After several years of writing and another few years of trying to find a publisher The Moses Legacy; Roots of Jewish Suffering is now finally available through Internet commerce. It had to be published through the “print on demand” medium because I no longer have a life expectancy that will allow me to pursue reluctant publishers or agents for several more years. In as much as the content of the book does not conform to current political ideology editors of well known publishing houses are reluctant to tackle a topic that is not only highly emotionally charged but also presents both sides of Jewish-Gentile relations.

On the other hand I do feel sufficiently strong about the ideas expressed in the book that one should be willing to “put one’s money, where one’s mouth” is and make them available to the public. This attitude has to do with my upbringing where I saw injustices being done to the Jewish members of our society and was unable to do anything about them. I shall never forget the sense of shame I felt one day while traveling on the Stadtbahn in Vienna during WWII when I saw a Jewish girl of my age with a downcast demeanor and the Star of David on her overcoat, as was required by law. I did not decide then and there to rectify injustice all over the world wherever it might exist but the impression was lasting, kept resurfacing intermittently throughout my life and the question kept nagging me why such hatred against Jews could have existed.

After retirement from executive duties, and seeing patients, time was available to study the “Jewish question” with the book under discussion the result. After reading a considerable amount of Jewish literature it became apparent that the problem of anti-Jewish attitudes is an ancient one and there were reasons why people felt the way they did. I shall refrain from using the European term antisemitism, spelled currently anti-Semitism in America, for their feelings because the term implies a racial homogeneity which is inappropriate. When people express dislike or hatred of Jews it is directed against Jews, regardless of racial background, and not Semites in general.

Thus, the book stresses first of all clarity of language. Imprecise language is associated with muddled thinking and subsequently inappropriate behavior. This will be discussed further in the second part of this essay. It may seem strange to connect a religious figure like Moses with 21^st century politics but when one reads the book the reasons will become obvious.  Without the figure of Moses there would be no Judaism, no state of Israel, no Christianity and no Islam. Historians and theologians can argue whether or not Moses existed as an individual, what laws he promulgated and what benefit accrued thereby to the world. For the purposes at hand these questions are not relevant because The Moses Legacy deals only with ideas which are expressed in Jewish literature about Jews and their place in the world. The book is about Gentile-Jewish relationships since the inception of the Jewish religion.

Currently it seems to be no longer polite in official American society to speak of a Jewish tradition and a Christian tradition. The two religions have been amalgamated under the term Judeo-Christian thereby blurring the differences between them. It may, therefore, come as a shock to some well meaning Christians that observant Jews not only reject the term but one of them has even regarded it as “an antisemitic lie.” As Neusner has pointed out the “the two religions … really are totally alien to another.” Thus, the purpose of the first part of this book was to explore how such a fundamental misunderstanding between well-meaning people had come about.

One of the fundamental misconceptions Christians harbor about Judaism is that it is a religion like others and has no political implications. Yet Moses intent was not to create a religion but to make an enduring nation out of the diverse group of people he had led out from Egypt. Again it doesn’t matter whether or not the Exodus is a historic reality, it has become so by being enshrined in the Bible and millions of people around the world believe in its veracity. The purpose of Moses’ Law was to set the Hebrews apart from the rest of their neighbors and to make them into a “holy nation [Ex. XIX.6];” “a kingdom of priests” and as such a society unto themselves. But inasmuch as the Hebrews, and later on their descendants the Jews, always lived in the midst of people who worshipped other deities not only was constant strife foreordained but so were increasingly more stringent regulations over all phases of daily life. Once the Jews lost Jerusalem and the Temple the rabbis were confronted with a massive problem how to keep their people together in the Diaspora. The answer was the creation of the Talmud, which has become the “central pillar” of authentic Judaism.

Christians have very little, if any, information on the Talmud and this ignorance has given rise to the misconceptions about the essence of Judaism. The importance of the Talmud for Gentiles lies not necessarily in its religious doctrines but in what has been called “Talmudic thinking,” which differs markedly from that of the Gentile world. Only when one is aware of this fact can one understand Ben Gurion’s comment about the British. He explained to some of his friends that, “You can do many things with an Englishman but you cannot change him into a non-Englishman. The Englishman does not see things with Jewish eyes, he does not feel things with a Jewish heart, and he does not reason with a Jewish brain.” The term Englishman referred to a specific situation but really means Gentile in general and perpetuates a theme of separateness.

