Uit elk onderzoek naar het ‘nieuwe antisemitisme’ komt naar voren dat de huidige wrok jegens joden direct samenhangt met de wrede onderdrukking van de Palestijnen door Israel. De enige verstandige, om niet te zeggen moreel juiste conclusie die je daar mijns inziens uit moet trekken, is dat Israel een eind dient te maken aan de bezetting,
aldus de joods-Amerikaanse intellectueel Norman Finkelstein in zijn boek De drogreden van het antisemitisme. Israel, de VS en het misbruik van de geschiedenis. 2005. Naderhand voegde hij tijdens een toespraak hieraan toe:
In de praktijk van alledag is de Holocaust het belangrijkste ideologische wapen geworden voor het zaaien van haat en het kweken van bellicose sentimenten, en misdadige oorlogsvoering, en dit is een buitengewoon verwerpelijke en cynische ontwikkeling.
Hier tegenover beweert Ian Buruma dat kritiek op Israel en de VS — het imperium dat de zionistische terreur blind steunt — in de geur van ‘anti-Semitisme’ staat, aangezien kritiek de indruk vestigt dat ‘de VS’ en ‘Israel’ de ‘kwaadaardigste en gevaarlijkste machten in de wereld’ zijn, en deze opvatting verdacht veel lijkt op de opvatting van nazi’s en fascisten dat ‘[a]an Joods en Amerikaans materialisme de westerse beschaving ten onder [zou] gaan,’ zo liet mijn oude vriend mij weten. Hij voegde hieraan toe:
Ik neem niet aan dat je dit standpunt deelt. Jouw ideeën komen eerder uit een wat ouderwetse Amerikaanse hoek, Chomsky, Zinn et al. die door een oudere generatie serieus werden genomen.
Met andere woorden, kritiek op grootschalige Amerikaanse en Israelische oorlogsmisdaden tegen een burgerbevolking moet worden gezien als een aanval op ‘de westerse beschaving,’ of beschouwd dient te worden als een allegaartje van ‘ouderwetse ideeën’ die door ‘een oudere generatie serieus werden genomen.’ Aan dit oordeel ligt Buruma’s mening ten grondslag dat de VS ‘a force of good’ is en dat Israel als satelliet-staat daarom onmogelijk een schurkenstaat kan zijn. Aan deze opvatting ontbreekt één belangrijk element, namelijk logica. Ik zal proberen te demonstreren hoe gevaarlijk dit gebrek is.
In zijn alom geprezen boek The Fatal Embrace. Jews and the State (1993), schrijft de joods-Amerikaanse hoogleraar politieke wetenschappen aan de Johns Hopkins Universiteit Benjamin Ginsberg:
Despite the severe disabilities to which religious minorities were typically subject, Jews played a remarkable role in the building of a number of absolutist regimes in both Christian Europe and the Muslim Middle East. Rulers were most likely to turn to Jews when they sought to expand their domains at the expense of foreign princes or centralize their power over the opposition of domestic magnates. The Jews who served absolutist regimes secured riches and power for themselves and protection for their communities.
In Europe this pattern was especially notable in Christian Spain from the eleventh through the fifteenth centuries. Medieval Spain consisted of a number of independent kingdoms containing large numbers of Muslims as well as more than 300,000 Jews in a total population of about 5 million. Throughout Spain, Jews were active in the crafts, trade, scholarship, and in the learned professions, especially medicine. Jews were so prominent in the economies of the Spanish kingdoms that their tax payments were major factors in royal treasuries, sometimes accounting for half of all royal revenues…
During the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, Jews came to play a major role in the fiscal affairs and administration of the Ottoman empire. After the expulsion of the Jews from Spain in 1492, the Ottomans accepted thousands of refugees because they valued the financial, administrative, and manufacturing skills that the Jews brought with them. Sultan Bayazid II is reported to have remarked that King Ferdinand was foolish to have expelled such talented subjects. Jews were particularly useful to the Ottomans because they lacked ties to any of the subject populations of the multi-ethnic empire and, thus, could be entrusted with unpopular tasks such as tax collection.
