E Fassino ricordò: da settori della sinistra pregiudizio ideologico verso israele
Antisemitismo, l'«equivoco» a sinistra
Dalle accuse di Stalin a Trockij all'eterno ritorno del sentimento antisionista
«Genocidio nazista a Gaza», spara il Partito Marxista Leninista intimando «lo scioglimento di Israele e la costituzione di un solo Stato per due popoli». Per carità, guai a prendere sul serio un gruppuscolo infinitamente minoritario che mette Stalin e Mao tra i Maestri: è il ruggito d'una mosca. Ma sarebbe un errore non vedere che nei dintorni di una certa sinistra stanno tornando a galla, sia pure arginati da una specie di pudore, sentimenti «antisionisti» dietro i quali si intravede l'ombra della solita bestia razzista.
Sono segnali, capiamoci: solo segnali. Facili da spacciare come casi isolatissimi all'interno di una reazione corale sobria e saggia. Un paio di bandiere con la stella di David sostituita dalla svastica al corteo di ieri della sinistra extraparlamentare. Un altro paio di bandiere israeliane bruciate nei giorni scorsi. E-mail immonde smistate da internauti «rossi» che incitano a ribellarsi contro «il mostro giudaico-talmudico-sionista che ci domina» e lanciano la parola d'ordine: «Distruggiamo quest'incubo razzista e genocidario infame!». Sventurate dichiarazioni alle agenzie dell'«esule» rifondarolo Marco Ferrando, fondatore del lillipuziano Movimento per il Partito comunista dei lavoratori secondo il quale chi brucia le bandiere israeliane non deve «vergognarsi di nulla» perché brucia «non la bandiera dell'ebraismo, ma la bandiera del sionismo: cioè di uno Stato coloniale nato dal terrore contro il popolo arabo e che si perpetua, da 50 anni, con i metodi del terrore». Frattaglie. Impossibili da spacciare, nemmeno in giornate come queste dominate dalle immagini spaventose di una guerra sconvolgente, per «antisemitismo di sinistra».
Come spiega Amos Luzzatto, a lungo presidente dell'Unione comunità ebraiche italiane e autore del libro «Conta e racconta. Memorie di un ebreo di sinistra», «l'antisemitismo "di sinistra" come atteggiamento innato e necessario di un'idea di sinistra non c'è. Ma certo, dell'antisemitismo esiste anche a sinistra. D'altra parte, se la sinistra appartiene a questa società...». Un paio di anni fa suo figlio, Gadi Luzzatto Voghera, docente di Storia dell'ebraismo a Venezia e certo estraneo alla destra, ha scritto un libro («Antisemitismo a sinistra ») per dimostrare che «sinistra e antisemitismo non sono incompatibili» fin dai tempi in cui il «mito dell'ebreo capitalista, ricco, usuraio» entra «nell'immaginario della sinistra nella seconda metà dell'Ottocento e non ne esce più». Tesi condivisa, ad esempio, da Shalom Lappin, del King's College di Londra, protagonista del «Manifesto di Euston», secondo cui «grandi fette d'una sedicente sinistra fanno causa comune con estremismo, totalitarismo ed antisemitismo». O ancora da chi in Francia, come racconta un'inchiesta di Paolo Rumiz, denuncia il triangolo perverso «fra tre antisemitismi: quello del nazionalismo arabo, quello dell'estrema destra e quello dell'estrema sinistra antimondialista».
Certo, siamo lontani dagli abissi ricostruiti da Riccardo Calimani in «Ebrei e pregiudizio». Dove si racconta, ad esempio, che quando Stalin (che pure favorì la nascita di Israele «prima con aiuti massicci di armi cecoslovacche all'Haganah, l'esercito clandestino ebraico, e poi con il voto all'Onu e il riconoscimento formale del nuovo Stato») scatenò «la sua offensiva con gli oppositori, gli agitatori politici alimentarono l'odio contro Trockij e contro Ztnovev lasciando intendere che non era un caso che entrambi complottassero e fossero ebrei». Alla larga dai paralleli.
C'è però un fastidiosissimo «link» tra gli orrori di ieri e le storture di oggi. Ce lo dice il libro «La confessione» dove Arthur London, un ebreo cecoslovacco, comunista, precipitato nell'incubo dei processi staliniani, ricorda il suo interrogatorio: «Il giudice istruttore mi domanda bruscamente di precisare per ognuno dei nomi che verranno citati nell'interrogatorio se si tratti o meno di un ebreo; ma ogni volta nella sua trascrizione sostituisce la designazione di ebreo con quella di sionista: "Facciamo parte dell'apparato di sicurezza d'una democrazia popolare. La parola giudeo è un'ingiuria. Perciò scriviamo sionista"». Assurdo, si ribella London. Il giudice fa spallucce: «Del resto anche in Urss, l'uso della parola giudeo è proibita». Basta sostituirla e, oplà, ecco l'antisemitismo politicamente corretto. Fatta la tara all'immensa diversità della situazione, è proprio così diverso, oggi, il gioco di un pezzo, minoritario, di sinistra?
