Archive for June, 2014

Neturei Karta

Neturei Karta (NK) are orthodox Jews opposed to the establishment and existence of the so-called “State of Israel”.

Founded in Jerusalem in 1938 after a split from Agudas Yisroel, Neturei-Karta is Aramaic for “Guardians of the City”. Agudas Yisroel were “…lured by money and…sold out to the Golden-Calf of Zionism…” according to NK.

The name, Neturei Karta, was given to the Orthodox Jews in Jerusalem who refused, and still refuse, to recognize the existence or authority of the so-called “State of Israel” and continue to publicly demonstrate their position of “unadulterated Judaism”.

So it is not true to say that all Jews, even all orthodox Jews, support the state of Israel. Furthermore, according to NK spokesperson, Rabbi Weiss, NK maintain the so called state of Israel is not in keeping with Judaism and Judaism runs contrary to the idea of Zionism that created the so-called state of Israel.

He goes on further to say that it is not just NK who oppose the state of Israel but it is “…Judaism that is totally contradictory to the idea of Zionism…”

Rabbi Weiss believes “Judaism is a religion subservient to God” and that “…Zionism is trying to transform this concept into a base material concept of nationalism…”. He makes it very clear that “…this is not what Judaism is in its essence…”

Judaism is a religion that dates back millennia while Zionism is a mere 100 years or so old, considered to have been fathered by Theodor Herzl in 1897.

Rabbi Weiss believes the state of Israel could not have been brought into being without the backing of Jews and non-Jews around the world. He believes when they created the concept of nationalism they wanted to “…estrange themselves from God entirely…”

He feels that Zionism has “corrupted the idea of Judaism” to justify the establishment of Israel. He goes further and claims “…Theodore Hertzel and Ben Gurion, all these guys were non religious…”. These are the so-called fathers of Zionism.

These men hijacked Jewish identity for the purposes of establishing the state and were not even clear about where that state should be having considered establishing the state of Israel in Patagonia and Uganda, according to the Rabbi. They simply hijacked Jewish identity to make the foundation of a state, any state, an acceptable idea.

From a theological perspective, Rabbi Weiss believes the Jewish people are forbidden from creating a home and cannot create a home until God instructs them to do so, which has yet to happen. Furthermore, the crime of founding a Jewish state in Palestine is compounded by the fact that it was a land already inhabited and inhabited by their friends.

Zionism claims that the foundation of the state of Israel is God’s will. Despite this religious stance, most religious Jewish communities around the world do not fly Israeli flags as they do not accept Zionism.

Indeed Chief Rabbi Yosef tzvi Dushinsky, in Jerusalem, in a declaration to the United Nations in 1947 expressed his opposition to the establishment of a Jewish state “…in any part of Palestine…”.



Gerry Carroll, of the PBPA, claims to be a socialist. I have no reason to doubt this. What I do doubt, or rather what I question is, his assertion that there is scope for the PBPA to ‘attract’ the middle class vote. I would like to know exactly what he means by ‘attract’?

Let’s leave that definition aside for the time being and deal with whether or not the middle class would vote for someone like the PBPA. As a protest vote, maybe yes. The middle class can be ‘attracted’. However, if we want politics and party politics to mean anything, groups like the PBPA cannot ‘attract’ the vote of the middle class, nor any other grouping, and should not. If such groups start to ‘attract’ the middle class vote then they are no longer the middle class and groups like the PBPA are no longer what they claim to stand for. Part of being middle class means accepting the status quo and the favouring of vested interests groups over, and to the exploitation of, non-corporate human beings. This can be either voluntarily or involuntarily.

The middle class need to be made aware of what it is to be middle class, whether they see themselves as middle class and then, based on their vision for themselves and the planet, are they happy with this definition of their status?

Not until a real conversation like this is begun and held should any sort of ‘attraction’ be even considered. It smacks of career politics. And that most certainly IS middle class. Is this what he means?

The question I would then pose to Mr. Carroll is, how he believes and what he and his colleagues are doing to ‘attract’ this middle class? And does this mean they will eventually engage in the usual malarky, that political parties engage in, of doing exactly the same thing as those you oppose? Are we delaying the inevitable here? Is the old wine in new bottles phenomenon never ending?

Additionally questions about Darren Pio O’Reilly’s comment (after the victory cavalcade through the city with tricolours fluttering out of their cars including a particularly loud version as they passed Derry police station) that he would have been happier to have had “red flags” flying but certain realities make political life that bit more “complicated” – need to be posed.

What does he mean by “…certain realities make political life that bit more “complicated”…”. Does he mean he’ll fly under any flag, banner or whatsoever as long as it gets him elected?

These are the times to ask these questions. It’s a bit late posing them when these guys become TDs, MLAs or something even more sinister.