The Abrahamic Tradition


During the past thirty years of political interventions on behalf of the Palestinian Nation I have noticed that the opposition to the Zionist movement has become broader and much more diversified as the Occidental public’s perception of the State of Israel became more aware of its chauvinist inclinations. 

The anti-zionist and non-zionist opposition now extends to a head of State in France, Jean-Jacque Chirac, as well as, unfortunately, various fascists and Nazies. However, many in the Jewish communities have changed as well and the Jewish opposition now numbers up to half of the Jewish People as a whole. This opposition in its various manifestations appears as the Leftism of Bundists, Anarchists, Trotskyists, Luxemburgists, Deutscherists, Leninists and Leninist-Stalinists; or, may be composed of Orthodox religious adherents of the Messianic tradition that do not deify the State as the manifestation of a miracle, such as the Neturei Karta (1), and the Sumtar communities in the Orthodox anti-zionist coalition Eda Haredit, or still others such as the Israeli philospher Yeshayahu Leibowitz and the social-democratic Labour- Peace Now movement. 

The split in the Israeli Jewish population has now isolated the fascistic elements in the Jewish population to the point where they may be preceived as lunatic actions representing no particular ends. Such is the case in the massacre of 39 worshippers in Hebron/Hevron Ibrahimi mosque February 25, 1994 by a Zionist who worshiped the State as a holy entity in a futile war for exclusivity. Many myths has been dissolved over the years when the Russian Communist State’s support of the Palestine Liberation Organization was considered its defining characteristic and sole reason for survival as a resistence movement. Another myth has been the unwillingness of the Palestinians to negotiate so creating their downfall because of their own stubborness. 

Both of these perceptions have dissolved and so a revolution in consciousness has passed over the Jewish people as a whole, and it is still deepening its effects as the negotiations endure and envelop even the Israeli right-wing Likud bloc. In opposition to the Zionist-led Jewish organizations and the associated political parties, even the disparate Jewish communities are experiencing the birth pains of their own opposition. Now it is legitimate to express an alternative view to the disciplined directive usually filtered down through the Jewish societies. 

Within the Zionist parties there are rising voices for a negotiated settlement to the extent that even the Likud Prime Minister of Israel Benjamin Netenyahu spoke of co-existence. Whether this means apartheid-like conditions or mutual reciprocity is another matter of course. Nonetheless there is reason to be concerned as the opportunistic political tendencies send their tenticles into the Palestinian milieu. In Beirut Lebanon it has been common to see the anti-Semitic anti-Jewish essays of Henry (Henrich) Ford and recently an Arab language translation of Hitler’s manual has come out. The Jewish opposition is late in arriving and must make up for the lost credibility of the Jewish people by opposing the rise of Nazi-like tendencies wherever they may appear. 

The greatest of injuries has been done to the Jewish People by the Zionist movement. The fascist eruptions that are given a place to be nurtured in the Israeli State have come close to destroying the reservoir of respect that has accumulated since the Holocaust. Much of that reservoir no doubt was filled with the admiration for the military prowess of the Israeli Defense Force but there has been some acknowledgment of the Christian religion’s responsibility for the anti-Jewish persecutions over the ages. With the perpetuation of militarism by the Zionist State and the loss of consciousness of the Christian role in the Holocaust, the Jewish people are again considered morally inferior and as such subject to future persecutions. This is not to say that we the Jewish people are ourselves responsible for our own persecution. 

The Zionist movement was itself cultivated in the political culture of the European Nation-State and the Protestant reformation. The assimilationist perceptions of European political culture impregnated the Zionist affiliated Jewish people with the spirit of hierarchical exclusivity in both nationality and class structure. Furthermore, the dominance of Zionist thought amongst the Jewish population was moreso a function of their isolation in North America as well as the elimination of the Jewish opposition by the Nazies and their agents. One can also refer to the assassination of Adler and Erlich, the two leaders of the Polish Jewish Bundist organization by the Marxist State dictator Joseph Stalin, as well as the elimination of the Jewish leading cadres in the Russian Communist Party, including the organizer of the 1905 revolution Lev Bronstein (Leon Trotsky). The regeneration of a Jewish national liberation movement which is not Statist has taken too long and must now assume the task of educating not only the Jewish people but also the Leftists and the Arab Nations as well. The Jewish People’s Liberation Organization declaration placed as an addendum following this contribution is based on the traditions that are elaborated in this chapter.