Piero Fassino, qualche anno fa, rispose così: «Rappresentare Israele come uno Stato militarista, aggressore o, come qualcuno dice, fascista, è una sciocchezza, come lo è non riconoscere che Israele è una società democratica. Identificare la politica della destra israeliana con Israele tout court è un'operazione che non viene fatta con nessun Paese al mondo». Era, allora, il segretario dei Ds e riconosceva che «ci sono settori della sinistra che hanno parole d'ordine fondate su un pregiudizio ideologico e manicheo verso Israele, che spesso "coprono" il resto» e disse di riconoscersi nella tesi di Adriano Sofri. Il quale, denunciando i ritardi e le ambiguità di «tanta sinistra», aveva tagliato corto: «Non possiamo confidare nell'Europa e tanto meno amarla se non amiamo lo Stato di Israele (in nessun altro caso userei un'espressione come «amare uno Stato») e il suo popolo misto, coraggioso e spaventato. Il suo popolo, non soltanto le minoranze ammirevoli, i pacifisti che fraternizzano con gli arabi di Israele e di Palestina, i riservisti renitenti, le donne che difendono la vita e un'altra idea di coraggio, gli intellettuali che onorano la verità e non la sottomettono a una nazione».
C'è chi dirà: ma li avete visti, oggi, i bambini di Gaza? Immagini che fermano il respiro. Ma proprio per questo, a chi come l'ex deputato rifondarolo Francesco Caruso disse (in momenti diversi) che era «meglio essere uno di Hamas all'italiana, che un Mastella alla palestinese», vale la pena di ricordare quanto spiegò anni fa Giorgio Napolitano. Riconoscendo che «prima che nel Pci, a partire dagli anni 80, si affermasse una posizione politica coerente, se c'era antisemitismo si presentava nelle vesti di antisionismo». Ricordò, il futuro capo dello Stato, che «si protrasse a lungo l'equivoco di una contrapposizione al sionismo: come se questo costituisse un'ideologia reazionaria che nulla aveva a che vedere con la storia del popolo ebraico, e come se fosse l'incarnazione di un disegno di oppressione nei confronti dei palestinesi, un disegno di potenza dello Stato d'Israele». Ecco, possibile che quell'«equivoco» possa protrarsi ancora?
Gian Antonio Stella
18 gennaio 2009
lunedì 19 gennaio 2009
venerdì 16 gennaio 2009
Lettera aperta di A.B. Yehoshua
An open letter to Gideon Levy
By A.B. Yehoshua
Tags: Gideon Levy, Gaza, Hamas
Dear Gideon,
You remember that in recent years I called you occasionally to praise you for your articles and your writing about the wrongs done to the Palestinians in the administered territories, whether by the army or by the settlers. Physical wrongs, land expropriations, acts of abuse, perversions of justice and so on. I told you that it is very difficult to read what you write, because it weighs on our conscience, but that the work you are doing and the voice you are sounding are extremely important. I was also concerned about your physical safety, knowing that you risked your life by visiting such hostile places.
I did not ask you why you did not visit Israeli hospitals in order to tell the painful stories of Israeli citizens who were hurt in terrorist attacks. I accepted your position that there are plenty of other journalists doing this and that you had taken on the crucial mission of telling the story of the afflictions of the other side, our enemies today and our neighbors tomorrow. Accordingly, it is from this position of respect that I find it necessary to respond to your recent articles on the war in which we are engaged today, so that you will be able to preserve the moral validity of your distinctive voice for the future. A few years ago, when the Hatuel family - a mother and her four children, of blessed memory - were killed on the way to one of the settlements in Gush Katif, I believed that this terrible death pained you as it did all of us but that like many of us you said in your heart: Why should these Israelis endanger their children by living provocatively, hopelessly, dangerously and immorally in Gush Katif? By what right do 8,000 Jews expropriate a sizable area in the densely overcrowded Gaza Strip in order to build blossoming villages before the eyes of hundreds of thousands of refugees living in such abysmal conditions? You were angry, as I was, at the parents and at those who sent them. And even though I believe that like all of us you felt the pain of the children who were killed, you did not brand the leaders of Hamas "war criminals" as you did the Israeli leaders, and you did not demand the establishment of an international tribunal to try them.
