A Poem - THE SINS OF RIGHTEOUSNESS


By Stanley Walinets
April 29, 2010
Share

Yet another night I cannot sleep.
My brain’s feet drag through the mire
of my Brethren’s devotion to
themselves and their unquestioned righteousness.

“One Jewish life,”
said the firmly established wife of a childhood friend
“Is worth ten Arabs”.
And there, dead casual about the casually dead, our friendship withered.

“Thou shalt not criticise Us nor question
For We are the Lord Our God!”
As proved beyond question, by millennia of Rabbis
pronouncing upon pinheads.

“If you doubt us
Yea! Ye are ANTI-SEMITES!
And if you are one of us and yet you question,
Yea! Ye are SELF-HATERS!
And if ye ask from us proof of our righteousness
then Yea! and YEA!
WE SUFFERED THE HOLOCAUST

Didn’t we?”

So here I lie, sleepless in the night, amazed
that the truly fine brains of my Brethren
shutter themselves against the light

Even as they
in our name
dominate starve imprison massacre those other humans,
Human Others,
out of their land which we have SETTLED
(as authorised by Rabbi God)
and even as these Others hate us for our actions
and even as their hatred of us spreads across the World,
still we KNOW
deep in our Rabbi’d rabid hearts
that WE are RIGHT.

We KNOW these critics’ hatred does not flow
from what WE righteously do

So why do they hate us?

It can only be
because THEY are ANTI-SEMITES

COMMENTS

Jon_i_Cohen

Thu, 04/29/2010 - 11:27

Rate this:

0 points

JH you beat me to it!

So, in Stanleys “Alice in Wonderland” Universe.
-Israel is to relinquish its Nuclear Weapons
-Israel is to disband the IDF
-Israel is to relinquish the territory
-All Jewish residents of Israel are to march in convoy into the Mediterranean
Result
-The lefties of this world will now embrace the Jews, as once again they are now the “under dog”
And
-Everything will be “Rosey” and the Jews in the Diaspora will live happily ever after

Sorry, Stanley, time to wake up
http://www.thejc.com/blogpost/time-for-stanley-and-all-his-lefty-friends...

It’s not going to happen!


mattpryor

Thu, 04/29/2010 - 11:55

Rate this:

0 points

Some harsh reality Stanley.

99% of the criticism I have read about Israel is from people who do not believe that Israel should exist at all.

Such people are Israel's enemies. Call them anti-Semites, anti-Zionists, whatever you like. It doesn't matter. Their opinion is worthless. Israel is at war and the Israeli government is not going to take criticism or advice from people that long for its demise.

If you are a friend of Israel and wish for a secure and peaceful future then I suggest you start thinking about how you can help Israel deal with conflicts and problems in a manner which suits your moral sensibilities, rather than berating them after the fact.


Jonathan Hoffman

Thu, 04/29/2010 - 12:05

Rate this:

0 points

My comment was deleted. It suggested major dislike of this poem.


Jonathan Hoffman

Thu, 04/29/2010 - 14:14

Rate this:

0 points

come on ... why did you delete those poems?

they were much better than the verbal diarrhoea above........


Joshua18

Thu, 04/29/2010 - 14:43

Rate this:

0 points

This is simply a warmed-over version of Caryl Churchill's anti-Semitic play "Seven Jewish Children".

Stanley Walinets is obviously trying to vie with Gilad Atzmon for the title of the most anti-Semitic Jew in Britain.

I just wonder whether the Jewish Chronicle is breaking the law in allowing this blatantly racist piece to remain here. If this isn't stirring up hatred, then I'd like to know what does.


Yvetta

Thu, 04/29/2010 - 14:43

Rate this:

0 points

Stan, my man - Don't give up the day job!


Jonathan Hoffman

Thu, 04/29/2010 - 14:54

Rate this:

0 points

There was a young poet called Stan
Whose verse, it never did scan
Above is his ditty
It really is redolent of the waste product of an animal’s digestive tract expelled through the organ whose name rhymes with Janus but which I cannot name for fear of redaction
Free speech? Or maybe a ban?