In the Abrahamic tradition there is much to be appreciated in contrast to the ideology of Zionism. In two aspects in particular, there are serious lessons to be appreciated. The first is the nature of societal relations with the other nations as neighbours. And the second is the self-consciousness guilt of having sacrificed one son to exile in the desert, and so being obliged in reciprocity to sacrifice the second son to whom he wished to guarantee his covenant. The dishonourable role of Sarah (Sar’ai) in asking for the exile of Ishmail and Hajjar his mother, her Egyptian slave, together with the obedience of Abraham, led him to accept the serious consequences of the obligation placed upon him when he heard the command to sacrifice his second son Isaac. The refusal to accept Ishmail together with Isaac is a parallel to the rejection of national co-existence that was the corner stone of the zionist enterprise. The perversion of Israel Zangwill’s (2) saying that the Jewish people need, “a land without a people for a people without a land”, into a represention of Palestine-Ca’naan is the sacrifice of another people who are also the descendents of Abraham and who revere the patriarch as such. The massacre in 1994 at the mosque of the Tomb of Abraham was an attempt at denial. The drive to exclusivity falters on the supposition that if Ishmail is to be denied the heritage of the covenent then so must King David be denied the identity of being of the Jewish nation, since he was the son of a Moavite woman, Ruth. In the first instance mentioned above that the Abrahamic tradition leaves us, that being the nature of treaty relations established by Abraham with his neighbouring nations, we should be impressed by the reciprocal relations they established.

National Autonomy

Alongside the hierarchical conceptions of the nation rest the social conventions of inter-national relations based in mutual recognition and accord. It is recorded that Abraham ben Te’rah (A’bram initially and commonly referred to as Avraham Avinu) made a covenant with the Philis’tines concerning a water well on behalf of the Hebrews;

22 Now it came about at that time that A.bim’e.lech together with Phi’col the chief of his army said to Abraham: ‘ … So now swear to me here by God that you will not prove false to me and to my offspring and to my posterity; that, according to the loyal love with which I have dealt with you, you will deal with me and with the land in which you have been residing as an alien. ‘ 24 So Abraham said: ‘ I shall swear. ‘ … Abraham took sheep and cattle and gave them to A.bim’e.lech, and both of them proceeded to conclude a covenant. … 31 That is why he called that place Be’ershe’ba, because there both of them had taken an oath. 32 So they concluded a covenant at Be’ershe’ba … 34 And Abraham extended his residence as an alien in the land of the Philis’tines many days. 1.

Soonafter, Abraham made another agreement for the burial site for his wife Sarah (Sar’ai) at Kir’i.ath-ar’ba (He’bron) in the land of Ca’naan with members of the Hit’tite nation.

4 ‘ An alien resident and settler I am among YOU. Give me the possession of a burial place among YOU that I may bury my dead out of my sight ‘. … Abraham got up and bowed down to the natives, to the sons of Heth … 16 Accordingly Abraham listened to E’phron, and Abraham weighed out to E’phron the amount of silver that he had spoken in the hearing of the sons of Heth, four hundred silver shekels current with the merchants. 17 Thus the field of E’phron that was in’lah, which is in front of Mam’re, the field and the cave that was in it and all the trees that were in the field, which were within all its boundaries round about, became confirmed 18 to Abraham as his pruchased property before the eyes of the sons of Heth among all those entering the gate of his city. 2.

Further still, the procedure followed in establishing a civil code is confirmed in the context of a wrongdoing. In the description of events provided, Jacob (Israel) arrives at the city of She’chem in the land of Ca’naan;

Then he acquired a tract of the field where he pitched his tent at the hand of the sons of Ha’mor the father of She’chem, for a hundred pieces of money. … Now Di’nah the daughter of Le’ah, whom she had borne to Jacob, used to go out to see the daughters of the land. And She’chem the son of Ha’mor the Hi’vite, a chieftain of the land, got to see her and then took her and lay down with her and violated her. . . . the two sons of Jacob, Sim’e.on and Le’vi, brothers of Di’nah, proceeded to take each one his sword and to go unsuspectedly to the city and to kill every male. And Ha’more and She’chem his son they killed with the edge of the sword. Then they took Di’nah from She’chem’s house and went on out. … At this Jacob said to Sim’e.on and to Le’vi: ‘ You have brought ostracism upon me in making me a stench to the inhabitants of the land, with the Ca’naan.ites and the Per’iz.zites; whereas I am few in number, and they will certainly gather together against me and assault me and I must be annihilated, I and my house.’ . . . Then Jacob said to his household and to all who were with him: ‘ Put away the foreign gods that are in the midst of YOU and cleanse yourselves and change; YOUR mantles, and let us rise and go up to Beth’el. And there I shall make an altar to the [true] God who answered me in the day of my distress in that he proved to be with me in the way that I have gone ‘. 3.

