Gaarder clarifies view on Israel, Jews
When I posted my unauthorized translation to English of Jostein Gaarder’s essay ‘God’s chosen people’, I had no idea of the amount of international attention it would attract. Had I known that it would be quoted in Haaretz and, in a crossposted incarnation at Booman Tribune, quoted and linked to by Time Magazine’s blog and linked to by Der Spiegel, I would certainly have spent more time on it, though it still strikes me as mostly accurate.
Yet my surprise at the brouhaha pales to insignificance compared to the author’s shock at the firestorm his piece set off, especially in Norway but also abroad. The debate has been raging for a week among intellectuals, writers, politicians, and thousands of Joes and Janes writing LTEs or duking it out online: Is the essay foul and dangerous anti-Semitism, or simply a brave calling out of a country in the process of committing moral suicide before our eyes?
Despite my intention not to post more on this subject, I guess I owe it to Jostein Gaarder to also translate his follow-up op-ed, wherein he answers his critics. As I thought, he does not advocate the abolition of Israel as such, but cautions that “Israel’s intransigent policies with respect to its neighbors may in the long term pose a threat to Israel itself.”
As before, the translation is unofficial and neither solicited nor reviewed by Jostein Gaarder.
I evidently have been misunderstood by many due to the literary technique I used when writing the op-ed about “God’s chosen people,” and I therefore find it necessary to return to the Aftenposten op-ed space with an attempt to clarify.
We need discussion
The genre proved demanding, and I regret if I have hurt anyone — though I intended and still intend to be harsh in my critique of the state of Israel. However, we need the discussion and exchange of views of public conversation. I mean by this fair discussions and exchanges of view — not inarticulate abuse.
The dream of dialogue
I give thanks for all rational criticism — and naturally, for all declarations of support. I also noticed a wise and sober commentary piece by the chair of The Mosaic Religious Community, Anne Sender. We have disagreed fervently in this matter, but I share with her the “dream of dialogue.”
In my Aftenposten op-ed on Saturday August 5 I wrote among other things: “We recognize and pay heed to Europe’s deep responsibility for the plight of the Jews, for the disgraceful harassment, the pogroms, and the Holocaust. It was historically and morally necessary for Jews to get their own home.” It is on this background and from this fundamental premise — to wit, the recognition of the state of Israel — that I sharply criticize the state of Israel’s policy of war.
What ‘recognize’ means
The op-ed begins with this rhetorical touch: “It is time to learn a new lesson: We do no longer recognize the state of Israel….” It has no doubt spawned much confusion that I have here deliberately played on several meanings of the word ‘recognize’. I refer at one point to the international legal recognition of a state, but I also use the word in the sense of being recognized for a practice, win recognition, enjoy recognition, etc. Or as in my op-ed: “We do not recognize the rhetoric of the state of Israel. We do not recognize the spiral of retribution of the blood vengeance… etc.” And towards the end: “We do not recognize the state of Israel. Not today, not as of this writing, not in the hour of grief and wrath.” (italics added) The op-ed was written on the same day that the pictures from Qana reached us.
1948 versus 1967
Regarding matters of international law, I specify, as I have also tried to emphasize in all interviews: “We recognize the state of Israel of 1948, but not the one of 1967. It is the state of Israel that fails to recognize, respect, or defer to the internationally lawful Israeli state of 1948.”
I thus do not dispute the state of Israel’s right to exist within the borders of 1948, but the border extension of 1967 by means of military force violates international law. In this I have both the UN and the majority of world opinion with me.
No god-given mandate
Many have expressed a view that I conflate religion and politics. I tried to do the exact opposite. When I have entitled the op-ed “God’s chosen people,” it is in order to emphasize that we must never accept that any party to a conflict can claim a god-given mandate.
Here it is primarily what we may call “Christian Zionist” notions I have had in mind, i.e. notions that God still has a plan for the Jews, and that what is going on in the Middle East today is an omen of the Acopalypse, the Second Coming, etc.
Back to Israel
One instance of what I warned against is the fresh statements from a representative of the Pentecostal movement’s work in Israel. He points out that the Second Coming and salvation for the believers are tied to Jews being able to return to Israel. By Israel he means “From the wilderness, and this Lebanon, even to the great river, the river Euphrates, all the land of the Hittites, and to the great sea toward the going down of the sun” (Joshua 1,4).
