The One-Sided View of Hate in Hate Studies — Jay Knott
Written by CNI
In 2004 Gonzaga University in Spokane, Washington hosted the "International Conference to Establish the Field of Hate Studies." The primary organizer was Kenneth Stern, of the American Jewish Committee.
The conference was cosponsored and supported by the American Jewish Committee, the Simon Wiesenthal Center, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), the Kootenai County Task Force on Human Relations, the Alberta Civil Liberties Research Center, and regional educational institutions. The banquet featured Morris Dees, of the SPLC.*
On March 14, 2012, in response to a call for papers by the Gonzaga University Institute for Hate Studies, a paper entitled "The One Sided View of Hate in Hate Studies" was submitted to the Journal of Hate Studies. Among other things, The paper found that the discipline of Hate Studies has "neglected Zionism as a source of hatred." It based this conclusion on a comprehensive review of the literature.
The paper was rejected without explanation; it is not known whether it was submitted for peer review. The author of the paper, “Jay Knott,” is a British researcher who has chosen to use a pseudonym in order to avoid the personal attacks and career damage frequently visited on those who write accurately about Zionism. His political philosophy is left-leaning.
Below are excerpts from this paper. The complete paper can be read on the British website DeLiberation.
The One-Sided View of Hate in Hate Studies
By Jay Knott
Abstract:
The Journal of Hate Studies asks for "cutting-edge essays, theory, and research that deepen the understanding of the development and expression of hate". The following submission for the 2012 issue of the journal (Call for Papers, Tsai, R.L., 2012) is all of the above. It argues that Zionism generates hate, and that hate studies writers have neglected it. Further, it produces evidence that hate studies researchers have exaggerated the amount of racism in white gentile America. In the process, it examines the methodologies which have led to this miscalculation, and suggests a more balanced approach.
I. Introduction
In his paper Hate, Oppression, Repression, and the Apocalyptic Style, (2004), one of the founders of hate studies, Chip Berlet, defines the field as "inquiries into the human capacity to define, and then dehumanize or demonize, an ‘other,’ and the processes which inform and give expression to, or can curtail or combat, that capacity". The current paper argues that Zionism includes examples of the above "human capacity", but that no contributor to hate studies, until now, has noticed them.
Noel Ignatiev's contribution to the Encyclopedia of Race and Racism, (2007, pp. 240–244), describes the Zionist state of Israel as a "racial state, where rights are assigned on the basis of ascribed descent or the approval of the superior race". Ilan Pappe's The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, (2006), shows how Israel was initiated by the displacement of hundreds of thousands of people from their homeland, because they were not Jewish. I therefore argue that Zionism is a valid subject of hate studies.
However, a survey of the current publications of hate studies reveals a lack of concern with Zionism, in contrast to an emphasis on anti-Semitism and white racism. I illustrate this below with citations from the major works of hate studies, analyzing examples of alleged hate incidents to suggest a more scientific approach to the evaluation of hate. I cite the recommended works which allege there is an "epidemic" of hate crimes, and the one book currently in print which directly falsifies this hypothesis, Hate Crimes – Criminal Law & Identity Politics (Jacobs, J.B. & Potter, K., 1998). I make use of Steven Pinker's recent work on the decline of violence, including hate crimes, The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined (Pinker, S., 2011), and a number of newspaper and online reports of alleged hate crimes.
II. Inadequate attention to Zionism
The Zionist justification for expelling Palestinians has included expressions of "the human capacity to define, and then dehumanize or demonize, an ‘other,’" (Berlet, C., 2004). When Zionist leaders recognize the Palestinians' existence, they sometimes refer to them as "devil's spawn" (Rachel Abrams' weblog; 2011). Other representative epithets include "drugged cockroaches", "two-legged animals" and "Arab scum" (according to the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies, 14 January 2002, citing The New Statesman, June 25, 1982). Some Zionists go so far as to say it would be justified to kill gentile babies "if they would grow up to harm us" – Rabbi Shapira, reported by Roi Sharon in Maariv, 2009. The evolutionary biologist Robert Trivers, in a book about self-deception, The Folly of Fools, the logic of deceit and self-deception in human life, (2011), in a section entitled "False Historical Narratives", contrasts the Zionist myth with the reality:
a racialist (and then racist) country was shoehorned into the Middle East, so that Jewish people (half and quarter also) from around the world can immediately claim citizenship to this land but none of those who were so recently expelled could do so. (p. 236).