Jews dominated the imperial revenue system, serving as tax collectors, tax farmers, tax intendants, and tax inspectors. Jews also created and operated the imperial customs service. Indeed, so complete was Jewish control over this segment of the Ottoman state that Ottoman customs receipts were typically written in Hebrew. Jews also accompanied provincial governors or ‘pashas,’ as financial advisors and fiscal administrators. In the latter days of the empire, when provincial governorships became hereditary or quasi-independent, local Jewish financiers continued in this capacity. For example, the Farhi family of Damascus directed the financial affairs of Syria from the eighteenth century through the termination of Ottoman rule after World War I.
A number of Jews also became important advisors to the Ottoman court. The most famous was Joseph Nasi, who was the principle counselor to two sultans and was ennobled as the duke of Naxos. Nasi used his influence to secure the sultan’s support for the re-establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine, then under Ottoman rule. With the sultan’s help, a Jewish settlement was created in Safed, in the upper Galilee, that became a center for rabbinic study. Unfortunately, not all of Nasi’s advice was sound. It was his plan that helped to bring about the Turkish naval defeat in the battle of Lepanto in 1571, and, as a result, his influence at court declined.
Het leven van Joseph Nasi is exemplarisch voor de rol die rijke Joden eeuwenlang speelden in de christelijke en islamitische wereld. Enige achtergrondinformatie:
Don Josef Nasi (Portugal, 1524 – Istanboel, 1579) was een Joodse diplomaat en bankier, lid van het huis Mendes en een invloedrijk persoon aan het Ottomaanse hof van sultan Süleyman I en diens zoon Selim II, maar ook binnen geheel Europa door zijn uitgebreide netwerk.
Als joodse hoveling werd hij aangesteld als heer van Tiberias met als doel het opnieuw vestigen van Joden in Palestina en het bevorderen van de plaatselijke economie. De poging faalde en later werd hij aangesteld als hertog van Naxos. Nasi voerde oorlog met Venetië en veroverde Cyprus voor de Ottomanen. Na de dood van Selim verloor hij zijn invloed aan het Ottomaanse hof, maar hij mocht zijn titels en pensioen houden. Zijn belang voor de Nederlanden lag in zijn steun aan Willem van Oranje in de opstand tegen Spanje, de gezamenlijke vijand van de latere Republiek en het Ottomaanse Rijk…
Nasi werd geboren als marrano (letterlijk varken in het Spaans, gebruikt voor Sefardische Joden die officieel tot het christendom bekeerd waren) en was een vriend van keizer Maximiliaan II, neef en later ook schoonzoon van keizer Karel V (in Spanje koning Karel I). Zijn vader overleed al vroeg en hij groeide op bij zijn tante Doña Gracia Mendes Nasi — ook bekend onder haar christelijke naam Beatrice de Luna Miques — één van de rijkste vrouwen van Europa.
Na de dood van haar man Semah Bemvisto — ook bekend als Francisco Mendes — in 1536 en onder druk van de in dat jaar ingestelde Portugese Inquisitie verhuisden ze naar Antwerpen in de Habsburgse Nederlanden, waar haar zwager Diogo Mendes (Meir Benviste) zich al gevestigd had. De familie leefde in grote welstand en had onder andere landvoogdes Maria van Hongarije als schuldenaar. Nasi studeerde aan de universiteit van Leuven. Diogo overleed in 1542, waarna Gracia zijn kapitaal erfde. Zij deed zaken met de groten van Europa en hielp ondertussen de marrano's te ontkomen aan de Inquisitie. In 1544 ontvluchtten de dames van de familie Antwerpen omdat Francisco d'Aragon, een gunsteling van keizer Karel, naar de hand dong van Brianda (Reyna), de dochter van Gracia. Nadat hij het familiekapitaal had weten weg te sluizen, volgde Nasi hen naar Venetië.
Door hun opportunistische instelling wisten de toenmalige rijke joden in de ‘diaspora’ zich snel aan te passen aan de eisen van de absolutistische staat, of die nu christelijk dan wel islamitisch was. Daardoor verwierven zij aanzienlijke invloed op de loop van de geschiedenis van het christelijke Europa en het islamitische Nabije Oosten, zoals ondermeer blijkt uit de belangrijke rol die Joseph Nasi speelde bij de strijd tussen de twee machtsblokken. Zo is bekend dat de ‘Slag bij Lepanto op 7 oktober 1571’ als inzet had:
de beheersing van het oostelijke Middellandse Zeegebied. Het was een van de grootste zeeslagen uit de wereldgeschiedenis en ook de laatste grote zeeslag waar gebruik werd gemaakt van galeischepen….
