Was Moses a colonizer? The Guardian’s Nicholas Lezard uncovers why us Jews are kleptomaniacs


A guest post by Richard Millett

I have an admission to make. You see the place where I live, and in fact the place where I am writing this piece, I have no rights to. That’s right I’m a trespasser, a squatter, a thief, or whatever you think is an appropriate word for a rogue such as me.

You see it all happened about 20 years ago. I had nowhere that I really wanted to live until I spied a nice little place in a London suburb one night. The light was on and pensioners Roberta and George Smith had just settled down to watch Coronation Street with a hot cup of cocoa in their hands.

As soon as they became engrossed in Corrie I barged in and told them to leave. I gave them 10 minutes to pack up their belongings and get the hell out.

I have been living here ever since and very nice it is too. The local council has passed a motion that the Smiths have a “right of return”, but I refuse to budge. You see it isn’t my fault, I tell the council. The problem is I’m Jewish and that is what us Jews do. If there is something we want, we just take it.

I mean we did it in 1948 too, I tell them. There was this already fully functioning state called Palestine full of millions and millions of people who had lived there since the dinosaurs, and the Jews (who hadn’t lived there since the dinosaurs) suddenly appeared from absolutely nowhere and took over their houses, farms and businesses and told them to get the hell out.

But it wasn’t those Jews’ fault either, I said. Just like a Tourette’s sufferer can’t help himself when swearing so us Jews just can’t stop ourselves from thieving.

Thanks to Nicholas Lezard, literary critic for The Guardian, I have recently discovered an explanation for all this; thieving might actually be in our DNA.

Lezard has uncovered a dirty little secret that has been kept hidden from us Jews and which explains a lot; one of our great forefathers, Moses, was a bit of a tea-leaf himself.

In his Guardian review (Jan. 3) of Intolerable Tongues, which describes Dr Donald McCollum’s journey through British Mandate Palestine towards the end of the 1930s, a novel by Ellis Sharp (and which is classed as “history” by The Guardian), Lezard concludes:

“And beneath all this rumbles history – not only that which is yet to come for the area, but all that has gone before. ‘I have always found it a bit rum that Moses parcelled out land that already belonged to others,’ muses McCollum at one point, which might seem like a piece of thumpingly unsubtle irony; but then sometimes that’s how history works, and it’s important to be reminded of it from time to time.” (added emphasis by me)

So now, thanks to Lezard, the truth is out; Moses, like me and probably you if you are Jewish, also stole land that wasn’t his.

You see when Moses led the Jews out of slavery in Egypt he led them to this already fully functioning state called Canaan full of millions and millions of people who had lived there since the dinosaurs and the Jews suddenly appeared from absolutely nowhere and took over their houses, farms and businesses and told them to get the hell out…..

61 comments on “Was Moses a colonizer? The Guardian’s Nicholas Lezard uncovers why us Jews are kleptomaniacs

  1. As a Christian and a student of the Mid-East for some 40 years, I am more than aware that a selective application and interpretation of Biblical history, to serve a politically expedient point detrimental to the Jews, is nothing new. According to the Biblical narrative Moses was himself acting in accordance with the directions of the God of the Bible; a God – the Lord God of Israel – who implicitly declared that He, Himself, owned the land and that He had given it to the Hebrews as an everlasting possession.

    “The land shall not be sold permanently, for the land is MINE…” (Leviticus 25; 23)

    “…And I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you in their generations, for an EVERLASTING COVENANT, to be God to you and your descendants after you. Also I give to you and your descendants after you the land in which you are a stranger, ALL THE LAND OF CANAAN, as an EVERLASTING POSSESSION, and I will be their God.” (Genesis 17;5-8).

    The Lord God of Israel even clarifying why the nations need to be driven out before the children of Israel, declaring that it is not of any righteousness on behalf of His people (God freely initiated the relationship with them and they could not claim that the relationship was due to them) but because of the wickedness of the nations already there;

    “It is not because of your righteousness or the uprightness of your heart that you go in to possess their land, but because of the wickedness of these nations that the Lord your God drives them out from before you, and that He may fulfill the word which the Lord swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob…” (Deuteronomoy 9; 5).

    The Biblical narrative also clarifying that the pre-Israelite peoples in Canaan had lived there since the flood, wherein the previous occupants were similarly destroyed because of their wickedness.

    Undoubtedly politically correct commentators would also condemn the Lord God of Israel as being an ‘extremist’ and would dispute HIS ownership of the Land too.

    At a time when all the nations appeared to be prepared to push the knowledge of the one true God out of their cultures, lives and memories, the Hebrew-Christian Bible shows that God chose a man for the purpose of creating a special nation – a nation through whom God of His own choice committed Himself to subsequently bring the Messiah (Jesus Christ) into the World (through the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, through the tribe of Judah and specifically from the line of David…..a people who we now refer to as the Jews).