The Moses Legacy shows why Ben Gurion’s statement is true and the consequences that flow from it. As mentioned the book is divided into two sections. The first part starts with definitions so that all of us know what is being discussed at a given moment. This is necessary because “Talmudic thinking,” which assigns the meaning of a word to whatever a given person wants it to mean at a particular point in a discussion, pervades the literature. This has to be shunned in a scientific exploration of a topic. The chapter on definitions is followed by what is known about the origins of the Bible, the cornerstone of the religion. Its importance for current political events cannot be stressed enough. This is the reason why various key biblical figures are subsequently examined for their actions and their capacity to serve as role models for behavior in our day and age. Specifically it is shown what type of conduct has been reported, who was rewarded or punished by God and for what reasons.

As a result some rather surprising findings became apparent and demonstrated how the past, present and future intersect. Since the present is based on the past the future is not totally unknowable. It can be predicted to a certain extent, barring divine intervention, if one knows the character and motivations of key players. The first part of The Moses Legacy ends with a discussion of the Pharisees and the essential features of the Talmud. This section demonstrates how Jewish authors during the first century A.D., prior to the establishment of Christianity, responded to attacks. The means with which they defended their views will be found remarkably similar to present day practices.

The second part of the book shows how the world-view, which was derived from the biblical stories and the Talmud, has now been put into practice in America. Its influence on the domestic as well as foreign policy of the United States is documented by quotes from contemporary Jewish authors. It explains why the Constitution of our country is currently constantly re-interpreted and why aspects of American life, which have been constitutional for two hundred years or so, are no longer tolerated. The prime example is the vigorous enforcement of separation of Church and State and re-interpretation of the “free speech” amendment. These are largely driven by “secular” Jewish legal professionals (i.e. atheistic, or “non-Jewish Jews” as Deutscher called them), although atheists coming from other religions have also joined the fray.  The subsequent chapters deal with Jewish perceptions of the past and future, attitudes on justice and death, and Jewish power. As mentioned these observations are presented in discussions of relevant books by Jewish writers, and show how these authors perceive the difficulties their people are confronted with and the ways to overcome them. But as the final chapter, “Are anti-Jewish attitudes curable?” demonstrates the proposed remedies fall short of the mark. The chapter, therefore, presents suggestions which, if adopted, would not require state or other legal intervention. They would cost nothing and simply make us humane beings who work for the benefit of all rather than persisting in a “them and us” attitude where “us” is obviously favored over “them.”

The book clearly reveals that a great many Jewish authors see their people as a beleaguered minority in a hostile environment, which has to be either shaped to conform to their views or, whenever feasible, opposed militarily. The examples presented make it quite apparent that militant nationalistic Jews operate on different assumptions from Christians, Muslims and members of other religions. Fanatic, radicalized Muslims are currently regarded as the greatest threat to the U.S. and the world but the equally grave potential danger not to but by the state of Israel is not being addressed publicly. The main reason seems to be that the “Judeo-Christian tradition” puts us into the same boat as the Israeli leadership and any criticism immediately leads to cries of anti-Semitism by well organized Jewish organizations. Anyone in professional life can ill afford a label of this sort and the injustices perpetrated by Israeli policies against the Palestinian population in the occupied territories, for instance, are only rarely commented upon by the media and ignored by our political establishment.

The book can be obtained through amazon.com or booksurge.com. Excerpts are available on this site and by simply clicking on the book cover on the Contact page a direct link to booksurge is established.

This brings me to the second part of this essay. Our current War on Terrorism is a classic example of inappropriate language. The term serves only to arouse passions but hides the true battle, which is going on behind the scenes. This obfuscation is useful for politicians but a disservice to our citizens, who pay in blood and money for this war. Terrorism is a means towards an end rather than an end by itself. A war on a tool makes no sense and in reality we are dealing with a war between ideas. This cannot readily be admitted to because ideas cannot be defeated militarily and that is the way this war is being conducted.