De Slag bij Lepanto markeerde een scheidingslijn in de strijd tussen het christendom en de islam. Aan de christelijke zijde werd oorlog een seculiere zaak. In het verleden had de paus, hoewel vergeefs, een decreet uitgevaardigd dat de kruisboog niet gebruikt mocht worden in onderlinge conflicten tussen christenen, maar inmiddels was al het oorlogstuig geoorloofd. Zo werden de nieuwe grote galjassen bewapend met kanonnen direct ingezet bij de zeeslag.
Aan de islamitische zijde kon echter iedere innovatie aanleiding zijn tot discussie of zelfs verzet. Het eervol vechten diende te gebeuren met de wapens zoals bekend uit de mondelinge overleveringen zoals de hadith. In de koran komen volgende oorlogstuigen nochtans niet voor: het zwaard, de speer, de lans en de pijl-en-boog. Een goede moslimsoldaat, zo was de opvatting, sprong in een bres of op een vijandelijk schip zonder bepantsering en gebruikte slechts de kracht van zijn armen. Moslims waren, zo luidt de legende, van mening dat het beter was op de juiste manier te vechten en een slag te verliezen dan oneervol te strijden.
Door de geschiedenis heen bleven Joden in de zogeheten diaspora allereerst en vooral loyaal aan de eigen tribale belangen en niet aan die van de bevolking van de landen waarin zij leefden. De macht maakte van de joden gebruik om zo de eigen bevolking te onderdrukken en uit te buiten, met als onvermijdelijk gevolg dat de weerzin en zelfs haat tegen joden voortdurend werden gevoed. Vooral ook omdat Joden zich buitenstaanders bleven voelen en zich ook als zodanig opstelden. Door te geloven 'God’s uitverkoren volk' te zijn, keken zij op de goyim neer, en kenden de zogeheten ‘hofjoden’ weinig tot geen scrupules bij het behartigen van de belangen van vorsten voor wie zij werkten, en vanzelfsprekend ook voor hun eigen belangen. Over die ‘shtadlonus’ oftewel ‘hofjoden’ is onder andere het volgende geschreven:
COURT JEWS (Court contractors and suppliers). Medieval princes used the commercial and financial services of individual Jews. However, as an institution, the Court Jew is a feature of the absolutist state, especially in Central Europe, from the end of the 16th century onward. Trying as far as possible to extend his power over the whole of his territory, the ruler set up a centralized administration as part of his court, which at the same time became the power center, presenting a lavish display of luxury. Economically, a Jew could be of great service to such a ruler. In Poland many landed estates were administered by Jews and a large part of the trade in agricultural products was in their hands. This, combined with the emergence of early Jewish capitalist commercial activity by Sephardim in the Netherlands, with their connections with Levantine trade through Jews in the Ottoman Empire, made the Jew in Central Europe particularly suited to be an agent for provisioning armies with grain, timber, and cattle, as well as a supplier of diamonds and other goods for conspicuous (opzichtige. svh) consumption. As tax-collecting and enlargement of the scope of taxation often lagged considerably behind the growing expenditure of court, army, and bureaucracy, this type of regime developed an almost chronic financial deficit. Here the Jews with their organizational skill and their far-reaching connections could help, through the frequent supply of commercial credit or ready cash, as also through the supply of foodstuffs, cloth, and weapons for the army, the most important instrument of the prince's power. The institution of the Court Jew did not emerge suddenly but developed gradually during the 16th and 17th centuries. Early Court Jews like Michel Jud and the mintmaster Lippold were exceptions.