Akiva

Thu, 04/29/2010 - 15:00

Rate this:

0 points

Methinks our lefty (troll) friends are trigger happy on the "Flag as offensive" button today.

I couldn't possible imagine that the JC would actually delete comments and allow the above offensive, anti-semitic, anti-torah, anti-JC, odious diatribe from Stan to go untouched.


Jon_i_Cohen

Thu, 04/29/2010 - 16:28

Rate this:

0 points

Much as we would like to think that as this is the "Jewish Chronicle" web site and as such it should reflect genuine "Jewish" opinion - the powers to be at the "Jewish Chronicle take a different view - something along the lines of :-

(and I am quoting), " I don’t edit the JC as a mirror image of the Guardian. We believe in genuine debate at the JC, and so long as posters critical of Israel abide by our rules, they are free to appear on our sites. We are not a propaganda arm of the Israeli government. We are an independent newspaper. That does not mean that we are, in any way, “a forum for (our enemies), the Israel bashers and de legitimisers”, as you put it. Your accusation, as any sensible look at our sites would show, is ludicrous.

Is it really - I beg to differ !!


Lanne

Thu, 04/29/2010 - 17:09

Rate this:

0 points

That does not mean that we are, in any way, “a forum for (our enemies), the Israel bashers and de legitimisers” I agree with that, there are pro Israeli's putting their opinions across so it is not a forum for Israeli bashers. How can the Jewish Chronicle decide correctly what is genuine 'Jewish' opinion when there are so many different beliefs on what is Jewish opinion. The anti Israeli's and other people posting on this website have the chance to be educated on Israel by reading the articles on Israel on this website and that is a good thing.


Akiva

Thu, 04/29/2010 - 17:24

Rate this:

0 points

This has nothing to do with having and sharing different opinions on Israel. The OP may not even be a Jew. Then again he may be. Either which way is entirely unimportant, because there's a fine line between being critical of Israel's policies and being OFFENSIVE about it.

He's entitled to his opinion, but I'd be willing to wager the vast majority of subscribers to the Jewish Chronicle aren't so to read and put up with such virulent, non-sensical, hate-filled, clap-trap directed at the Jewish Nation.


Yvetta

Thu, 04/29/2010 - 18:13

Rate this:

0 points

Jonathan: "It really is redolent of the waste product of an animal’s digestive tract"

Too right! (To use an Aussie phrase).
Yet, on re-reading Stan's gem of the poetic art, I have a sneaking suspicion that he composed it in the wee small hours during not only wakefulness but a combined bout of biliousness and constipation!
(Try Epsom Salts next time, Stan! And, as a guaranteed soporific, read your poem slowly to yourself ten times. It'll work better than Horlicks!)

"My brain’s feet drag through the mire"
Priceless!


Stanley Walinets

Fri, 04/30/2010 - 11:30

Rate this:

0 points

Sadly, most responses to this poem are full of vituperation, as if no-one wants to consider honestly what the poem is about.
For example, is it impossible for my critics to see the relevance of the following extract, in order to realise what it points out about some of our attitudes and how ashamed of them we should be. Please read it:-

“One Jewish life,”
said the firmly established wife of a childhood friend
“Is worth ten Arabs”.
And there, dead casual about the casually dead, our friendship withered.

If you think I’m giving undue emphasis to the unworthy attitude of one person, the attitude it reflects is far from unique. Consider this example:

In 1995, following the assassination by Israeli theology student Yigal Amir of Prime Minister Yizhak Rabin, a religious Jewish settler Baruch Goldstein gunned down 29 Muslim worshippers, in a shrine which Muslims and Jews shared in Hebron. At Goldstein’s funeral, the officiating Rabbi said the fingernail of a Jew was worth a thousand Arabs.