In the manner of these three examples, the civil code was upheld as the practise and tradition of the civil society functioning in the antiquity. Evidently, there is not just Joshua’s manner of treatment advocated concerning other nationalities then, by example the reported treatment of the Amelkites by Joshua. The contradictory tendencies active in the national consciousness of the antiquity represent the hierarchical and pluralist expressions of the same national identity.


the messianic idea as an empirical datum throughout the history of Judaism 4.

is Yeshayahu Leibowitz’s identification of a prime motivating force in the political culture of the Jewish Nation, as well as being found in the belief systems of other cultures. Messianism as Form (in the form of) is given the content of a material entity, which may be an individual as a source of law, a monarchist messiah like Christ, a lord, a living god, or Messianism may be given another material form like a land, a holy land; this is zionism. This is the collective redemption, and it is shared with messianic protestantism emanating from the Reformation’s Nation-State creation. Leibowitz provides us with another manner of content to messianism, one without a Messiah, but as an eternal struggle to live in the present as it is — Hegelian perhaps. Marx presented messianism as both the class revolution acting out the end of history and all its social contradictions, as well as the Messiah — himself. However Lebowitz has a point to his conception which is not invalid. It is the methodology of existence that is key, rather than a utopian perfectability. The messianic process then opens itself as a discourse on method or, the implementation of the Halakhah Law, “a system of halakhic praxis” 5. Leibiwitz continues elsewhere in his A Call for the Separation of Religion and State (1959), to disown the current practice linking The State of Israel with the Covenant, or with messianism.

We have no right to link the the emergence of the state of Israel to the religious concept of messianic redemption… There is no justification for enveloping this political- historical event in an aura of holiness. 6. The state, as such, has no religious value. No state ever had. Political achievements, conquests, victories — none of these are religiously significant. Who ‘restored the border of Israel from the entering of Hamath to the sea of the Aravah,” and “recovered Damascus and Hamath which had belonged to Judah in Israel” (2 Kings 14) ? Who was the greatest of warriors and conquerors among the Israelites “The King Yarov’am the son of Joash,” who “did that which was evil in the sight of God and departed not from all the sins of Yarov’am the son of Nevat” (ibid.). … the trememdous events summed up in those two verses left no mark in the religious consciousness of Israel. 7. (p. 216 Religion, People, State)

It is precisely the method of emancipation that is at the foundation of politics. The dictum in Jewish Halakhic law that “one should love their neighbour as they would themselves I am your God” is only one of 613 laws. The lack of priority leads to an ambiguous stance dependent upon the question of security. The interpretation of the former reciprocal law as a principle though determines that the methodology of political action requires a reciprocal justification. One’s own national liberation loses its justification if it were to become dependent upon the loss of another nation’s freedom or even existence. The lack of reciprocity is an indication of false consciousness leading to idealization of reality corresponding to the ideology propagated by the zionist State. This ideological hegemony has now broken down amongst the Jewish people.


Since the PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization) proposes peace — evident since Arafat’s United Nations General Assembly speech in 1982 — and the government of Israel did not want to negotiate, it made sense to support the PLO if one wanted peace. Although we do not have peace now, there is a ceasefire with the more significant sector of the Palestinian political scene. Nevertheless if one thinks that the current state of affairs is horrible then one can think back to what has been experienced by previous generations during the five wars that have resulted in tens of thousands of Jewish deaths alone. What do the zionist parties propose, to send our children to risk their lives in yet another. This sacrifice to the alter of the State has been repeated far too many times to be taken for some messianic fulfillment. The Palestinian leadership could not relish the possibility of confronting the Israeli military with its limited armed forces, consequently such an incident would be unlikely. However this has not meant that the PLO has surrendered to the might of the IDF (Israel Defence Force). Like the David confronting the Goliath the Palestinians continue their struggle until revolution, a people offering their own children in sacrifice for the sake of their future liberty while the Zionists make an offering of their children for the sake of the State.

