On Fri, 12 Jul 2002 at 12:11:13 +0200, brendberg wrote:
> Og så er det litt frustrerande at så få opplyste folk tek seg tid til å lesa
> dei litt over hundre sidene til Israel Shahak:
>
> http://abbc.com/islam/svenska/fildok/shahak.htm
>
> Ein slepp utruleg mykje synsing og samvitskvalar om ein tek seg tid til å
> lesa den boka.
> Boka til Shahak er fullstendig kosher - Gore Vidal, Edward Said og Noam
> Chomsky har skrive kvart sitt forord til henne. Om denne gjengen er ei
> samling skumle og løynde "antisemittar", så torer eg knapt tru på noko
> lenger.
Anmeldelser fra amazon.com følger: Jeg håper ikke Brendberg tar
Shahaks bok for å være den Ufeilbarlige Sannheten.
Og at et forord fra Chomsky skulle gjøre noe som helst «kosher» går
langt over min forstand. Det er vel heller et stort, blinkende lys
som forteller leseren at denne boka er veldig kontroversiell.
Når det gjelder å «ta seg tid til å lesa» boka, vil jeg oppfordre
Brendberg til å ha litt mer respekt for andre folks tid og
prioriteringer. Jeg har knapt tid til å lese alt det Brendberg selv
skriver på dette forumet[1]. Jeg har tusenvis av sider med ting
liggende som jeg skulle ha lest, men ikke får tid til. Det er ikke
bare å «ta seg tid».
jonivar
[1] Jeg har i mitt indre i den siste tid døpt om forumet fra
KarstenVedelJohansen-forum (beklager at jeg har brukt mellomnavnet
hans) til HansOlavBrendberg-forum. Jeg setter veldig stor pris på det
meste av det Hans Olav skriver (selv om utfallene mot «trotskismen» og
personangrepene mot Karsten var overtramp), og håper at han fortsetter
å skrive. Hans Olav er en veldig verdifull bidragsyter. Men ikke
alle har like mye tid -- eller er i stand til å lese og skrive like
fort -- som han tilsynelatende har/er.
Intelligent polemic which adds to our understanding,
23 August, 2001
Reviewer: (richard_bartholomew@hotmail.com) from London
This is a brave book by a man with an uncompromising passion for
universal human emancipation. By laying before the reader aspects of
Judaism which other commentators have been either too romantic or too
squemish to discuss, he increases our understanding of that religious
tradition. He also provides crucical analysis of the inspirations for
Zionism and Israeli behaviour.
The tone is polemical and Menkenesque, so although this works as a
pamphlet more scholarly work needs to be done in this area. He can
also be accused of having a tin ear for religion. His descriptions of
"fanatical Rabbis" lording it over their communities and of tortuous
legalism are a healthy corrective to less critical accounts, but is
that really all there was to Jewish community life before modernity
(even for the women, whom Shahak could have discussed a lot more)? We
may not want to be part of conservative religious communities, but
many people draw joy and strength from them. The truth may not have
been "Fiddler on the Roof" romanticism, but Shahak's picture is a
partial one too.
Shahak's discussion of anti-Semitism is important, locating the
phenomenon in specific situations and challenging the assumption that
it is some essential aspect of the wider world, as Zionist apologists
often argue. The truth is that by acting in contempt of international
law and by fostering racist attitudes towards the Palestinians, Israel
is actually undermining the struggle for human values which would
destroy anti-Semitism.
The world, and Israel in particular, should regret that Dr Shahak is
no longer with us.
4 of 8 people found the following review helpful:
A deeply flawed account of
Jewish history and
religion., 27 November,
1999
Reviewer: vivian wineman(winepeople@talk21.com from London England
This is a most disappointing book. What could havebeen an interesting
critique of Rabbinic attitudes has been turned into an antisemitic
diatribe. In the first place Shahak fails to distiguish between the
tribal exclusiveness which was nearly universal in ancient and
medieval times and the fanatical hatreds which have given rise to
modern racism and the Holocaust. Historic religions including
Christianity and Islam frequently discriminated against outsiders.From
our current moral standpoint we must look beyond the racist sexist
slavery condoning and homophobic attitudes of our predecessors.Failure
to do so however does not make one a Nazi.Yet Shahak frequently refers
to the Jews he dislikes most as Nazis.The late head of the Habad
chasidim is characterised as their hereditery fuehrer.This is as
ridiculous as it is offensive.In fact the Habad chasidim are a
peaceful law abiding sect whose only real interest is to propagate
their rather dotty ideas among other Jews.
If Shahak misinterprets orthodox attitudes to gentiles he also grossly
overestimates their influence over secular Jews.The Israel-Arab
conflict is seen by him as the working out of elemental forces in
theJewish psyche rather than as a final phase in the expansion of
Europe.Secular Jews according to him hate Arabs because they are
completely under the inflence of the Rabbis.In fact however opinion
polls in Israel show that secular Jews are less hostile to the Arabs
than they are to the orthodox who Shahak thinks they are
following. Shahak makes some small mistakes of detail such as the date
of the first printig of Maimonides' code which was in 1475 not
in1480.These however pale into insignificance beside his larger
errors.Anachronisms are rampant.Rabbinic society is described as
totalitarian.When Maimonides refers to Kushites(Nubians) this is
translated by Shahak as black in order that Maimonides who had in all
probability minimal contact with blacks can along with orthodox Jews
eight centuries later who respect his memory be stigmatised as anti
black. According to Shahak at the beginning of the third century there
was a deal between theJews and the Roman empire handing control over
Jewish communities worldwide to the Rabbis.No evidence is ever
produced for such a deal.
Not surprisingly an author who can accuse Jews of hatred of gentiles
and extreme hatred of peasants on the basis of the sayings of a few
Rabbis taken out of context regards premodern antisemitism with a good
deal of sympathy. Jews were part of the ruling class and progrms
should be seen inthe same light as peasant or slave uprisings.He does
not deny or condone the Holocaust but he does trivialise it by
likening it continually to the Zionist activities in Palestine and to
the persecution of other ethnic groups
Even his survey of Halachah by far the best part of the book loses by
being missing out the most important authorities who contradict his
thesis.
Jews are not immune to any gentile vices and as Shahak proves they can
even be antisemites.Edward Said therefore does himself no credit by
writing an introduction to this book.Interestingly enuough he states
that Shahak has been shunned both by moderate Arabs and by the peace
camp in Israel. After reading this book one understands why.
-- jonivar skullerud | http://www.jonivar.skullerud.name/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- For globalisation to work, USA must not be afraid to act like the almighty superpower it is [...] the invisible hand of the market can never work without a hidden fist. McDonalds cannot thrive without McDonnell Douglas, the maker of F-15 fighter jets. And the hidden fist that makes the world safe for Silicon Valley is called US Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps. -- Thomas Friedman, NYT 28 march 1999
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 12-07-02 MEST