I am merely pointing out in my poem how, if we allow ourselves to believe Israel can do no wrong, we can end up with attitudes we really should be ashamed of. Does anyone disagree that that is a risk we should avoid?


Jonathan Hoffman

Fri, 04/30/2010 - 13:00

Rate this:

0 points

"My brain’s feet drag through the mire"

.. and are still there it seems ...


Stanley Walinets

Fri, 04/30/2010 - 13:11

Rate this:

0 points

Well Jonathan, if your brain is so limited that you can't understand what I've just written -- well, I guess you have my sympathy.
Do you think someone might be able to help you understand written words a bit better?
Best wishes anyway.


Jonathan Hoffman

Fri, 04/30/2010 - 13:23

Rate this:

0 points

I understand it perfectly well. I just think it is an appalingly constructed diatribe of mendacity and piffle.

Just because it is costless to post here and there is no editing does not absolve posters of the obligation not to post drivel.


Joshua18

Fri, 04/30/2010 - 16:19

Rate this:

0 points

I understand exactly what you have written and I believe you to be a thoroughly wicked man. These are the rantings of a Streicher or a Goebbels and not a decent human being.


Joshua18

Fri, 04/30/2010 - 16:31

Rate this:

0 points

By the way, has anyone else noticed the many similiarities between the writing styles and ideologies of moshetzarfati2 and Stanley Walinets?


Jon_i_Cohen

Fri, 04/30/2010 - 17:10

Rate this:

0 points

Yvetta could be right, so my ode:-

There was an old geezer called Stan
Who liked to come out to play
He liked to think he was an author, did Stan
But really, a troll had got in ‘im
The troll was making a din
Even though, he had nothing to say.


Yvetta

Fri, 04/30/2010 - 18:48

Rate this:

0 points

Joshua18: "has anyone else noticed the many similiarities between the writing styles and ideologies of moshetzarfati2 and Stanley Walinets?"

In a word, Aye.


Stanley Walinets

Sat, 05/01/2010 - 18:41

Rate this:

0 points

My fellow Jews, how deeply sad are all these responses.
Can you not realise that the only possible interpretation of what you are saying is that you really do believe that the life of one Jew is worth the lives of ten Arabs?
That you really do think that the fingernail of a Jew is worth a thousand Arabs?
Can you honestly face yourselves and swear to God that you are decent, upright people?
Call me names if you will. But please try to look at yourselves.


Stanley Walinets

Thu, 05/06/2010 - 12:23

Rate this:

0 points

1 May, 2010 - 18:41
"My fellow Jews, how deeply sad are all these responses."

I note there's been no response to my last message above. I'm comforted, in a way.
I take your silence to mean that you've now looked at yourselves, and have realised the nastiness of the attitudes you've held about other people -- human beings like yourselves. You now see you're not really proud of thinking that way. Good for you.


Tamar10

Thu, 05/06/2010 - 13:20

Rate this:

0 points

Stan, it says it all that the people who have responded to you all attack you personally and make mean-spirited comments rather than engage with what you are actually saying. Unfortunately the JC blog pages tend to be dominated by such people who are apparently incapable of discussing anything without trying to villify people who hold different opinions. Why is that?


jose (not verified)

Thu, 05/06/2010 - 14:43

Rate this:

0 points

The main argument in this 'poem' is to say that "each and every critic" (of Jews, Israel, you, me) "is an anti-Semite'.

Is it a personal attack to say that this is one of the main defence of anti-Semites ? Saying "some of those who criticize Jews, Israel, are anti-Semites" is not the same as saying "all those who criticize Jews, Israel, are anti-Semites"... Some are just obviously plain idiots, people who don't know their facts, people who expect more from Jews than from non-Jews, etc.