“When we stopped the Intifada we did not stop the Jihad to establish Palestine with Jerusalem as our capital…. We know only one word: Jihad, Jihad, Jihad…. We are at conflict with the Zionist movement….”

— Yasser Arafat, in a speech at the Dehaishe refugee camp near Bethlehem, 22 October 1996 (Yediot Aharonot, 23 October 1996)

There is not yet peace between the Palestinians and the Israelis.. the Oslo negotiations I & II are terms for a cease-fire basically. The inserted definition of Jihad is not complete, the concept is more general than presumed and includes struggle in all forms, including political revolution.

“We sacrifice our blood and ourselves for Palestine!”

— Response chanted by the Palestinian crowd to Arafat’s above call for war (Arutz-7 Radio, 23 October 1996)

This means that the Palestinians are willing to die in order to demonstrate their frustration in their own streets because the Isreali soldiers are willing to follow orders to shoot them dead. The Palestinians throw stones at Israeli soldiers who attempted to force them to retreat from demonstrating. The zionist position however wishes us to believe that the Palestinians are only fanatical suicide bombers.

“There is no doubt we must be prepared for all contingencies.”

— Yasser Arafat, in a speech to the Palestinian legislative council in Ramallah, 10 October 1996 (The Jerusalem Post, 11 October 1996).

The remark was widely interpreted as threatening future violence if his demands were not met.

“If Israel rejects our demands there will be a reaction and we have a 30,000 man armed force.”

— Yasser Arafat (Quoted by Israel Radio reporter Yoni Ben Menachem, 7 June 1996)

“The Israelis are mistaken if they think we do not have an alternative to negotiations. By Allah I swear they are wrong. The Palestinian people are prepared to sacrifice the last boy and the last girl so that the Palestinian flag will be flown over the walls, the churches and the mosques of Jerusalem.”

— Yasser Arafat, in a speech given on 6 August 1995 at a party to celebrate the birth of his daughter (Haaretz, 6 September 1995; The Jerusalem Post, 7 September 1995)

“Without full Palestinian rights with a Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital there won’t be peace…. We can’t rule out a return to the gun. If Israel can’t meet its obligations the peace will be destroyed.”

— Yasser Arafat’s spokesman Nabil Aburodeina (Interview with Independent Media Review and Analysis, 17 April 1996)

No doubt this is true. The one reason that the government of Israel has submitted to negotiations is the threat of internal war, Civil War. The Intifadah created the preconditions for the political credibility acquired by the PLO even though neither the PLO nor even Hamas, had anything to do with the outbreak of street battles brought on by the Palestinian youth who refused to accept that their lives would continue on as their parents’ had. On the 20th anniversary of the temporary occupation of the administered territories there were demonstrations. The Israeli army came out to suppress the demonstrators by killing a few in order to intimidate the many, instead the youth were enraged and came out again over a period of about seven years. This is the real dynamic in the Palestinian revolution.

“The struggle will continue until all of Palestine is liberated.”

— Yasser Arafat (Voice of Palestine Radio, 11 November 1995)

The Palestinians would have to right to live wherever their origins lead them in the Land. Currently occupied premises and lands may be compensated for by equivalent resources elsewhere in Palestine, if necessary.

“If the negotiations reach a dead end, we shall go back to the struggle and strife, as we did for 40 years. It is not beyond our capabilities…. If and when Israel will say, `That’s it, we won’t talk about Jerusalem, we won’t return refugees, we won’t dismantle settlements, and we won’t retreat from borders,’ then all the acts of violence will return. Except that this time we’ll have 30,000 armed Palestinian soldiers who will operate in areas in which we have unprecedented elements of freedom.”

— Palestinian Authority Planning Minister Nabil Shaath, at a symposium shown on Palestinian television. (The Jerusalem Post, 15 March 1996)

Obviously. The historic balance of forces and pressures now dictate that the government of Israel is obliged to negotiate with the PLO. This is why even the Netenyahu-led government is engaged in negotiations. In reference to Nabil Sha’ath who is quoted above one sould also refer to the citation of his printed in the Jewish People’s Liberation Organization declaration following this chapter;