Another phase is represented by Jews who were entrepreneurs of the mints during the ‘Kipperzeit’ (a period of economic instability at the beginning of the Thirty Years' War, 1618–48, characterized by galloping inflation). The best known of this period, Jacob Bassevi von Treuenberg of Prague (1570–1634), was the outstanding minting entrepreneur. Several Jews in the Hamburg region maintained close contacts with the courts of the neighborhood, such as Samuel Herscheider with the court of the archbishop of Bremen, Nathan Spanier with the count of Bueckeburg, and Alvaro Dinis with King Christian iv of Denmark. In the Thirty Years' War Jews were employed as army provisioners and spies by both the Swedish and imperial forces. It was only during the second half of the 17th century, with the further evolution of the mercantilist policy and baroque culture of the absolute state, that the Court Jew became a kind of requisite of the princes' court, a member of the group of officials through whom the state or territory was governed. Court Jews were then found in most of the principalities of the Holy Roman Empire, and in some of the adjoining states, such as Poland and Denmark. In some places they lived near the court, and in others the court made use of their services in one of the great commercial centers like Frankfurt or Hamburg. They were given a great variety of titles: Hofjude, Hoffaktor, Hofprovediteur, Hoflieferant, Hofagent, Kabinettfactor, Proviantlieferant, Kommerzienrat, Kommerziendirektor, and the higher appellations of Oberhoffaktor, Obermilizfaktor, or Generalprovediteur; many had titles from several princes. Their rights were similarly various; the chief privileges included a limited official standing, sometimes combined with a salary, direct access to the prince, exemption from the jurisdiction of the rabbinical courts (and submission to the jurisdiction of the royal court – Hofgericht), and freedom to travel and settle anywhere in the empire. Their highly varied activities included finance, commerce, and diplomacy, but they were responsible especially for providing the prince and his court with merchandise and money, supplying metal for the mint, provisioning the army, undertaking commercial and diplomatic missions, and investigating proposals for the promotion of trade and industry, for example, tobacco.
Samson Wertheimer, bekend als de 'Joodse keizer'
https://www.haaretz.com/jewish/1724-court-jew-to-austrian-king-dies-1.5383437
Industrious and often restless, the Court Jews showed a strong drive toward success, both in business and social status, with the allied urge ‘to assimilate as completely as possible to his environment in speech, dress, and manners’ (S. Stern, Court Jew (1950). A decidedly dynastic attitude led them to prefer marriages with the families of other Court Jews and to attempt to secure their positions for their descendants, both contributing factors to the tendency of their families to form a particular group within Jewry. The personal relationship between the prince and the Court Jew was based not only on common interests but also on the isolation in which both lived: the prince in his omnipotence and inaccessibility and the Court Jew because of his descent and religion. Thanks to his privileged position, the Court Jew was often able to act as shtadlan for the Jewish groups; frequently, he was the head of the community and could procure the right to establish new settlements and prepare the way for emancipation. On the other hand, his often adventurous and risky career, necessarily involved with the court intrigues, could end abruptly on the death of the prince, with the gravest consequences for the Court Jew's property, and even life.
Protestant and Catholic princes alike opened their courts to Jews. Among the earliest were Frederick William, elector of Brandenburg from 1540, and Christoph Bernhard von Galen, who was elected prince-bishop of Muenster in 1650. The latter, partly influenced by tolerant motives, was at the same time eager to include the Jews in his mercantilist-expansionist policy: in the 1650s he employed the services of the Gomperz family on the lower Rhine; Nini Levi was made Judenbefehlshaber in 1651, and later Abraham Isaac became Court Jew. In the bishopric of Minden Behrend Levi gained access to the court. From 1655 Israel Aaron was an army factor in Prussia; he was permitted to live in Berlin in 1663 and two years later became a salaried servant of the court. His widow Esther Schulhoff married Jost Liebmann, who then succeeded to Israel Aaron's position and supplied the court with jewels. At the same time Simon Model, whose brother-in-law Bonaventura Sachs was influential at the court of Saxony, was Court Jew to the margrave of Ansbach, and Leffmann Behrends served the court of Hanover; the latter's contribution was instrumental in the elevation of Hanover to an electorate, and he also made substantial loans to the Hapsburgs and other dynasties. Other Court Jews were his cousin Behrend Lehmann at Halberstadt, who also gave financial assistance to Elector Frederick Augustus ii of Saxony, and Aaron Beer at Frankfurt. Behrend Lehmann and his cousin both helped Frederick Augustus of Saxony to gain the throne of Poland, where he also employed Jewish factors. Samuel Oppenheimer and Samson Wertheimer made their careers at the imperial court in Vienna, where later they were followed by members of the Arnstein, Eskeles, and Pereira families. Emperor Charles VI favored employing Jews in his court; Prince Eugene of Savoy, commander of the Austrian army, depended heavily on Jewish army purveyors. During these decisive years, when Austria rose to the status of a great power through her wars with the Turks, Jewish loans probably accounted for one-third of the annual revenue. The Karlskirche in Vienna was financed by Jewish loans, as was Schoenbrunn Palace built by Maria Theresa. Five generations of the Gomperz family served at the Hohenzollern courts; later, members of the Ephraim, Isaak, and Itzig families were mint masters. Also influential were Marx Assur, who received the title of Hoffaktor in Saxony and Sweden, and Behrend Lehmann's brother-in-law Jonas Meyer, who took up residence in Dresden, where Lehmann's son Lehmann Behrend also lived. The Saxon court probably used the services of the largest number of Jews; around 1707 it had connections with about 20 Jewish jewelers. At the court of Brunswick the David family, especially Alexander David, became firmly established.