Nevertheless, only one of the papers for hate studies' most recent conference mentions Zionism, and not to criticize it for racism, but to ask at what point criticism of it becomes racist – "Not every criticism of Israel and Zionism was viewed as antisemitic, but on many occasions such comment served to mask antisemitism" – Michael Whine, The Community Security Trust – Best Practice in Combating Antisemitic Hate, (2011), Journal of Hate Studies (vol. 9, p. 114).
Kenneth Stern, a founder of the discipline of hate studies, vigorously defends Zionism against the "racism" charge. In his first pamphlet on anti-Semitism for the American Jewish Committee, Anti-Zionism, the Sophisticated Anti-Semitism, (1990), Stern wrote: "This anti-Semitic slander – that Zionism was racism – first appeared at the United Nations in the early 1960s" (p. 6). Even the Jewish Agency for Israel says, of the right of return for Jews, "It has been suggested that an immigration policy which explicitly gives priority to one ethnic or religious group cannot be justified in liberal democratic terms" (2004). But Stern has consistently argued that describing the Law of Return as racist, is itself racist (Stern 2006). In an extensive survey of the literature, I have been unable to find anything recommended by the hate studies department at Gonzaga University's Bibliography of Hate Studies Materials (Thweatt, E., 2002), which agrees with the United Nations that Zionism as a form of racism.
As well as the United Nations, Stern's complaints about "anti-Semitism" are directed at rural political movements, known as "militias", in the USA. In 1996, Stern wrote an article for USA Today entitled Militia Mania, a Growing Danger, and published a book called A Force Upon the Plain, subtitled The American Militia Movement and the Politics of Hate, claiming that anti-Jewish attitudes are central to these movements' ideologies (p. 246). Concern about militias is a recurrent theme in the hate studies literature (Dees, M., 1997; Berlet, C. & Lyons, M, 2000; Thweatt, E., 2002).
An example is Public Eye journal – "Researching the Right for Progressive Changemakers" – edited by hate studies pundit Chip Berlet. In her article for the journal, The Montana Human Rights Network, (2005), Abby Scher claims the following statement, from a leaflet produced by a militia in Montana, is an example of an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory: "George Bush… cynically used the tragedy of September 11th to silence dissent and to launch the war for Israel his Zionist neocon handlers wanted." Arguments for the claims that the neoconservative movement is overwhelming Zionist, and that it was instrumental in persuading the US government to attack Iraq in 2003, include scholarly ones such as those of John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt (The Israel Lobby; 2007). Deciding how much truth there is in this view is beyond the scope of the present essay – my point is simply that classifying this analysis as "anti-Semitic" may tend to discourage us from asking legitimate questions.
III. The influence of pseudo-science
The field of hate studies has made use of the evolutionary approach in understanding ethnic conflict, for example in publishing Harold Fishbein's The Genetic/Evolutionary Basis of Prejudice and Hatred (2004), and James Waller's Our Ancestral Shadow: Hate and Human Nature in Evolutionary Psychology (2004). However, less scientific ideas have also been given credit. For example Jack Levin and Jack McDevitt's Hate Crimes, (1993), which is recommended in hate studies' bibliography (Thweatt, E., 2002), and referenced in several papers in the field, relied on a 1950 treatise on hate and prejudice, The Authoritarian Personality (Adorno, T., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D.J., & Stanford, R.N., 1950): "Decades ago, the authors of The Authoritarian Personality recognized that prejudice satisfies a deep-rooted psychological need to protect or enhance self-esteem" (p. 48).
In The Authoritarian Personality, Theodor Adorno and his colleagues claimed to have found "quantifiable relations" between conservatism and anti-Semitism via the "Politico-Economic Conservatism" scale, the "Ethnocentrism" scale and the "Anti-Semitism" scale (p. 49).
The above diagram illustrates the general principle. If person A believes P and Q, and person B believes P, the likelihood that person B also believes Q is greater than the occurrence of belief Q in the general population. This is as true of any one class of beliefs as of any other. Yet the Frankfurt School believed it could derive "the determination of the potential fascist in childhood" (Adorno et al. 1950, p. 56) from this statistical banality.
