ospam (Jerome Bibuld) wrote in
message ...
ROTFLMAO! So, in the hypocritical words of "Isidor Gunsberg", " ... Cubans,
Iranians, (North?) Koreans competitors were barred for political reasons,
because of the difficult relations that the US has with the respective
governments ... " while "Jewish players were barred from entry into
Libya because of sheer bigotry."

I get an unhappy kick out of these Europeans (including the United Statesians)
who choose to deny history; that is, that, for centuries, while European
states and populations were persecuting Jews, the ONLY safe haven for them
was in Spain and other Muslim lands. In fact, until the Europeans invented
Zionism -- in order to justify invasion of the East of the Arab World --
Jews and Muslims lived quite (meaning "fully") comfortably with each other
in all of North Africa and the East of the Arab World. Like many other
European racist myths, the "historical" antipathy between Jews and Arabs
is a lie. ...

Dear Mr Bibuld,

I am writing here only to address some points of history, *not*
to comment in particular on the FIDE event in Libya.

Here's an interview (10 May 2002) by Elliott Colla with Avi Shlaim,
an eminent Israeli historian at Oxford University:

http://www.merip.org/mer/mer223/223_...interview.html

Elliott Colla: "Is there a pattern in Israeli society for what gets
remembered and what gets forgotten?"

Avi Shalim: "In a sense, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is, on the
psychological level, a contest over who is the victim. The Israelis would
never concede to the Palestinians the status of victims, this they insist
on keeping for themselves. One example of this is the case of the 1948
(Palestinian) refugees, which Benny Morris demonstrated was the result of
Israeli pressure and outright expulsions. And yet no Israeli leader would
ever accept the moral responsibility, let alone the political responsibility,
for creating the refugee problem. They wouldn't even accept a share of the
moral responsibility for this problem. Ehud Barak at Camp David wasn't ask
to accept the right of return for the refugees. He was asked to accept that
Israel bear merely a part of the moral responsibility for this problem, which
would then be tackled by the international community. And he refused.

Israelis have a certain collective memory, which is reflected in the old
history of this conflict: Israel is in the right, Israel is pure, the Arabs
are wrong. That's what the old history says, the version that is still
taught in Israeli schools about the history of this conflict. ..."

Elliott Colla: "Is this collective memory selective?"

Avi Shlaim: "What's been called 'the lachrymose version of Jewish history'
is an Ashkenazi (European Jewish) version of Jewish and Israeli history which
is *not supported by the experience of Jews in Arab countries until 1948*.
We come from Iraq. For my parents, Iraq was the Garden of Eden. They were
very nostalgic about it. *There weren't any real problems between Jews and
Arabs until the state of Israel was established.* So the broad experience
of Jews under Arab rule does *not* support what has been called 'the lachrymose
version of Jewish history'. In a sense, Arab Jews are asked to forget their
past in order to conform with the commemoration of an Ashkenazi past, because
the political, military, economic, and above all the cultural elite in Israel
has always been and still is an Ashkenazi elite. Radical, dissenting
non-European discourse is marginal. There are a few minority voices, but
they don't effect the climate of opinion in Israel. The history which is
taught at school is an Ashkenazi history."
....
Elliott Colla: "There is talk of a boycott of Israeli intellectuals and
academic institutions. What do you think of this? Ilan Pappe has sounded
off in favor of it."

(My note: Ilan Pappe is a historian at Haifa University in Israel.)

Avi Shlaim: "I'm for a boycott of Israeli goods and against a boycott of
Israeli academics. Israel does 40 percent of its trade with the EU and
very little of its trade with the US, so EU economic sanctions would be
effective and I'm in favor of them, as well as an arms embargo. Britain
to its credit has implemented an embargo on arms sales because Israel has
violated the rule it purchased British military equipment.

A cultural and an academic boycott is an entirely different proposition:
that wouldn't hurt the (Israel's) government. On the contrary, it would play
into the hands of the government, because the government would say: 'You see,
there is anti-Semitism, there is hostility toward us as a people. We are
all in the same boat, so you should rally behind the flag.'
....
But the real problem is America's relationship to Israel, which is so partial
and so biased. America gives overwhelming support to Israel, to the tune of
billions of dollars a year....This introduces a fatal contradiction into
America's position in the peace process. On one hand, America sets itself
up as the honest broker, and on the other, it's completely beholden to one
side (Israel) in this dispute. So it can't be an honest broker."

--Avi Shlaim (10 May 2002, 'Middle East Report 223')

--Nick