Advertisement
When I asked you after the disengagement from Gaza, Gideon, explain to me why they are firing missiles at us, you replied that they want us to open the crossings. I asked you whether you truly believe that if they fire missiles the crossings will be opened, or the opposite. And whether you truly believe that it is right and just to open crossings into Israel for those who declare openly and sincerely that they want to destroy our country. I did not get an answer from you. And even though the crossings were in fact opened many times, and were closed in the wake of the missile attacks, regrettably I still did not see you standing firmly behind a moral position which says: Now, people of Gaza, after you expelled the Israeli occupation from your land, and justly so, you must hold your fire.
The doleful thought sometimes crosses my mind that it is not the children of Gaza or of Israel that you are pining for, but only for your own private conscience. Because if you are truly concerned about the death of our children and theirs, you would understand the present war - not in order to uproot Hamas from Gaza but to induce its followers to understand, and regrettably in the only way they understand in the meantime, that they must stop the firing unilaterally, stop hoarding missiles for a bitter and hopeless war to destroy Israel, and above all for the sake of their children in the future, so they will not die in another pointless adventure.
After all, now, for the first time in Palestinian history, after the Ottoman, British, Egyptian, Jordanian and Israeli conquests, part of the Palestinians has gained a first and I hope not a last piece of land on which they are to maintain a full and independent government. And if they start building, developing and pursuing social endeavors, even according to Islamic religious law, they will prove to the whole world, and especially to us, that the moment we terminate the occupation they will be ready to live in peace with their surroundings, free to do as they wish, but also responsible for their deeds.
There is something absurd in the comparison you draw about the number of those killed. When you ask how it can be that they killed three of our children and we cause the killing of a hundred and fifty, the inference one can draw is that if they were to kill a hundred of our children (for example, by the Qassam rockets that struck schools and kindergartens in Israel that happened to be empty), we would be justified in also killing a hundred of their children.
In other words, it is not the killing itself that troubles you but the number. On the face of it, one could answer you cynically by saying that when there will be two hundred million Jews in the Middle East it will be permissible to think in moral terms about comparing the number of victims on each side. But that is, of course, a debased argument. After all, you, Gideon, who live among the people, know very well that we are not bent on killing Palestinian children to avenge the killing of our children. All we are trying to do is get their leaders to stop this senseless and wicked aggression, and it is only because of the tragic and deliberate mingling between Hamas fighters and the civilian population that children, too, are unfortunately being killed. The fact is that since the disengagement, Hamas has fired only at civilians. Even in this war, to my astonishment, I see that they are not aiming at the army concentrations along the border but time and again at civilian communities.
Please, preserve the moral authority and concern that you possessed, and your distinctive voice. We will need them again in the future, which promises further ordeals on the road to peace. In the meantime, it would be best for us all - we and the Palestinians and the rest of the world - to follow the simple moral imperative of Kantian philosophy: "Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."
In friendship always,
The writer is an Israeli author. His latest novel, "Friendly Fire," was published in recent months.
By A.B. Yehoshua
Tags: Gideon Levy, Gaza, Hamas
Dear Gideon,
You remember that in recent years I called you occasionally to praise you for your articles and your writing about the wrongs done to the Palestinians in the administered territories, whether by the army or by the settlers. Physical wrongs, land expropriations, acts of abuse, perversions of justice and so on. I told you that it is very difficult to read what you write, because it weighs on our conscience, but that the work you are doing and the voice you are sounding are extremely important. I was also concerned about your physical safety, knowing that you risked your life by visiting such hostile places.
I did not ask you why you did not visit Israeli hospitals in order to tell the painful stories of Israeli citizens who were hurt in terrorist attacks. I accepted your position that there are plenty of other journalists doing this and that you had taken on the crucial mission of telling the story of the afflictions of the other side, our enemies today and our neighbors tomorrow. Accordingly, it is from this position of respect that I find it necessary to respond to your recent articles on the war in which we are engaged today, so that you will be able to preserve the moral validity of your distinctive voice for the future. A few years ago, when the Hatuel family - a mother and her four children, of blessed memory - were killed on the way to one of the settlements in Gush Katif, I believed that this terrible death pained you as it did all of us but that like many of us you said in your heart: Why should these Israelis endanger their children by living provocatively, hopelessly, dangerously and immorally in Gush Katif? By what right do 8,000 Jews expropriate a sizable area in the densely overcrowded Gaza Strip in order to build blossoming villages before the eyes of hundreds of thousands of refugees living in such abysmal conditions? You were angry, as I was, at the parents and at those who sent them. And even though I believe that like all of us you felt the pain of the children who were killed, you did not brand the leaders of Hamas "war criminals" as you did the Israeli leaders, and you did not demand the establishment of an international tribunal to try them.