The authors claimed that a German who joined the Nazis "can apparently never quite establish his personal and masculine identity; he thus has to look for it in a collective system where there is opportunity both for submission to the powerful and for retaliation against the powerless" (page 370); they did not apply this psychological explanation to Communist Party recruits of the same period….
IV. An unscientific approach to hate crime claims
At the hate studies founding conference, in his paper Hate, Oppression, Repression, and the Apocalyptic Style, (2004), Chip Berlet claimed there was "chronic underreporting" of hate crimes. There is evidence for this hypothesis. As The Leadership Conference states in the introduction to its Confronting the New Faces of Hate: Hate Crimes in America, (2009), some victims fail to report hate crimes. For example, illegal immigrants are concerned about deportation. People of color may not trust the police. Lesbian and gay victims may not want to "come out" to family members and co-workers by publicizing a homophobic hate crime.
But the scientific approach looks for refutation as well as confirmation. There is also over-reporting of hate crimes, which, if uncritically accepted, exaggerates the amount of hate in our society. I identify five variants of this phenomenon, and give examples below:
1. protected speech is sometimes listed with violent crimes under the broad label "hate incidents";
2. the degree of hate involved in some actual crimes is exaggerated;
3. there are claims of hate crimes which didn't happen;
4. there are "hate crimes" committed by the alleged victims themselves;
5. there are unsubstantiated assertions that hate crimes are on the increase.
***
Type 2 is … illustrated by the one alleged anti-Semitic lynching in US history, which occurred in Georgia in 1915. It resulted in a boost in membership for the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), which had been founded two years earlier. The victim, Leo Frank, had been convicted of child-murder, but his death sentence had been commuted to life imprisonment; a mob abducted him from prison and hanged him from a tree. His conviction allowed the other suspect, who was black, to walk. The Anti-Defamation League's evidence for the theory that it was an anti-Semitic lynching, in its People v. Leo Frank Teacher's Guide, (2009), such as shouts of "Hang the Jew" from the mob, is necessary, but insufficient, to prove it. If a convicted child-killer who was not Jewish would also have been murdered, anti-Semitism had no part to play.
The Anti-Defamation League is consulted by the federal Departments of Education and Justice, the California Probation, Parole and Correctional Association, and other government bodies, according to Hate Crimes (Jacobs, J.B. & Potter, K., chapter 4; 1998). An example can be found on the Department of Justice's web page about the Sacramento "Hate Crimes Task Force" (2010). Some years ago, the ADL was found by the San Francisco DA to have spied illegally on dozens of people and organizations, fed information about South African dissidents to the apartheid regime, and committed numerous other violations of trust (Blankfort, J., 2002).
***
V. Conclusion: a consistent and rigorous approach to understanding hate
"Whenever an ideology justifies baby-killing – even at the fringes of the fringes – that is an especially strong danger signal" – Kenneth Stern, A Force Upon the Plain. (1996, p. 249).
"There is justification for killing babies if it is clear that they will grow up to harm us" – "The complete guide to killing non-Jews" – Yitzhak Shapira and Yossi Elitzur, rabbis in the Od Yosef Hai yeshiva, Yitzhar, near Nablus, reported by Roi Sharon in Maariv (2009).
The influence of Zionism extends beyond Israel. Consider Rachel Abrams, who is married to Elliot Abrams, an influential advisor to the US government, who served under presidents George Bush Senior and Ronald Reagan, describing, in her weblog, the release of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit from captivity by Hamas in October 2011:
Celebrate, Israel, with all the joyous gratitude that fills your hearts, as we all do along with you. Then round up his captors, the slaughtering, death-worshipping, innocent-butchering, child-sacrificing savages who dip their hands in blood and use women — those who aren’t strapping bombs to their own devils’ spawn and sending them out to meet their seventy-two virgins by taking the lives of the school-bus-riding, heart-drawing, Transformer-doodling, homework-losing children of Others — and their offspring — those who haven’t already been pimped out by their mothers to the murder god — as shields, hiding behind their burkas and cradles like the unmanned animals they are, and throw them not into your prisons, where they can bide until they’re traded by the thousands for another child of Israel, but into the sea, to float there, food for sharks, stargazers, and whatever other oceanic carnivores God has put there for the purpose. (2011).