In order to deflect attention from this war of ideas we are being told, in print and on the TV screens that people around the world hate us because we are rich and powerful, which has always led to resentment and jealousy. But this is not the real cause of America’s current dilemma. It is, instead, how we are using our resources and the fact that the Bush administration has created the world-wide impression that Americans are above the law and do not have to abide by internationally recognized norms. Unless this perception is rectified, not by propaganda but concrete actions which the world can see and agree with, the very real war we are engaged in cannot be won.

We are also being told that this is a war between good and evil where good must triumph regardless of length of time or cost. But good and evil are philosophical concepts and no agreement can be reached on this basis because good is “us” and evil is “them” regardless which side of the conflict you find yourself on. Mohammed Atta, the purported leader of the 9/11 attack, did not regard himself as evil. On the contrary he prayed to God that “all doors may be opened” to him while carrying out his mission. This consisted of delivering to sinful America, which is promoting “secularism” over spiritual values, a foretaste of the punishment it deserved.

Our leadership, politicians and media people, will also have to recognize that the idea of the “One God” is putting us into a dilemma vis á vis the Muslim and Jewish world. The Muslim creed, “There is no God but God, and Muhammad is His prophet,” establishes unequivocally the unity and identity of God for all three monotheistic religions. For an American general to tell his Muslim counterpart that “My God is bigger than your god” betrays utter ignorance. Unfortunately this ignorance is pervasive and bodes ill for the future. To cast this war into apocalyptic terms makes good propaganda but cannot lead to a satisfactory resolution of the conflict. The Jewish creed (Shema) which is to be recited twice daily also asserts, “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is One.” This establishes the unity of God and theoretically all three monotheistic faiths should have equal access to the “One.” But if the emphasis in the Shema recitation is on “Our” all non-Jews pray to the wrong deity. They are idolaters and as such unacceptable.

This is the interpretation given by some of the settlers on the West Bank. One of them told Jeffrey Goldberg (The New Yorker May 31, 2004), “All my ideas are formed from the Torah. It’s not complex. This land is ours. God gave it to us. We’re the owners of the land.” This mentality leads also to the destruction of Palestinian olive groves, which as Goldberg points out, is a grave sin in Judaism even if the trees belong to an enemy. When Goldberg confronted the rabbi of the settlement, whose youths were carrying out the destruction he said, “I’m not hearing you. I’m not hearing what you’re saying. You don’t understand me. I’m not hearing and I will continue not to hear.” Another person from the settlement when asked about the cutting down of the trees was more concerned with access to Joseph’s tomb. “What is an olive tree compared to the burial place of Joseph, the son of Jacob?” When Goldberg pointed out that those trees are the livelihood of the farmer and his family, the reply was, “But the farmer is an Arab [italics in the original]. He shouldn’t be here at all. All this land is Jewish land. It is meant for the Jews by God Himself.” Thus, the God of Israel is not the God of the Muslims and the settlers in the occupied territories are right while everybody else who disputes this is wrong! Can peace occur with a mindset of this type?

But the internal Palestinian problem is not the only festering sore which infects body politics. There is also the concern of Israeli politicians with external security. There is no doubt that every nation has the right to internationally guaranteed secure borders. There is also no doubt that Israel is a small country and vulnerable to assaults from the neighbors. It is, therefore, equally understandable that in the 1950’s Ben Gurion wanted to have a deterrent against aggression from Arab countries by developing a nuclear bomb. The details about how this was accomplished can be found in Seymour Hersh’s 1991 book The Samson Option. Israel’s Nuclear Arsenal and American Foreign Policy.  But what may have made sense in the second half of the previous century when even Soviet missiles could be targeted on Tel Aviv is now becoming an increasingly dangerous liability.