“16. An historic turning point has been passed. Let it be universally acknowledged, as it has been by the past Director of the Planning Center of the Palestine Liberation Organization in Beirut, Lebanon (Nabil Sha’ath), as early as 1977, that the Palestinian Charter;

signifies equally, that the exercise by the people of Palestine of their right of self-determination in Palestine does not include the right to exclude the palestinian Jews from Palestine, that signifies also that this right does not include the right to create in Palestine a State solely arab. The right to self-determination of the Palestinian People, applied to the jewish Palestinians, means that they must exercise this right on the land of Palestine, and that this right does not include the right of separation and consequently, the exclusion of the Arab people of Palestine. This is why the right to self-determination of Jews and of Arabs in Palestine must be exercised in common on the same land, Palestine. **

The principle of reciprocity is thereby acknowledged by Shaath:

that signifies the end of all States which require that the self-determination of its ethnic group assumes the exclusion of another ethnic group … it is thus the definitive end of all States in which segregation exists de jure or de facto. **

Ethnic-cleansing then is refuted and the hypocrisy of zionism remains.

** Nabil Shaath, L’autodetermination et l’etat democratique de Palestine, p. 211-218, Palestine: Actes du colloque Palestine (Bruxelles, 13-15 mai 1976), Douclot – S.N.E.D., Belgique, 1977, ISBN 2-8011-0114-1, page 213

The Likud government has taken to using reciprocity in reference to the Fatah government of the Palestinian Authority. Having ignored the provisions and timetable of the Oslo accords the Netenyahu administration cites the lack of reciprocity by the Palestinian Authority in the implementation of those accords seeking to reverse the responsibility for the breakdown in the “peace process”. This is typical enough of an administration that obliges another to adhere to a set of conditions that it itself ignores. That is like State terrorism holding individual violence responsible for its own massacres. It is parallel to the Nazies who denounced the Jewish resistance as terrorists as well.

Zionist Rationalizations

If violence is a reason to distrust negotiations with the Palestinians then the Palestinians should be more cautious than the Israelis considering the continuing string of massacres that have been inflicted upon them. The significance of Deir Yaseen, Qubia, Nahaleen, Kfar Kassem, Khan Yunes, Rafah, Sabra-Shatilla, Qana and Hebron is found in the violent nature of the Israeli State. It is the State that endangers security, even though Zionists argue as if their attacks were a self-defence mechanism against a genocidal intent culture. 

Zionism promotes repression by projecting its own intent to expell the Arab population upon the Palestinians. Historically it has been certain features of the Occidental western cultures that have expressed their hostility to the Jewish and Moorish/Arab cultures in genocidal acts since the time of the Christian crusades. The same cannot be said of the Arab treatment of the Jewish populations in the Arab societies. Among the Arab societies the points of friction have been generated by colonial manipulations of Jewish functionaries, and the Zionist generated alienation. 

The Zionist ideological world perspective however treats the Occidental colonial powers as if they were allies of the Jewish people, pretending that the West was being manipulated into supporting the Zionist State. Actually the Israeli State has been offering its services to the various Western interests and factions in return for its recognition. This is why the ideological rationale for Zionism choses to identify with the political ideologies representing their patron, the USA. These ideologies are named, Realism and/or Liberalism by American Political Science; their combination is treated as American pragmatism. The balance between these two political tendencies is based in the prevailing balance of forces, but fundamentally the rationale for pragmatism is merely a justification for fascism. It may be a friendly fascism at times and less so at other times. 

The American public is much less so inclined and very polarized as well and so there exists the possibility of a large degree of possible interventions to negate the current foreign policy of the USA and by consequence that of the State of Israel as well. In effect the Zionist ideology has adopted the Western concept of self-determination as was the case with the Joshua Torah tradition, that is, the exercise of hegemony in the pursuit of power. 

The Israeli Statist ideology of Zionism exhibits dictatorial features within the world-wide Jewish People themselves as well, even though a majority prefer to live elsewhere other than in Israel. However Zionism which claims to be Jewish nationalism, does not concern itself with the position of Jewish residents anywhere else but in its State. In fact the zionist policies of Isreal serve to undermine the social status of Jewish people elsewhere, whether or not they identify with the Zionist movement. Furthermore little if anything is done to combat the operating fascist anti-Jewish racist tendencies in the world. At times Zionist representatives seek out their collaboration such as Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu who has addressed the “International Christian Embassy” at its Jerusalem conference “Feast of Tabernacles” in 1997 to make an identity between “Jewish and Christian Zionists”. 