Hate studies would be enriched by studying how the influence of Zionism can produce this kind of hate. It would have more credibility if claims of the prevalence of white racism were evaluated more scientifically. It would also benefit by examining examples of hoaxes by which resentful members of minorities, encouraged by academic exaggerations of the extent of white privilege, contributed to a positive feedback loop, which appeared to confirm the hypothesis that the USA is suffering from a rising tide of bigotry and hate.
* RELATED ARTICLES:
King of the Hate Business, by Alexander Cockburn, CounterPunch, May 15-7, 2009: "…As of October 2008 the net assets of the SPLC were $170,240,129, The merchant of hate himself, Mr. Dees, was paid an annual $273,132 as chief trial counsel, and the SPLC’s president and CEO, Richard Cohen, $290,193. Total revenue in 2007 was $44,727,257 and program expenses $20,804,536. In other words, the Southern Poverty Law Center was raising twice as much as it was spending on its proclaimed mission…" Read more
An Open Letter to the Southern Poverty Law Clinic: Do You Equate Anti-Zionism with Anti-Semitism? by Felice Pace, CounterPunch, Nov. 1, 2007.
In 1995 the Montgomery Advertiser was nominated for a Pulitzer Prize for its expose on the Southern Poverty Law Center.
Excellent article. It is good to see this issue receiving some attention. There has long been a precedent that any criticism of Israel and its government is antisemitic, which is nonsense. However we have seen endless tirades coming out of Israel, of Zionists exhorting others to kill others on the basis of race and religion. How is this not hate?
I have wondered what will happen when common racism and prejudice goes away or is in such decline as to be nearly dead? In my lifetime from the late 60's to the present, I have witnessed a decline in both hateful acts and speech. People say The N word, but I have not actually heard anyone speak the N word since 1974. I will admit when I lived in a major metropolitan city, I heard racial epitets spoken a little more often. Yet I have never, not once, in my entire life, heard anyone call someone a Jew in a negative way. I have never heard the word Kike spoken outside of a movie. Yet I am to believe that antisemitism is on the rise? I lived with Persians, worked with a Palestinian, had two Iraqi boarders in my house, and know a Lebanese woman. None have ever spoken ill of Jews. I have heard them say things about the Israeli government, but never about Jews.
But I never hear anything from Jews except antisemitism. Its on the radio. TV. Almost every movie I watch. Politicians don't shut up about it.
I get the impression Zionism relies on hatred. I think Israel, founded on the story of the holocaust, survives on hatred. And I think as the world moves away from racism, Zionists are going to find a smaller and smaller audience for their claims. Their entire product is marketed and advertised to the world using hate and without it… what is Zionism?
Of course, there is only one race that is capable of racism, and that's white people. Racism, like genocide and slavery, was invented by and is practiced solely by whites. All criticsm of members of other races stems from racism; if a member of another race shows a flaw it is only because he/she was the victim of whites in the past. The answer to these problems is that whites must be dinsinfranchized, decentrailized, re-educated and outbred with other races. Anything else is racism. /sarcasm/
I firmly believe, and I am fullblown White, that the resent evolvement of "racism" is intended and been imposed on us, thru a constant barrage of drivel about what ever, from Gays to Islam. I believe we as humans must learn racism, its not inherent in any way, any kindergarten employ see this, culture defines the reality that child will have in later life. Its completely a political game, where disorder feeds some interest and creates an environment of hate. Violence breeds just one thing, more violence, thats the trap we all walk into, and its not easy to mentally keep distance, you need a rock solid fundament of consciousness and belief in the goodness we all have, given the opportunity and change the reality, and we will eventually breed free. I warned Israel about this, the end game, a play that nobody deserves and fate is hanging in the hands of a lunatic fringe of Robber Barons and their Henchmen(banks). Thats something that is drowning in this hate and religious hate propaganda, pimped 24/7. This will eventually affect us all, this is so big, with Syria and Iran in the target, the future looks grim, the religious divisions are highly successful and drives the creating of our common reality, nothing would happen if THAT is not altered. Wake up, Arabs.
Why is it people like you think only white people are the victims. The comforts you enjoy from western civilisation was built on the backs of millions of dead natives around the world. Its no coincidence the word yankee means pirates and it was used by the ducth to describe the americans, which is a contradiction in itself because the ducth were bigger pirates than the americans. Just in the past 2 decades WHITE america declared war on those damn BULLAH's in afghanistan and iraq and killed over 3,000,000 innocents and yet its you whose the victim. I guess there's no redmption for you because clearly you can see straight. For people like you its clearly the jews fault or the muslims fault but never your fault.