This brings us back to today’s events and nuclear proliferation. We are currently in Iraq not because Saddam was a threat to U.S. security but he was a potential threat to Israel. This is not yet admitted to in public but it may be only a matter of time before it will be. When I published the essay “The Neocons’ Leviathan” in April, 2003 on this website hardly anybody had heard about “neocons” and what they stood for. Now everyone knows and although their ideas stand discredited because of the Iraq problems, the full implications have not yet been drawn. Israel’s security concerns are still identified with those of the U.S. and although we have been willing to remove the Iraqi threat we are now supposed to eliminate potential threats from Syria and Iran. Neither of these countries presents a danger to America and even the threat to Israel appears exaggerated. The Syrian army is no match against the IDF and Iran does not share a common border. Even if Iran were to acquire nuclear weapons the country could not use them against us because we would obliterate Tehran in an eye blink and the mullahs know it. The idea that because they support terrorists they will, therefore, send a bomb via willing helpers to our shores also does not make sense. These men are not stupid; they know that nuclear terrorism cannot destroy America and that the retaliation would be unacceptable. So why do they seem to be willing to build themselves a bomb? One reasonable answer may be that they regard it as the “great equalizer” against Israel’s arsenal of WMDs. Once we have nuclear capability, they might reason, we can no longer be shoved around by the Americans. This is likely to be also the rationale for the North Koreans. Let us remember that we have officially branded these countries as members of an axis of evil. The United States has declared a preemptive war strategy and followed through by invading the first of the three evil ones. They may thus think that they need bargaining chips to assert their independence, just as France did when she developed her bomb and then took a leave of absence from NATO in the nineteen-sixties.  Since Israel is determined that no rival nuclear power will be allowed to exist in the Middle East the risk for a showdown is becoming increasingly higher. There is no doubt that the Iranian Mullahs represent a highly repressive regime and the world would be better off without them. The question is not whether or not they should be put out of office but only how. Bombs and/or military occupation will not work. The change must come from within the country, even if it takes longer than impatient American policy makers would like.

In the current issue of The New Yorker (June 28, 2004), Seymour Hersh writes about Israel’s “Plan B” in Iraq. According to Hersh Israel had warned the United States early last summer to seal the border against Iran because Iranian intelligence officers and foreign fighters were crossing at will in increasing numbers. The border remained open and the Iraqi insurgency gathered steam. One may ask why the U.S. military did not follow through with the well meant advice but one likely reason may be that we simply didn’t have enough boots on the ground to do so.  Israel’s preoccupation with security against a potential Iranian threat has now led to a highly dangerous “Plan B.” Hersh stated, “Israeli intelligence agents and other military operatives are now quietly at work in Kurdistan, providing training for Kurdish commando units and most important, in Israel’s view, running covert operations inside Kurdish areas of Iran and Syria.” It seems obvious that the Israeli government is not doing this for love of the Kurds, so that they may enjoy a Greater Kurdistan, which encompasses all the Kurdish people who have been parceled out between Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran. It is simply using them to destabilize Syria and Iran. But in the process the Israelis are likely to undermine America’s effort to establish a democratic Iraq in its current borders and bring a semblance of order to the region. The Kurds are already concerned that they will lose rights once a strong central government is installed again and demands for autonomy, if not outright secession, are going to become increasingly louder. But the establishment of an independent Kurdish republic will be opposed by Turkey, Syria and Iran out of fear of uprisings within their own Kurdish population. While we can ignore Syria’s and Iran’s concerns, Turkey is a NATO partner and if it were to get involved in major military operations against the Kurds we would have a real problem on our hands. Israeli actions of the type reported by Hersh are clearly against the best interests of America. The newly installed interim government of Iraq will also need all the help it can get to hold the country together rather than encouragement of separatism. Furthermore, if Turkey, Syria and Iran were to get involved militarily innocent Kurdish people would again be slaughtered just as they have been in the past.

There is another potential tragedy brewing in the Middle East and America stands by helplessly. We have an election coming, while the Israeli government is stirring the pot in Iraq, and no one can tell Jerusalem to “cease and desist.” Yes, Israel should be able to live in security but the current security concerns are exaggerated. There is no army that can invade the country and if a missile were to strike one of its cities not only Israel but the United States would retaliate. The fear-mongering needs to be curbed by responsible Jews both here and in Israel so that a degree of sanity can finally emerge in political conduct. A second Auschwitz, Israel’s recurrent nightmare, is not around the corner unless irresponsible Israeli politicians yield to paranoia, or religious fantasies of a Greater Israel, and initiate policies which will escalate the dangers rather than defuse them. While the turning over of even limited authority to the Iraqis two days prior to the promised date is cause for hope meddling with the Kurds is surely not what America and the new Iraqi government need.