According to a recent edition of a newspaper he says: “How can we trust God if He does not fulfill these promises? This is of the essence for many Evangelical Christians, among them 70 million in the USA.” He continues: “Neither Judea nor Samaria have been part of the Arab realm. Why does one persist in using the concept ‘occupied land’?” Corresponding conceptions are also represented among Orthodox Jews, especially some settlers in the occupied areas.
Richer in humanism
I do not believe that Jewish thought and practice have been any less humanistic than what is found in Christian or Muslim history. Maybe quite the contrary; I think a comparative study might have to conclude that the culture and practices of Jews have by and large been richer in humanism and freer from religious fanaticism than what the Christian cultural area has to show for itself (with its crusades, conquistadors, inquisitions, persecutions of Jews, and the Holocaust, etc.).
Different interpretations
But that was not the point. Only in regard to the very notion of “the Kingdom of God” do I believe that Jesu’ preaching and what I take to be Christianity have had a more humanistic interpretation than the late-Jewish, and now Christian Zionist, notion of a political restoration of the Kingdom of David as a “Kingdom of God” for the people of Israel. I am here referring to different interpretations of the religious message — be they Christian or Jewish — and to the problems we all encounter when extreme interpretations are put into life.
A symbol of intransigence
“May spirit and word sweep away the apartheid walls of Israel,” I write. Thus I hope that diplomacy and intellectual force will suffice to convince Israel that the illegal wall on occupied land must be torn down, not least because it will otherwise remain as a monumental symbol of intransigence. The wall does not only cause daily irritation and harm to the Palestinian people, but may in a somewhat longer term be a greater danger to Israel than the country will appreciate.
In other words, I fear Israel’s intransigent policies with respect to its neighbors may in the long term pose a threat to Israel itself.
Violence against civilan population
I naturally do not advocate that any citizens of Israel should ever have to leave their country. I do not even consider it a possibility. When I evoke an image of Israeli civilians fleeing the ‘occupied areas’ (such as Jerusalem and the West Bank), I realize that this may elicit strong emotions.
Yet the message is crystal clear: Whatever the background and context — whatever religious or eschatological conceptions we might have — we never can tolerate violence against a civilian population.
Triggering anti-Semitism
And finally: It can be outright irresponsible to prematurely accuse a debater of anti-Semitism — simply because it may serve to legitimize and trigger anti-Semitism. (If he or she is an anti-Semite, hey, maybe it ain’t so bad….) When one of the provincial councils in Norway decided to boycott Israeli goods, this was in certain Jewish circles said to be “in the spirit of the Nazis,” and they concluded that “this is unquestionably an expression of anti-Semitism.”
Well, such characterizations are in my view not only highly irrational. In the long term they can prove fatal. For how are we then going to describe Nazism and anti-Semitism?
Missiles and bombs
I hope I have cleared up some misunderstandings with this entry. Meanwhile the missiles and bombs are raining; civilians are dying; roads, water supply, and healthcare are being set back decades. We all owe the victims of war a cry of distress.
Let us now concentrate on the matter of substance.
The seventh nation of Canaan, Hivites, is as far north as the Litani River. Read the reasons behind the Israeli war at http://www.teenacne.co.uk
Comment by lazars — August 12, 2006 @ 4:55 am
Gaarden is a good novelist who - similar to many other excellent artistic souls - is a political ignoramus and a formidable anti-diplomat. For a European to say that Israel has abused the purpose of its creation and should no longer be recognised, dressing it in words of the bible is MUCH WORSE than if a Swede would say that “Norway was created in order for the Norwegians to take care of their own business, which they have massively abused by instead making themselves into the judges of others business, and we should therefore no longer recognize the existance of Norway” and dressing it in some crude Swedish Norway-jokes to illustrate the stupidity of the Norwegian people, as an explanation to why they have negated the existance of their own country. The best thing Gaarden can do right now is to say that he is sorry (in so many words) and take a time-out.
Comment by Swede — August 12, 2006 @ 6:33 am
Thanks for your contribution to a discussion on the horror of war in the Middle East. May an open debate lead to protests of the so-called pre-emptive strikes, in name of our children, so they won’t have to take up arms against the enemy. The loss of innocent lives and the destruction of Lebanon is in stark contrast to the capture of two IDF soldiers.