Not surprisng that this essay that attacks me and my colleagues is filled with the type of antisemitic claims that makes it difficult for critics of Israeli government policy, and who avoid bigotry, to get their criticisms taken seriously.
Chip Berlet is a leading ‘progressive’. People like him have done very well ending segregation in America, and white apartheid in South Africa. They have failed even to make a dent in Jewish apartheid in Palestine. The reason is clear. They have no critique of Jewish supremacy. The field of ‘hate studies’ is an obscure, but exceptionally clear, illustration of this.
Among Berlet’s ‘colleagues’, whom he claims I ‘attack’, is Kenneth Stern of the American Jewish Committee. Joining Berlet in trying to divert us with exaggerations of white European racism, Stern aggressively supports the racial oppression of Palestinians by Jews. In fact, he goes so far as to say that anyone who describes this racism, as racism… is a racist!
Berlet accuses me of writing an essay ‘filled’ with ‘antisemitic claims’. He doesn’t give a single example – it’s just a knee-jerk response to try to discredit a legitimate deconstruction of the elephant in the room of American ‘anti-racist’ theory. This tired old allegation is losing its bite, and will fail – far more people will read my effort than if it had been accepted by ‘hate studies’. This devastating exposé of philo-semitic bigotry backs up every one of its claims with piles of evidence. And I’ve hardly started yet.
It ill behooves Berlet to claim that my approach makes it difficult to get his criticisms of Israeli government policy taken seriously. It’s his approach – groveling – which has not been taken seriously.
Berlet links to his writings on ‘conspiracism’. But some conspiracy theories are true. Berlet’s neologism is an attempt to discredit reasonable conspiracy theories, such as the influence of Jewish neocons on US foreign policy, by amalgamating them with dumb ones.
Nice try, Chip, but no cigar.
Jay you made some very good comments including this: But some conspiracy theories are true.
I'm wondering when are the liberal, humanitarians Jewish people who criticize the evil Israel does to Palestinians going to address the fact Israel's intelligence agency the Mossad is by far the #1 suspect for 911. Their fingerprints are all over 911.
Do a Google search Mossad 911 Mathaba and read the stunning evidence at the Mathaba website. It's time Jewish people discuss on the Internet the gigantic elephant in the room, Israel and 911.
Here is the link:
http://www.mathaba.net/news/?x=622552
Take the time to get a free download of the amazing 911 book by the sagacious Christopher Bollyn. He clearly shows Israel and Jewish Zionist traitors in the U.S. government did 911 to blame the Muslims to initiate a U.S. war against the Muslims on behalf of Israel. He also provides the names and actions of Jewish Zionists who covered up the Israeli evil crime. Let's have the Jewish community discuss the book.
Here is the link to the free Bollyn book: http://www.bollyn.com/public/Solving_9-11_-_The_Deception_That_Changed_The_World.pdf
I’m sorry to disappoint you, Brian, but the ’9/11 was an inside job’ conspiracy theory is one I forcefully reject.
Let's start with a few facts.
While many Neocons are Jews, most Jews are not neocons, and many neocons are Catholics, other people of faith, etc. That's what makes the article antisemitic–the stereotyping.
My conference paper and resulting journal article was skeptical of the concept of "hate studies," as was the paper by Kathleen Blee, and since then I have joined others in suggesting the idea of "hate studies" is not a constructive concept.
Palestinians are not a race. Jews are not a race. The bloodline analysis of history has a bad pedigree. Perhaps you are aware of it in the several genocidal episodes over the past several hundred years.
Please note that in at least one published essay I have suggested that the treatment of Palestinians by the Israeli government makes raising the issue of genocide under the UN conventions a legitimate point of debate.
I oppose all forms of supremacy, oppression, repression, and bigotry. Nothing more but nothing less.
So in addition to the antisemitic stereotyping and bigotry in the article, let's add lousy research and false statements. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
Mr. Knott: your inability to make distinctions among American Jews, Israeli Jews, Zionists, neoconservatives, the state of Israel, the government of Israel, etc is the evidence of your stereotyping and bigotry. If you cannot see it, feel free to light your cigar. I am leaving this smoke-filled room.