Advertisement
When I asked you after the disengagement from Gaza, Gideon, explain to me why they are firing missiles at us, you replied that they want us to open the crossings. I asked you whether you truly believe that if they fire missiles the crossings will be opened, or the opposite. And whether you truly believe that it is right and just to open crossings into Israel for those who declare openly and sincerely that they want to destroy our country. I did not get an answer from you. And even though the crossings were in fact opened many times, and were closed in the wake of the missile attacks, regrettably I still did not see you standing firmly behind a moral position which says: Now, people of Gaza, after you expelled the Israeli occupation from your land, and justly so, you must hold your fire.
The doleful thought sometimes crosses my mind that it is not the children of Gaza or of Israel that you are pining for, but only for your own private conscience. Because if you are truly concerned about the death of our children and theirs, you would understand the present war - not in order to uproot Hamas from Gaza but to induce its followers to understand, and regrettably in the only way they understand in the meantime, that they must stop the firing unilaterally, stop hoarding missiles for a bitter and hopeless war to destroy Israel, and above all for the sake of their children in the future, so they will not die in another pointless adventure.
After all, now, for the first time in Palestinian history, after the Ottoman, British, Egyptian, Jordanian and Israeli conquests, part of the Palestinians has gained a first and I hope not a last piece of land on which they are to maintain a full and independent government. And if they start building, developing and pursuing social endeavors, even according to Islamic religious law, they will prove to the whole world, and especially to us, that the moment we terminate the occupation they will be ready to live in peace with their surroundings, free to do as they wish, but also responsible for their deeds.
There is something absurd in the comparison you draw about the number of those killed. When you ask how it can be that they killed three of our children and we cause the killing of a hundred and fifty, the inference one can draw is that if they were to kill a hundred of our children (for example, by the Qassam rockets that struck schools and kindergartens in Israel that happened to be empty), we would be justified in also killing a hundred of their children.
In other words, it is not the killing itself that troubles you but the number. On the face of it, one could answer you cynically by saying that when there will be two hundred million Jews in the Middle East it will be permissible to think in moral terms about comparing the number of victims on each side. But that is, of course, a debased argument. After all, you, Gideon, who live among the people, know very well that we are not bent on killing Palestinian children to avenge the killing of our children. All we are trying to do is get their leaders to stop this senseless and wicked aggression, and it is only because of the tragic and deliberate mingling between Hamas fighters and the civilian population that children, too, are unfortunately being killed. The fact is that since the disengagement, Hamas has fired only at civilians. Even in this war, to my astonishment, I see that they are not aiming at the army concentrations along the border but time and again at civilian communities.
Please, preserve the moral authority and concern that you possessed, and your distinctive voice. We will need them again in the future, which promises further ordeals on the road to peace. In the meantime, it would be best for us all - we and the Palestinians and the rest of the world - to follow the simple moral imperative of Kantian philosophy: "Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."
In friendship always,
The writer is an Israeli author. His latest novel, "Friendly Fire," was published in recent months.
mercoledì 14 gennaio 2009
Satirik
I wake up in the morning and suddenly fall on me TIL
How would you feel if someone throws on you TIL
לא בשביל זה בנינו בית יהודי
The children theysit in M.M.D
We cant go to MAKOLET, we cant go to school
But you don't understand because you live LACHEM BECHUL
How would you feel if in Paris they throw on you TIL
You ask for croissant but instead they throw on you TIL
Our army is הכי מוסרי בעולם
או לפחות בין החמישה המוסריים מכולם
טוב אולי אפשר לסגור
על הכי מוסרי באזור
איך זה נראה מאחורי הקלעים?
בואו לראות תמונות של צמד הראפרים בחזרות
איך זה נראה מאחורי הקלעים?
They throw on us TILIM, we come with METOSIM
But remember who started shooting on EZRACHIM
How do you feel if in London they shoot on EZRACHIM
You want LASHUT in the TEMZA but instead they shoot on EZRACHIM
If you ask why we fight
we say
They started
If you ask why we bomb
we say
They started
If you ask what we want
we say
.....