Juan Cole - At 9:11 PM, Sirocco said…
Joseph Campbell Foundation Forum with an interesting analysis and comment.
At first glance I didn’t notice the intro pointing out Gaarder was writing in the style of Amos, an eight-century B.C. prophet and the eponymous author of a book in the Hebrew scriptures …
Comment by Oui — August 12, 2006 @ 12:16 pm
hey Sirocco, I am apparently much much stupider than I thought…after reading about the contrempts caused by your original diary/translation(which I recommended) I had to go back and reread it to see if I must have missed the whole intent of the article. I thought the author was neither pro/con Israel except now in this instance of the terrible destruction of Lebanon yet in no way was saying that Israel should be destroyed…so reading it over again I still am apparently missing all the hidden or not so hidden meanings in his essay….which means I guess that I’m anti-semitic and just don’t know it(for anyone reading that that’s supposed to be sarcasm)
Comment by chocolate ink — August 12, 2006 @ 6:16 pm
Poor guy, Gaarder, the authorities must have gotten to him and made him retract his original story to a great extent. He was right the first time.
Comment by american — August 13, 2006 @ 12:34 am
a political opinion of a collective identity (based on religion, nation, sex etc) should be open to criticism as part of open political expression and can not be judged as anti-religion/nation. the real problem is mixing religion and politics - zionist, islamists, christian fundamentalist
Comment by raheem — August 13, 2006 @ 1:49 am
Thank you for these translations, which are excellent!
(I read the first translation side by side with the original and found little to quibble with.
So I didn’t bother with this one.)
He aims a bit over the heads of many of us,
the good Mr. Gaarder,
thus triggering automatic reactions
which call thunder and lightning down onto his own head.
May poor Lebanon soon know peace.
Comment by norskamerikansk bergenser — August 13, 2006 @ 2:00 am
Gaarder does not speak for all Norwegians.
Comment by osb — August 13, 2006 @ 2:20 am
I am a little confused as to what has caused the blow-up over Mr Gaarder’s article. He is simply speaking what is true and what most of the world except the US chooses to acknowledge. It is shameful that the defenders of Israel chooses to paint him as an anti-semite instead of dealing with the main points that he is making — chiefly that Israel is illegally occupying Arab lands, brutally maintaining said occupation thus making itself as well as it’s US ally a ’stench in the nostril’ of its neighbours and ensuring continuing hostility and no security. By failing to recognize these truths these so-called defenders are the ones looking through rose colored glasses and will continue to be a hinderance to any possible solution.
As a follower of the Jewish Rabbi that Gaardner mentioned I totally agree with his assessment of the destructive and inhumane behavior of the current state of Israel which has NO biblical mandate at all. The more I learn about the occupation and see the brutality of its current policy in Lebanon, I am at a loss to understand why Evangelicals can be so hard-hearted to blatantly ignore the suffering of the Lebanese civilians and Palestinians and support Israel in its destructive work. By doing this they show that they have no connection at all to the one who gave his life living out his own words: ‘But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you and persecute you’ (Matt 5:44). Even if the current state of Israel had some end time significance (which it does not)these words from the Sermon on the Mount still applies.
Comment by dj — August 13, 2006 @ 4:13 am
As much as I thank you for your first article, for finally considering Arabs as part of the world, and shouldn’t be turned into refugees, or target their civilians and childern like that, but I can’t really help it but being negatively commenting on your article at the same time, even the first one, and not this one as well
Based on what, your sense of guilt as Europeans towars the Jews for what you have done to them, give you the right to promise them a home land, on our lands, and on our dead bodies, and forced migrations.
You said, you still support the 1948 land theft, as if you are their Yahweh who has the right to relocate people, or squeeze them in small areas to favour some illegal migrants and give them the land of the owners, may be this will make you feel better about your crimes against the illegal migrants, don’t you think that in a number of years, you will feel guilty as well towards the new victims you created by this decision
Why didn’t you promise them Norway, or Germany, England may be, or California or LA, why us, you still some how think of us as cheaper blood, but your conscience find it hard to make us that cheap to be targeted even in refugee camps, and on the escape road after bombing our houses,
You think that your (as Europeans or Americans or anybody else) recognition of Israel 1948 is enough, shouldn’t it be our decision that matters, or your conscience didn’t wake up that much to give equal credits to Arabs as yourself, they still the lower degree humans, who shouldn’t participate in the decisions taken concerning them and what they own, or you are satisfied with feeling bad about the massacres, and willing to give us some shelter, but not yet our land and full humanity
Comment by An Arab Human — August 13, 2006 @ 11:32 am
To attack Mr Gaarder with the anti-semitic canard is just a major distraction from the original point of his essay.