Once more, Berlet fails to provide any evidence of his assertions about my essay. He doesn’t say where I claim Jews, Israel, neocons etc. are all the same. That’s because he can’t.
Chip having pointed me to his oevre, I notice that googling ‘Chip Berlet Israel’ does indeed find his criticisms of Zionism: Christian Zionism. These dumb evangelists are a gift to American progressives: they enable them to criticize Zionism without saying the J-word.
True, there are white Christian Zionists. But they are subservient to Jewish Zionists. Talk of Jewish racism doesn’t make lefties feel comfortable, but thanks to the Christian Zionists, they can go on about ‘the right’ as if Jewish supremacy is a left/right issue.
The phrase "hate studies" itself is a red herring and pure distraction. It assumes that hate is bad and must be eradicated. Why not "laughter studies" or "jealousy studies" or "frivolity studies" or "lust studies" or "studies" of any number of natural human emotions and reactions? The answer, of course, is simple: The zionists can't use and manipulate "studies" of other natural human emotions for their diabolical and dishonest purposes.
If someone steals my land, kills my neighbors, destroys my farm, petrpetrates false-flag and covert terrorism and lies about it, am I entitled to hate them? If some political party takes over my government, lauches covert terorist attacks our citizens, forces us into demonic wars based on false pretenses, bankrupts our treasury and sets up a police state to imprison or kill any resistance, am I entitled to hate them?
I hate murder, racism, dishonesty, terrorism, propaganda (lies) and all the fundamental components of zionism. Does that makes me a "hater" of the practitioners or zionism? You're damn right it does. If ofcourse, the author is far too "busy" to discuss whether the neocons (zionists) are Jews. A simple statistical survey will answer that one and everyone knows it. It don't take no stinkin" "study", Einstein. So yeah, let's settle it once and for all: Most Americans don't hate the zionists for what they've done to Palestine, as much as it may anger them. Most Americans (including me) hate the zionists for what they've done to America, if they're over the age of 12 and have been paying attention.
The whole paranoid idea that Jews are especially targeted by hate, that "antisemitism" is rife and that the overwhelming Islamophobia pushed by such people as David Horowitz is somehow normal and acceptable shows the warped picture given to the US public.
"Hate studies" is a nonsensical, field of endeavour; to confine it, like ADL, to alleged discrimination against Jews is absurd. How many studies does it do on the vast over-representation of Jews in positions of power in politics, media, finance…..?
Create a Hate Studies Monopoly. Rule out any study of Zionism and Jewish Supremacy as examples of the human capacity to define, and then dehumanize or demonize, an ‘other’, even though Zionism is based on the human capacity to define, and then dehumanize or demonize, an ‘other’. How else to conceal the Trojan Horse. "Is it good to hate? … Our tradition does not teach us that all hatred is bad. The Bible is unambiguous on this point: We are clearly intended to hate Amalek, whose memory we are instructed to wipe out … The subject is raised each year in the middle of the Passover seder … In fact there are few things that can be healthier than merited hatred … Sitting in a comfortable home today, it is easy to see barbarity in the words of the Haggadah. When we do, we betray our history." (David Wolpe, Baltimore Jewish Times, 6-18-93)
"Is Zionism racism? I would say yes." Desmund Tutu, South African Archbishop, Nobel Prize winner, and activist against apartheid "The etymological history of the word shiksa [Yiddish for non-Jewish woman] itself is instructive … The Hebrew word shakaytz means to abominate, to utterly detest. In the Bible there are other admonitions not to eat or take the shikutz (masculine noun form), literally, the abominated thing, into one's house." Edwin Freedman, The Myth of the Shiksa [in Herz/Rosen, 1982, p. 508] "Throughout their history, the Jews … entertained feelings of superiority over Gentiles … It therefore became a prevalent notion among Jews that they are supposed to use their heads, while the Gentiles do the dirty work." Jay Gonen, A Psychohistory of Zionism, Mason/Charter, NY, 1973, p. 137 “The Jews are the most separatist people in the world. Their belief in the notion of the chosen people is the basis of their religion. All down the centuries the Jews have intensified their separation from the non-Jewish world; they have rejected, and still do reject, mixed marriages; they have put up one wall after another to protect their existence as a people apart." Nachum Goldmann, head of the World Jewish Congress and World Zionist Organization, The Jewish Paradox, Grosset & Dunlap, 1978.