Frankly, with statements like this, how do you expect people to respond ? If you had mentioned specific criticism, you could have stirred less negative comment and more productive discussion. And it is not an anti-Semite who wrote those lines.


andrew_tolg

Thu, 05/06/2010 - 15:01

Rate this:

0 points

Op-Ed from "The Washington Post" (16 January 2009)

The Hamas "dead baby" strategy - to cause as many civilian casualties as possible by firing its deadly rockets from schools and densely populated areas - is producing understandable outrage around the world. What is not understandable is why the outrage is directed against Israel, which is a victim of this strategy, rather than against Hamas, which is its perpetrator. Hamas knew exactly what it was doing when it fired more than 6,000 rockets at Israeli kindergartens, elementary schools and playgrounds from behind its own children. It was playing Russian roulette with the lives of Israeli children in order to provoke a defensive response from Israel.

Hamas knew that Israel, like any democracy, would have to take whatever military action was necessary to stop the rockets. As Barack Obama put it when he visited Sderot, a town that had been victimized by more than 1,000 rockets and several deaths: "If somebody was sending rockets into my house where my two daughters sleep at night, I'm going to do everything in my power to stop that. And I would expect Israelis to do the same thing." Hamas also knew that Israel could not stop the rockets aimed at its children without accidentally killing some Palestinian children because Hamas was using Palestinian children as human shields for its rockets. Despite its best efforts to avoid killing civilians - Israel gains nothing from such "collateral damage" and loses much-Israeli missiles have killed dozens of innocent children who were deliberately placed in harm's way by Hamas terrorists.

Hamas also knew that the media would show the dead Palestinian children around the world and cause outrage to be directed against Israel for causing their deaths. Indeed, it had its camera crews out and ready to film and transmit every gruesome image of every dead Palestinian child. Well not quite every Palestinian child! When a Hamas rocket aimed at Israeli children misfired and killed two Palestinian children, Hamas censored all images of these dead Palestinian children, because they were killed directly by Hamas rockets rather than indirectly by Hamas using them as human shields. That is the way Hamas manipulates the media coverage of its gruesome "dead baby" strategy.

The media, of course, serves as Hamas' facilitator. I am not suggesting that the media not show these horrible images, but rather that they should present them with a critical perspective, indicating the actual cause and the real culprit - namely Hamas and its cynical double war crime strategy of targeting Israeli children and hiding behind Palestinian children. A cartoon that is making its way around the internet does a better job of explaining the Hamas strategy than any photograph or video. It shows an Israeli soldier and a Hamas terrorist shooting at each other. The Israeli soldier is standing in front of a baby carriage, protecting the baby. The Hamas terrorist is firing from behind a baby carriage, using the baby as a shield. That is the reality.

The international community - most especially the United Nations, which has done nothing about genocides committed by Muslims - is accusing Israel of "war crimes" for defending its civilians against Hamas war crimes. This too is part of the Hamas strategy which the United Nations facilitates.

If the media and the international community continue to play into the dirty hands of Hamas terrorists, its terrorism will continue and spread. Why not? It's a win-win strategy for terrorists and a lose-lose strategy for democracies. Hamas knows that by attacking Israeli civilians, they can secure one of two results: Israel will do nothing and Hamas will succeed in killing Israeli children; or Israel will respond and inevitably kill some Palestinian children, thereby provoking the ire of the media, the international community and ultimately decent people all around the world who are revolted by the cynically manipulated images of dead children.

The Hamas strategy may now be spreading to Lebanon where twice in several days, rockets have targeted Israeli civilian areas. Hezbollah, which denies responsibility for these rockets, actually originated this strategy in the summer of 2006, when it provoked Israel into trying to defend its citizens and its kidnapped soldiers. Other nations in the world are susceptible to similar strategies, as the United States learned, when it went after the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and discovered that they too use civilians as human shields.

Unless this "dead baby" strategy is exposed and rejected in the marketplace of morality, it's coming to a theater (or school or hospital) near you.

Alan M. Dershowitz is a professor of law at Harvard.


Stanley Walinets

Tue, 05/11/2010 - 12:06

Rate this:

0 points

When in doubt, ask Dershowitz. He'll tell us all we need to know to help us feel we're in the right, while protecting us from any facts that might make us feel uncomfortable.