That being that the State of Israel should abide by international law. Currently, Israel has disregarded 60-odd
UN resolutions, and so is in contravention of the law.
To use anti-semitism or the extermination of their fathers and grandfathers in this way is deeply disrespectful of their memories. Furthermore, this tactic does not in any way free them from their international legal obligations.
It’s just a crass cover for their continuing intransigence in following the law. This is evident to any reasonable person regardless of their race or religious affiliation: these are the plain facts of the matter.
Comment by bugsy — August 14, 2006 @ 7:27 am
I find that I agree with Gaarder’s article. The first article was fine in my view and only spoke the truth. I am so tired of the label “anti-semite” given to any person who criticizes the State of Israel’s policies and war machine. It is as if in order to not be an anti-semite, one must agree with and support every action every undertaken by Israel or Israelis. How absurd!
Here in America, there is a similar circumstance, in that, if a white person discusses the African American community in less than glowing terms, merely speaking the truth such as “African American culture doesn’t emphasize education as number one goal” one will be called a racist. One will be called a racist, even though statistics bear out the statement. It is obvious when what is considered is parent partcipation in school, children’s stated important goals etc. Yet pointing this out will be termed racist. If an African American points this out, they will be termed an Uncle Tom, a pawn of the white community. Isn’t this the same as the “self hating Jew” label given to those Jews who criticize Israel.
I also agree wholeheartedly with Gaarder’s statements that we can no longer take seriously or tolerate ANY society’s claim to be “God’s Chosen People”. What arrogance! That belief system is a set up for never ending conflict with one’s neighbors. The “God mandate” must end! It absolutely IS out of the Middle Ages and in this modern age must be scrutinized vigorously.
Where did this “chosen people” notion originate? From the mind of some Bronze age desert tribal prophet. He claimed that God spoke to him and the others believed him. THAT is the case. Would anyone in this modern day base political policy on such claims? What would happen if someone were to go to the Media and say “God has told me that such and such Real Estate belongs to me and my family/tribe/people, God speaks to me and tells me……” Would that person be taken seriously? Most likely that person would be recommended medication, not land reform!
I support Gaarder’s arguments, they are sane and cogent. Unlike the current US and Israeli “arguments” for the occupation of Palestine, for the bombardment of Lebanon and for any other Zionist claim.
Comment by Azyuwish — August 14, 2006 @ 1:12 pm
Garrder is right about politics shouldn’t be directed by fundamentalist theses.
Comment by Herbstwind — August 15, 2006 @ 12:57 am
couldn’t stomach his assertion of israels legitimate founding
SOME EARLY EXAMPLES OF JEWISH-ZIONIST TERROR.
August 20, 1937 - June 29, 1939. During this period, the Zionists carried out a series of attacks against Arab buses, resulting in the death of 24 persons and wounding 25 others.
November 25, 1940. S.S.Patria was blown up by Jewish terrorists in Haifa harbour, killing 268 illegal Jewish immigrants (see below).
November 6, 1944. Zionist terrorists of the Stern Gang assassinated the British Minister Resident in the Middle East, Lord Moyne, in Cairo.
July 22, 1946. Zionist terrorists blew up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, which housed the central offices of the civilian administration of the government of Palestine, killing or injuring more than 200 persons. The Irgun officially claimed responsibility for the incident, but subsequent evidence indicated that both the Haganah and the Jewish Agency were involved.
October 1, 1946. The British Embassy in Rome was badly damaged by bomb explosions, for which Irgun claimed responsibility.
June 1947. Letters sent to British Cabinet Ministers were found to contain bombs.
September 3, 1947. A postal bomb addressed to the British War Office exploded in the post office sorting room in London, injuring 2 persons. It was attributed to Irgun or Stern Gangs. (The Sunday Times, Sept. 24, 1972, p.8)
December 11, 1947. Six Arabs were killed and 30 wounded when bombs were thrown from Jewish trucks at Arab buses in Haifa; 12 Arabs were killed and others injured in an attack by armed Zionists on an Arab coastal village near Haifa.