As in the south, the greater number of Court Jews came from Frankfurt, so in the north, Hamburg (with Altona and Wandsbek) became a similar center. Various members of both the Sephardi and Ashkenazi communities were in the service of the Danish court, beginning with Alvaro Dinis (Samuel Jachia) at Glueckstadt; later, members of the de Lima and de Casseres families served as factors and financial or diplomatic agents. Gabriel Gomez (Samuel de Casseres) was made Generalfaktor und Hofprovisor by Christian iv, retaining his position on the succession of Frederick iii and later being appointed Finanzkommissarius as well. Diego Teixeira de Sampaio (Abraham Senior) and his son Manuel (Isaac Ḥayyim) served Queen Christiana of Sweden as financial agents and resident ministers. In the service of the crown of Portugal abroad, notwithstanding their religious status, similar positions were held by Duarte Nuñes da Costa (Jacob Curiel), his son Manuel, and his brother Jeronimo (the latter of Amsterdam), while Manuel Bocarro (Jacob Rosales) was in the service of Spain, and Daniel and Joshua Abensur in that of Poland. However, they were employed in diplomatic or consular, rather than financial, functions. From 1683 Jacob Mussafia, a mint master, was Court Jew of Duke Christian Albert of Schleswig-Holstein-Gottorp and later of Duke Frederick iv and his prime minister Wedderkop; he was followed by his son Joseph, who was involved in a famous law suit following the fall of Wedderkop. Other outstanding families of Court Jews in Hamburg were the Fuersts and the Goldschmidts: Samuel Fuerst served Bernhard and Johann Asolf, dukes of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg; Jeremiah Fuerst became Court Jew of Duke Christian Louis of Mecklenburg in 1679 and of Sachsen-Lauenburg; Israel Fuerst served the court of Holstein-Gottorp. Bendix Goldschmidt and the Hindrichsen family were financial associates of the Fuersts; remaining in Hamburg, Goldschmidt became an agent of Goertz and later served the Danish court as a Kammeragent, while the Hinrichsen family took up residence in Mecklenburg-Schwerin. Ruben Hinrichsen became the salaried Hofagent of Duke Leopold II; Moses Josephs (Moses Wessely) of Glueckstadt was in the service of Peter I of Russia, and at the same time had dealings with the Danish court. All the petty German courts had their Court Jews: there was Moses Benjamin Wulff, Saul Samuel, and Moses Heyman at Weissenfels; Berend Wulff and Assur Marx at Sachsen-Merseburg and Sachsen-Zeitz; Samson von Baiersdorf at Bayreuth; the Van Geldern family at Duesseldorf; Simon Baruch at Kurkoeln; and the Heine family at Bueckeburg. Noah Samuel Isaac of Sulzbach, who helped finance the marriage of the Wittelsbach prince-elector Charles Albert to Princess Maria Amalia of Austria in 1722, was at the same time a banker of the elector of Cologne and of the Teutonic Order.
Joseph Suess Oppenheimer, court factor of Duke Charles Alexander of Wuerttemberg, had dealings with many other rulers, including the elector of Cologne, the landgraf of Hesse, and the elector of the Palatinate, but it was in Württemberg where his financial influence reached its peak. At the same time, he saw possibilities of political action which would transform the duchy into a modern absolutist state based on mercantilist principles. He failed, however, and was executed in 1738. By then the zenith of the Court Jew had already passed. Although Jews served the German courts as mint entrepreneurs well into the first half of the 19th century, in general, the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars, which gave rise to wide-ranging changes in patterns of finance, commerce, and international trade, put an end to the epoch of the Court Jews.