It's so hard when there is TZEVA ADOM
We have to לארח תושבות מהדרום
They walk naked in the house, they are so MISKENOT
Because גראד פגע להן בחדר ארונות
You support us or we take Benayun from Liverpool
And we tell Noa Tishbi to take back BETIPUL
We take Bar Refaeli, נשאיר את ליאו בלי כלום
Lets see him dating with Um Kultum
How do you feel if Leo was dating Um Kultum
And in "Sports Illustrated" instead of Bar there's Um Kultum
Look on us
Look on them
מי יותר דומה לכם
We have McDonalds
תיכף H&M
אפילו סודוך לא הגיע אליהם
אם לא תהיו בעדינו, לא תהיה ברירה
נזכיר לכם מה פעם באירופה קרה.
(הדי ג'יי: ) "שריפה אחים שריפה"....
נראה לי שהנקודה ברורה
Now you know how it feels if someone throws on you TIL
I hope they know how it feels if someone throws on you TIL
Support us, Hate them!
X-Plain!
מילים: אסף שלמון, אסף גפן, אילן שפלר
לחן: דודוש קלמס, גל תורן
How would you feel if someone throws on you TIL
לא בשביל זה בנינו בית יהודי
The children theysit in M.M.D
We cant go to MAKOLET, we cant go to school
But you don't understand because you live LACHEM BECHUL
How would you feel if in Paris they throw on you TIL
You ask for croissant but instead they throw on you TIL
Our army is הכי מוסרי בעולם
או לפחות בין החמישה המוסריים מכולם
טוב אולי אפשר לסגור
על הכי מוסרי באזור
איך זה נראה מאחורי הקלעים?
בואו לראות תמונות של צמד הראפרים בחזרות
איך זה נראה מאחורי הקלעים?
They throw on us TILIM, we come with METOSIM
But remember who started shooting on EZRACHIM
How do you feel if in London they shoot on EZRACHIM
You want LASHUT in the TEMZA but instead they shoot on EZRACHIM
If you ask why we fight
we say
They started
If you ask why we bomb
we say
They started
If you ask what we want
we say
.....
It's so hard when there is TZEVA ADOM
We have to לארח תושבות מהדרום
They walk naked in the house, they are so MISKENOT
Because גראד פגע להן בחדר ארונות
You support us or we take Benayun from Liverpool
And we tell Noa Tishbi to take back BETIPUL
We take Bar Refaeli, נשאיר את ליאו בלי כלום
Lets see him dating with Um Kultum
How do you feel if Leo was dating Um Kultum
And in "Sports Illustrated" instead of Bar there's Um Kultum
Look on us
Look on them
מי יותר דומה לכם
We have McDonalds
תיכף H&M
אפילו סודוך לא הגיע אליהם
אם לא תהיו בעדינו, לא תהיה ברירה
נזכיר לכם מה פעם באירופה קרה.
(הדי ג'יי: ) "שריפה אחים שריפה"....
נראה לי שהנקודה ברורה
Now you know how it feels if someone throws on you TIL
I hope they know how it feels if someone throws on you TIL
Support us, Hate them!
X-Plain!
מילים: אסף שלמון, אסף גפן, אילן שפלר
לחן: דודוש קלמס, גל תורן
Il libro del mese
La grande manovra a tenaglia. La sfortunata lotta contro l'imperialismo di Nadal Pis'cianz da Montona Claudio Fait
Prezzo di copertina: € 14,00
I contenuti
Istria, settembre 1677. L'ex seminarista e contrabbandiere Nadal Pis'cianz è condannato a cinque anni di remo. Al terzo, la galera sulla quale è imbarcato è abbordata e catturata dai Morlacchi e lui venduto come schiavo in Albania. Diventa musulmano, s'affranca involontariamente dalla servitù, s'arruola nell'esercito turco e al suo seguito attraversa il Montenegro e la Bosnia per partecipare all'invasione dell'impero asburgico. Dicembre 1682. Un minuscolo contingente militare si stacca dall'armata dei sultano Muhamad IV, sbarca in Istria con l'intenzione di raggiungere l'Austria, aggredire alle spalle le truppe imperiali, costringerle a difendersi su due fronti e favorire così l'avanzata ottomana dai confini ungheresi verso Vienna. E a questo punto che s'intrecciano le due storie, perché l'idea della "Grande Manovra a Tenaglia", avuta e sostenuta con ossessiva caparbietà dal promotore della spedizione, ma ostacolata dallo scetticismo dei suoi ufficiali, rischia di rimanere un'astratta ipotesi strategica, finché, ad esaltarne la genialità non interviene un umile fantaccino capitato lì per caso e gratificato di virtù divinatorie...
Iscriviti a:
Post (Atom)