December 13,1947. Zionist terrorists, believed to be members of Irgun Zvai Leumi, killed 18 Arabs and wounded nearly 60 in Jerusalem, Jaffa and Lydda areas. In Jerusalem, bombs were thrown in an Arab market-place near the Damascus Gate; in Jaffa, bombs were thrown into an Arab cafe; in the Arab village of Al Abbasya, near Lydda, 12 Arabs were killed in an attack with mortars and automatic weapons.
December 19, 1947. Haganah terrorists attacked an Arab village near Safad, blowing up two houses, in the ruins of which were found the bodies of 10 Arabs, including 5 children. Haganah admitted responsibility for the attack.
December 29, 1947. Two British constables and 11 Arabs were killed and 32 Arabs injured, at the Damascus Gate in Jerusalem when Irgun members threw a bomb from a taxi.
December 30,1947. A mixed force of the Zionist Palmach and the “Carmel Brigade” attacked the village of Balad al Sheikh, killing more than 60 Arabs.
1947 — 1948. Over 700,000 Palestinian Arabs were uprooted from their homes and land, and forced to live in refugee camps on Israel’s borders. They have been denied the right to return to their homes. They have been refused compensation for their homes, orchards, farms and other property stolen from them by the Israeli government. After their expulsion, the “Israeli Forces” totally obliterated (usually by bulldozing) 385 Arab villages and towns, out of a total of 475. Commonly, Israeli villages were built on the remaining rubble.
January 1, 1948. Haganah terrorists attacked a village on the slopes of Mount Carmel; 17 Arabs were killed and 33 wounded.
January 4, 1948. Haganah terrorists wearing British Army uniforms penetrated into the center of Jaffa and blew up the Serai (the old Turkish Government House) which was used as a headquarters of the Arab National Committee, killing more than 40 persons and wounding 98 others.
January 5, 1948. The Arab-owned Semiramis Hotel in Jerusalem was blown up, killing 20 persons, among them Viscount de Tapia, the Spanish Consul. Haganah admitted responsibility for this crime.
January 7, 1948. Seventeen Arabs were killed by a bomb at the Jaffa Gate in Jerusalem, 3 of them while trying to escape. Further casualties, including the murder of a British officer near Hebron, were reported from different parts of the country.
January 16, 1948. Zionists blew up three Arab buildings. In the first, 8 children between the ages of 18 months and 12 years, died.
December 13, 1947 — February 10, 1948. Seven incidents of bomb-tossing at innocent Arab civilians in cafes and markets, killing 138 and wounding 271 others, During this period, there were 9 attacks on Arab buses. Zionists mined passenger trains on at least 4 occasions, killing 93 persons and wounding 161 others.
February 15, 1948. Haganah terrorists attacked an Arab village near Safad, blew up several houses, killing 11 Arabs, including 4 children..
March 3, 1948. Heavy damage was done to the Arab-owned Salam building in Haifa (a 7 story block of apartments and shops) by Zionists who drove an army lorry ( truck) up to the building and escaped before the detonation of 400 Ib. of explosives; casualties numbered 11 Arabs and 3 Armenians killed and 23 injured. The Stern Gang claimed responsibility for the incident.
March 22, 1948. A housing block in Iraq Street in Haifa was blown up killing 17 and injuring 100 others. Four members of the Stern Gang drove two truck-loads of explosives into the street and abandoned the vehicles before the explosion.
March 31, 1948. The Cairo-Haifa Express was mined, for the second time in a month, by an electronically-detonated land mine near Benyamina, killing 40 persons and wounding 60 others.
April 9, 1948. A combined force of Irgun Zvai Leumi and the Stern Gang, supported by the Palmach forces, captured the Arab village of Deir Yassin and killed more than 200 unarmed civilians, including countless women and children. Older men and young women were captured and paraded in chains in the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem; 20 of the hostages were then shot in the quarry of Gevaat Shaul.
April 16, 1948. Zionists attacked the former British army camp at Tel Litvinsky, killing 90 Arabs there.
April 19, 1948. Fourteen Arabs were killed in a house in Tiberias, which was blown up by Zionist terrorists.
May 3, 1948. A book bomb addressed to a British Army officer, who had been stationed in Palestine exploded, killing his brother, Rex Farran.