Interesting, for example, that his January Washington Post article would have been written during the height of Israel's bombardment of Gaza -- when Israel's border posts refused to admit foreign media (though later relented to allow reliably sympathetic US reporters in). Had the world's media been admitted, we might have seen even sooner the use of that illegal white phosphorous which the IDF, and Prof Dershowitz, would prefer us not to think about.

But to Mr Dershowitz's main theme, that the whole 'Operation Cast Lead' was unavoidable, simply Israel's response to Hamas's "more than 6,000 rockets at Israeli kindergartens, elementary schools and playgrounds...". He helps us overlook the fact that Hamas and Israel had actually agreed a truce, several months before Cast Lead. Hamas kept that truce. But late in 2008 Israel broke it, by provocatively sending agents into Gaza to kill seven Palestinians, claiming they were terrorists.

Inevitably, Hamas then fired rockets again. Whereupon Israel used that manufactured excuse to launch its huge bombardment. Since then, Israel - like Mr Dershowitz - avoids any mention of the truce that Hamas had observed, but simply continues to 'justify' itself by citing Hamas' previous rocket history, which Hamas doesn't deny. (It's interesting, by the way, to recall that 'Cast Lead' was ordered by Israel's then Government at the height of the nation's General Election. An outrageous suggestion, I thought, till I remembered how the Falklands boosted Margaret Thatcher's popularity...)

Incidentally Sderot, the desperate victim of most of Hamas' primitive short-range rockets, was originally a small Palestinian town, before Israeli forces - at that time they were called 'terrorists' - ejected its population.

The entire background to all this terrible suffering, on both sides, comes from the fact that the Palestinian people have been, and are still being, ejected from land they have lived in for centuries. If you or I were so treated, wouldn't we resist? And if our rights and needs continued to be ignored, wouldn't the more extreme among us react, with whatever rockets etc we could muster?


Jonathan Hoffman

Tue, 05/11/2010 - 12:54

Rate this:

0 points

"illegal white phosphorous"

It isn't illegal.

And that basic error sets the tone for the rest of your post.


Stanley Walinets

Wed, 05/12/2010 - 11:33

Rate this:

0 points

"Jonathan Hoffman 11 May, 2010 - 12:54
"illegal white phosphorous"

It isn't illegal.
And that basic error sets the tone for the rest of your post."
______________________

It is legal and it isn't, Mr Hoffman. Here's the legal position, from a contemporary Times report of one white phosphorous incident:

"International law prohibits the use of white phosphorus in heavily populated civilian areas, but allows it in open areas to be used as cover for troops."

In this incident, Israeli forces were bombarding the UN compound south of Gaza City. The reports were at first denied by the IDF, but it admitted later that the munitions had been used to provide smoke and tracer illumination during the incursion.

The UN’s headquarters were directly between the two forces. More than 700 Palestinian civilians were taking refuge inside. The artillery attack by 155mm cannon set light to a warehouse storing millions of dollars’ worth of aid and tonnes of food and supplies.

"Legal". Consider now, Mr Hoffman, the definition above. Would you describe this area where the chemical was used as an 'open area' (where it would have been legal), or a 'heavily populated civilian area', (where it wouldn't)?

Please re-consider now, the rest of my post -- of which this aspect was anyway only a small part?


Jonathan Hoffman

Wed, 05/12/2010 - 12:11

Rate this:

0 points

Stanley Walinets

Fri, 05/14/2010 - 10:37

Rate this:

0 points

"The IDF's use of WP was perfectly legal." Jonathan Hoffman, May 12th.

"International law prohibits the use of white phosphorus in heavily populated civilian areas, but allows it in open areas to be used as cover for troops."

"In this incident, Israeli forces were bombarding the UN compound south of Gaza City."

Well Mr Hoffman, I can only say your interpretation of what constitutes an "open area", shows you have a rich imagination.

POST A COMMENT

You must be logged in to post a comment.