In all their varied activities, the Court Jews played a remarkable part in the development of international credit facilities especially in the Central European states and to some degree in northern Europe also, from the mid-17th to late-18th centuries. Generally, they were agents who arranged transfers of credit rather than possessors of vast capital in their own right; through their far-reaching commercial relationships and their organizing skill, they were able to provide funds more swiftly than most Christian bankers. Because of their specialization in the money business, they were able to furnish the silver for the mints more easily and could better act as army purveyors, once more because of their ability to organize and their network of family relationships. With their entrepreneurial spirit, they contributed in part to the process of industrialization within the frame of mercantilist policies. There is no doubt that they were instrumental in the growth of the modern absolute state, and at the end of the era there emerged a group of several important Jewish private bankers (see Banking and Bankers) who exemplify the transition to modern methods of economy and government, primarily the Rothschilds, the Goldschmidts, the Oppenheimers, and the Seligmanns.
Hoewel ‘it should not be forgotten that the courts had their Christian bankers, entrepreneurs, and army agents, too, who also played a part in this development,’ blijft het hoge percentage Joden die hierbij betrokken was, opvallend, vooral ook omdat Joden getalsmatig een zeer kleine minderheid vormden. Ginsberg:
In the less heavily urbanized and commercialized European periphery, the savings of Jewish merchants and traders represented one of the few sources of liquid capital. Jewish financiers could mobilize this capital and provide monarchs with loans to underwrite war making and state building. Thus, in Central Europe, so called Court Jews served as administrators, financiers, and military provisioners (leveranciers van militaire benodigdheden. svh) The Habsburg emperors of Austria relied upon Jews for these purposes from the late sixteenth century and, in return, provided Jews with protection from riots and pogroms. For example, when a mob attacked Frankfurt's Jewish quarter in 1614, Emperor Matthias moved forcefully against rioters and hanged their leaders.
Interessant is de informatie die Haaretz verstrekte over de zogeheten ‘Fettmilch Uprising’ in Frankfurt in 1614. Volgens deze Israelische kwaliteitskrant was de opstand gericht tegen ‘the town leaders, for milking (uitbuiten. svh) the people — in collusion with the Jews, they thought.’ De opstandelingen dachten niet voor niets dat Joden samenwerkten met de repressieve macht, zoals blijkt uit de Europese geschiedenis waarbij, zoals onder andere professor Ginsberg in zijn boek aantoont, ‘Joden’ collaboreerden met de ‘macht,’ vaak ten koste van de gewone bevolking. Het financieren van oorlogen, (massale bloedbaden), maakte de Joden vanzelfsprekend gehaat, vooral ook omdat die door door de goyim moesten worden uitgevochten. Zo was de Dertigjarige Oorlog:
one of the bloodiest events in European history — deadlier than the Black Death and World War II, in terms of the proportion of the population lost. Fought between 1618 and 1648, the conflict started out as a struggle between Catholics and Protestants within the Holy Roman Empire. The brutal clashes touched much of central Europe, but most of the battles were fought in what is Germany today… ‘In the Thirty Years' War, every battle brought destruction and deprivation for the rural population.'
Wat betreft de opstand in Frankfurt, daarover berichtte de Israelische kwaliteitskrant Haaretz op 28 februari 2016:
The Fettmilch Uprising was principally a protest by Frankfurt’s merchant class against the high-handed manner in which a small circle of patricians controlled the municipal council and the city’s economic life. But inevitably — how could it be otherwise? — the Jewish community took the brunt of the anger.
At the height of the revolt, in August 1614, armed citizens led by an angry Fettmilch entered the Judengasse, Frankfurt’s ‘Jewish Lane,’ and drove the residents, who numbered 1,380, from the city, before ravaging the quarter and looting its movable property. When they were permitted to return two years later, the Jews declared the anniversary of that event a ‘little Purim’ — a local holiday marking the return of the community.
Ter verduidelijking: Vincenz Fettmilch was a grocer and gingerbread baker who led the Fettmilch uprising of the guilds (gilden. svh) in 1612–1616 to get rid of foreigners (mainly Jews) in the city, whom they viewed as competition and usurers (woekeraars. svh).