May11, 1948. A letter bomb addressed to Sir Evelyn Barker, former Commanding Officer in Palestine, was detected in the nick of time by his wife.
April 25, 1948 — May 13, 1948. Wholesale looting of Jaffa was carried out following armed attacks by Irgun and Haganah terrorists. They stripped and carried away everything they could, destroying what they could not take with them
Comment by jason — August 15, 2006 @ 6:33 pm
The myth of Israel
The last month has once again unwrapped an old and wellknown myth. However, this is a myth, which is certainly not a lie. I will gladly try to repeat it, just to see if the world opinion is ready to tip over, even if it has to take another 2000 years. The myth, that you are not allowed as a westener to aim any kind of criticism at the state of Israel™ and all of it´s related brands, IDF™, Gods Chosen People™ and the Old Testament™. I could easily fill in with a few other trademarks, but hopefully it should not be necessary. They are all to be heavily defended by a huge army of unconscious guiltfeeling autopilots, who are willing to take whatever it takes to derail any necessary debate regarding Israels role on the world scene. And the debate is necessary. Not only have we seen Mel Gibson and the norwegian author Joostein Gaarder get public spank galore during these weeks, but many of us non-celebrities have reached a puke point too.
Let us fearlessly take the fight on words and opinions, and leave the weapons behind, but it will take some people, who dare to talk up against Israel and their trademarks, without beeing afraid of the first accuse to come……..the ever repeated mantra and autoanswer: ANTISEMITIST!
Why is it so, that every time you take that right to aim criticism towards Israel, this is the autoanswer?. Without beeing an antisemitist at all, I want to defend my right simply because I cannot accept, that Israel pursued a goal, while they were killing civilians at a ratio of 10:1 for every holy warrior they laid to the ground, and that Lebanon was nothing more than a suitable battleground for a goal, that is much much wider than just a military answer to the capture of 2 soldiers by the Hezbollahmilitia, which started this completely unproportionate retaliation following this huge number of civil losses in Lebanon, besides the overwhelming devastations, we have seen to Lebanons infrastructure.
This is not a respectable behaviour. Respect is not just a thing you can call upon yourself. Respect is something you have to work hard to acheive. The israelis are no better than the extremist they are figthing. And fanatism doesn´t deserve respect in any way in a modern world.
This, however, is not written in sympathy for the holy warriors of Hezbollah. No way. If I can do anything at all, I can try to talk to a state, Israel, as a supposedly respectable partner of the world society of today, however she is not on my list anymore, but I still aknowledge her right to exist, and therefor it is everso important, that we can discuss the relevance of Israels behaviour to neighbours and other patners in the world.
My concern is solely circling about the fact, that Israel has done nothing more than heavily fueled and feeded their own enemy, the iranian backed Hezbollahmilitia for the last month with new ambitions, and without any scrubles at all caught Lebanon and its citizen in a completey unnecessary war. Leaving it at all up the rest of the world to clean up and calm down the middle east.
If you can agree to these 3 bullets, whereas the first seen to be fulfilled, at least for the time beeing, you might be interested in participate in my danish petition, at http://www.stopisraelnow.underskrifter.dk/
Israel has to stop the attacks immediately
Israel will be held responsible for the cost of it´s retaliation against Lebanon
Israel will be held responsible for crimes of war, according to international laws in the field
Comment by Kim Hansen — August 17, 2006 @ 7:21 am
If I were the CEO of Al Jazeera or Al Manar Tv channels, I would sue Jostein Gaarder and the Aftenposten newspaper because of this unfair competition… What a festival, what a glut of antismetism…I’m angry to say that most of the journalists like the jews when they are dead. It’s much better to support and protect the Hezbollah, the Islamic Republic of Iran or Syria for most of the european journalists. One more writer, journalist…whatever, one more on the list… It’s even more disturbing to notice the comparison between zionism and islamism that many of them can do, but, they do not really worry, because islamism is only the resistance against Occidental countries, Christian and Jewish religions, and so many other parts of our culture. And they also use these pamphlets such as: “they are poor, and jews are rich, so, they are wrong…” Enough for today, antisemitism drives me sick.
Comment by Prometheus — August 26, 2006 @ 1:50 am
These comments have been invaluable to me as is this whole site. I thank you for your comment.
Comment by Rosie — April 30, 2007 @ 2:27 pm