards the Jewish people? Now, the current scenario is well known to Jews, those who survived multiple systematic persecutions.

There is no intention here of cleaning up the toxic environment in which the debate surrounding this war has become. War, it is worth remembering, that it was not started by Israel. Amos Óz , a famous and recognized agent for peace, known worldwide, made it clear, he was not exactly a pacifist, he defined himself rather as a peacenik .

The difference between the two would be: their conviction for peace would remain firm until aggression was found. If it occurs, as was the case with the massacres that Hamas terrorists carried out against children, women, the elderly and other civilians, in the south of Israel with rapes, mutilations and unprecedented perversity, leaving a trail of 5,000 injured, 1,200 dead, and with more than 130 kidnapped remaining, it not only needs to be answered, it is an obligation of the State towards its citizens.

Is Israel isolated in its position to exercise self-defense? If it depends on the presidents of 3 of the largest university institutions in the USA Elise yes. Representatives from Harvard, Pennsylvania and MIT failed the Congressional hearing when challenged by courageous Congresswoman Rep. Elise Stefanik . They were asked whether they condemned the violation of the respective codes of conduct present in the statutes of these institutions when pro-Palestinian students promoted vandalism and acts of intimidation against Jews on their campuses, calling for death and genocide. The trio responded with a cold and pathetic “it depends on the context” in a combined vexatious and unethical joke.

Now, what context does it depend on to condemn violence and bullying within its academic domains?

From the context of political expediency?

Or the volume of subsidies coming from countries like Qatar, alone responsible for donating 4.7 billion dollars to American Universities in 2022 alone?

It is hoped that they will now be able to provide slightly more elaborate answers, in line with their academic titles.

Recently, former US presidential candidate Bernie Sanders and former first lady Hillary Clinton and other relevant figures from the current North American administration recognized: it is necessary to always safeguard the lives of civilians, even when terrorism uses them in a instrumental form, but it cannot be granted to an adversary who renews his oath of death several times a day to a country and its people.

In these circumstances, action to protect oneself from terror is no longer optional: it becomes compulsory. Evidently, a penalty must be applied to prevent the aggressor from being free to repeat the crime.

For this purpose, the law gave us the concept of dosimetry.

But what if the aggressor is a usurping government? What if domination is exercised in a tyrannical and autocratic way? What if we are inside a reign of terror? This is what has been happening in Gaza since 2005, when through a coup d’état, Hamas, supported by countries such as Iran and other autocracies, implemented an Islamic dictatorship with a theocratic basis, openly preaching the genocide of other religions and ethnicities.

Israel and the Jews of the world will never submit to forces that have never given up wanting to eliminate them. Earth’s promises have always been backed by historical, archaeological, scriptural, epistemological evidence and long-standing tradition. The promises of the land went from a barren courtyard to a promised land. It is this evidence that attests to its strength and permanence. If they don’t want to hear it, Israel will be present in absentia. If they do not wish to allow its existence, it will become the earth itself. Until the desire for peace and coexistence reaches consensus among peoples who accept civilization.

Preferably with a fair, perhaps lasting peace, built with interlocutors who declare, not behind closed doors to their own diplomatic corps, but to the four winds, and, publicly: from now on they renounce death.

From now on they will give preference to life.

Absolute preference.

Paul Rosenbaum