Fettmilch settled in Frankfurt in 1602. On August 22, 1614 he led a mob that stormed the Judengasse (Jews' Lane) and plundered the city's 1,380 Jews, forcing them to leave the city until the emperor personally intervened, and on February 28, 1616 Fettmilch and six others were executed in Frankfurt's Rossmarkt (horse market) square
Was dit een anti-semitische reactie, of was dit onafwendbaar verzet tegen ‘Joden’ die als ‘Gods uitverkoren volk,’ aldus Ginsberg, weigerden te ‘assimileren,’ maar waarvan de rijken wel financieel profiteerden van hun nauwe banden met de doorgaans onrechtvaardige, absolutistische macht? Zo veroorzaakten de oorlogen die door Joodse bankiers werden gefinancierd onnoemelijk veel leed:
In the historiography of the Thirty Years War, there is a marked tendency to focus on the horror of war, on the conflict’s raw destructiveness. The evidence of the desolation is staggering; thirty years of fighting, sieges, plundering, plague, and instability left the area we today call Germany with possibly a third of its population dead from starvation and disease, crops ravaged, entire villages and towns obliterated, and a defunct economy. These facts stand as the lasting legacy of the war,
aldus Joseph Berg in zijn werkstuk ‘De iniustitia belli: Violence Against Civilians in the Thirty Years War’:
The cultural impact of the horrors of the Thirty Years War is not to be underestimated. Its outcome shaped European politics for the next century; it also influenced European thought. It was in 1625, in the midst of the Thirty Years War, that the Dutchman Hugo Grotius wrote his landmark work The Law of War and Peace, a treatise that replaced de Vitoria’s On the Law of War as the defining guidelines for conduct in war. As a witness of the effects of the Thirty Years War, Grotius strove to create a rule of conflict which would somehow mitigate the destruction inherent to warfare as he knew it.
Nogmaals professor Ginsberg:
After the Thirty Years War broke out in 1618, the Habsburg emperor, Ferdinand II, turned to financier Joseph Bassevi of Prague (prominente rijke Joodse bankier. svh) to finance the war effort. Bassevi was allied with the most powerful figure at the imperial court, Prince Lichtenstein, and with General Wallenstein, commander of the imperial armies. In exchange for loans to finance the war, Emperor Ferdinand leased the imperial mint to Bassevi, Lichtenstein, and Wallenstein. The three men recouped their investment by debasing the coinage (een truc waardoor ze nog meer verdienden ten koste van de bevolking. svh). Bassevi also established a network through which to supply the imperial armies with food, fodder, arms and ammunition. During and after the Thirty Years War, virtually all the major states in Central Europe and Scandinavia found it necessary to make use of the resources and talents of Jews to compete with their rivals. The Hohenzollern rulers of Prussia relied initially upon Israel Aaron (rijke Joodse bankier. svh) and then upon the Gomperz (rijke Joodse bankiersfamilie, svh). The Behrends served the court of Hannover and the Lehmans Saxony, while the Fuerts served Schleswig-Holstein, Mecklenburg, and Holstein-Gottorp. The Danish royal family employed the Goldschmidts, while Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden relied upon Jewish contractors to provision his army.
Het is niet overdreven te stellen dat een aanzienlijk deel van de Europese machthebbers belastinggeld onmiddellijk moest doorsluizen naar Joodse bankiers. Dankzij de oorlogszuchtige vorsten en ten koste van een verpauperde bevolking werden de hofjoden almaar rijker. Dit is geen anti-semitische mythe, maar een historisch feit, zoals uitgebreid is gedocumenteerd, en absoluut niet alleen door professor Benjamin Ginsberg, wiens boek The Fatal Embrace. Jews and the State door het onafhankelijk weekblad Washington Jewish Week, werd gekwalificeerd als ‘insightful,’ en als een ‘comprehensive and incisive (scherpzinnig. svh) interpretation of Jewish fortunes on three continents.’ Voor de slechte verstaander: hiermee wil niet gesteld worden dat alle joden, waar en in welke tijd dan ook, rijk waren en profiteerden van de 'collusion' met de meedogenloze macht. Integendeel zelfs, de meeste Joden waren, net als iedereen, arm tot straatarm en waren ook nog eens regelmatig het slachtoffer van vervolgingen door burgers die woedend waren. De arme Joden kregen de schuld van de rücksichtlosheid van de rijke Joden. Want hoe astronomisch gefortuneerd de rijke Joden ook mochten zijn, hun arme geloofsgenoten werden er niet beter op, ondanks het feit dat zij allen geloofden te behoren tot 'Gods uitverkoren volk.' Ook hier geldt: liever rijk dan uitverkoren. Meer hierover de volgende keer.
1 opmerking:
Discussion. Marzieh Hashemi: "Deal of the century" 22 min.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0TOmi7KsEwI
Herman
Een reactie posten