Evidently the Zionist identity has become more important than the perported Jewish identity of Zionism. One could find an analogy with the fable of the Jewish Prague ghetto Rabbi who delved into the Kaballah (i.e. the study of secrets). When the pogroms arrived the community emplored him to find a solution. So he fabricated a warrior humanoid who he could bring into life by a Hebrew inscription on its forehead and an incantation. This was done during the the following pogrom and the monster was successful. However it became unruly and continued to wage war even when there was no war. The community again asked the Rabbi to help and he sent it back to dormancy. In effect the State of Israel is the Jewish Golom. If only the Jewish people would now realize that it is the time to halt the dependency upon a State, then an upcoming war will be averted. 

Each culture has its own intelligence, as does each group and individual. Any particular national culture is aware of its own cultural heritage by default, and relatively unaware of other national cultures and their intelligence. In itself such a deficiency is not fatal, however, in combination with a liberal notion of identity, that is, individualism, the self becomes absolute rather than reciprocal. 8. In much the same manner each nation considering its own right to self-determination may tend to chauvinism by recognizing only its own identity and treating that which it does not know as inferior. 

Lacking a reciprocal methodology in liberalism, the rights of the individual (corporate identity), human rights and all other social rights pertain only to oneself. This in spite of the contradiction that no rights that are not considered reciprocal may be considered a right in principle. Therefore without a principle of reciprocity no rights exist for anyone. Human rights and self-determination exist reciprocally and not in a hierarchy of superiority or priority. Now that the Jewish People can finally recognize the existence of the Palestinian People one can expect a Jewish political revolution to take root. Zionism will be rejected, but first the counter-revolution of dismay found in the Israeli security establishment and the colonialists’ movement will run its course. After all, the Golom did not want to return to sleep immediately either.


I have functioned as an intermediary on behalf of the Palestinians to the Western (North American) societies and, on behalf of the Jewish People to the Palestinian and Arab Nations since 1968. My purpose has been to prevent an all out war which both sides have expected and are willing to endure. Nonetheless In general, I would say that the Palestinians and Arabs have been more willing to seek a peaceful solution than have the Israelis, despite Western media reports. I preceive a more fundamental process at work, and I expect that the resultant dynamic is a dual revolution of both Jewish and Palestinian peoples in opposition to Statism and fascism. Being a second generation Holocaust survivor, it seems to me that the basis of research and enquiry should be directed towards the achievement of survival. Various ideologies have placed themselves above the value of human life in order to perpetuate its own existence. This form of human alienation is neither intellectually acceptable nor is it a sane human consciousness. No doubt Jewish existence as human life is a right. That is, a Jewish life has the right to exist if human life does. Since human life as a right is reciprocal then the right of existence is general and not particular. If one does not recognize the human life of “the Other” as a right, one then annuls one’s own right to life by consequence. That would be inverse reciprocity. We should prefer mutual reciprocity and the benefits that may be derived.



1. New World Translaton of the Holy Scriptures Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society of Pennsylvania, New York, 1961, p. 30, (Genesis 21: 22-34) The Pentateuch and Haftorahs edited by the late Chief Rabbi Dr. J.H. Hertz, C.H., Soncino Press, London, 5713 – 1952, p. 73

2. Holy Scriptures op cit., p. 31-32 (Genesis 23: 1-20) The Pentateuch and Haftorahs op cit., p. 82-84

3. Holy Scriptures op cit., p. 47 – 50 (Genesis 34: 1-31, 35: 1-29) The Pentateuch and Haftorahs op cit., p. 127-131

4. Leibowitz, Yeshayahu Judaism, Human Values, and the Jewish State, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, London, 1992 ISBN: 0-674-48775-3 LCCN: BM45.L378 1992 Chapter 6, p. 70

5. Leibowitz, Yeshayahu ibid., p. 73 (see p. 13)

6. Leibowitz, Y. op cit., p. 175

7. Leibowitz, Y. op cit., p. 216 “Religion, People, State” p. 14-21

8. Weizfeld, Abraham(eibie) Reciprocity and Nationalism 1990 l’Universite du Quebec a Montreal, Unikorn Publishing (La Galerie FoKus), Montréal, 1992, pgs. 2

End Notes

(1) Rabbi Hirsch of the Neturei Karta (Gardians of the Holiness of the City) represents the Jewish people on the executive committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization.

(2) Israel Zangwill favoured the Uganda border region as a “Land without a People for a People without a Land”.

Back to Top 

Like this ? Vote for it to win in MMN Contest