    If one studies the Scriptures it is clear that a vast proportion of the entire Bible is actually a type of commentary on the promises that this covenant contains, with much emphasis on the Land, and the recipients of the promises – Abraham and his descendants, through the line of Isaac and Jacob (Israel). The world, its people and religions, have polluted this message and on this occasion it has been twisted out of context for political purposes.

    • Bible is actually a type of commentary on the promises that this covenant contains, with much emphasis on the Land, and the recipients of the promises – Abraham and his descendants,
      —————-
      This is the reason why the Moslems took roles for themselves in the story of Abraham seemingly. The story of their being the descendants of this or that Bible personality has always struck me as being intrusive and odd. Islam only came into being in the 4th century. How could any connection have been discerned after this huge millennial gap in time?

      It’s just grabbing for the gold ring.

    • According to the Biblical narrative Moses was himself acting in accordance with the directions of the God of the Bible; a God – the Lord God of Israel – who implicitly declared that He, Himself, owned the land and that He had given it to the Hebrews as an everlasting possession

      Good God. You must be joking.
      And as for Jesus: why of all places would God put his son in what was at the time a cultural backwater?
      http://ashleyfmiller.wordpress.com/2010/09/24/hitchens-briefly-on-the-immorality-of-christianity/

        • TGIAI, and everyone, you should make time to read Ali Sina’s “Understanding Muhammad: A Psychobiography” for why Islam has lifted much of what it is from Judaism and paganism.

          The kaba became what it is because Mo’s “god” said that it should be. According to Sina (who calls allah Mo’s sock puppet, since he pulls out allah whenever he wants to underline his mad schemes or murderous raids) there is no allah and all is in the service of maintaining Mo’s power.

          Thus Mo could order his people to do anything he wanted and underline it by saying his allah had decreed it. Not too different from the Moonies really but infinitely more dangerous.

          Mo loathed the Jews because they saw through him. His adoption of Jesus as a prophet was to spite the Jews.

          • Mo loathed the Jews because they saw through him. His adoption of Jesus as a prophet was to spite the Jews.

            What a load of bigoted nonsense. Is this ignorance or just malice?

      • Perhaps a bit off topic, but I think Christianity may have a serious problem if astronomers do find intelligent, quasi humanoid life on other planets, which are turning up at a remarkable rate thanks to the Kepler telescope, and some proportion of which must, in the nature of things, be able to support life.

        Will they have their Son of God as well? Most other religions seem to get along quite well with or without God, or reincarnation, or whatever, but this issue of the Son of God could be problematic. is there an entire universe filled with God’s Sons?

        Unless, of course, Earth is such a universe-wide and troubled backwater it was the only place God felt he needed to add a bit of a direct touch more than messages from above. That might put us well and truly in our place in the scheme of things.

        And of course, on the other hand, since God himself marked out Israel as a special place, it could be that Israel is really extra-special in a universe-wide, multi-galactic sense. After all, we only have Jesus’ reported words that he was the Son of God, so who really knows, but we have it straight from God via Moses that God is … well .. God. And God told Abraham and Moses which teeny weeny bit of the entire universe was theirs …

        You would think there was enough left over for everyone else.

        • After all, we only have Jesus’ reported words that he was the Son of God, so who really knows, but we have it straight from God via Moses that God is … well .. God.

          I trust you are joking here?
          Oh hang on. Didn’t you once (on CiF) claim you were directly descended from Aaron?

  2. Anti-Zionist hypocrisy at its finest: In which a Zionist is not allowed to bring the Bible for support, but an anti-Zionist can quote the Bible as an argument against Zionism. Rules that are every casino gambler’s dream—to be unable to lose, and for the other side to be unable to win.

    The “debate” is permeated with this hypocrisy. The Zionist enumerates the long list of Israel’s positive achievements. The anti-Zionist counters, “All those material gains are nothing when set against the moral outrage of taking place on stolen land.” The Zionist obliges and gives any of the various moral arguments for Zionism. The anti-Zionist says, “What do I care about historical matters like Jewish history, past Jewish persecution or the Bible? The fact remains there are people here and now suffering from Zionism. Stick to the pragmatic issues!” Aha! So which is it: Moralism or pragmatism?

    Or when the Zionist says American anti-Zionist descendants of the cowboys should walk their talk and go back to Europe. “That was lamentable, but it happened long ago, before there was international law,” answers the anti-Zionist whose buttocks are too reluctant to move away from American comfort, stolen land or no. But that doesn’t prevent him calling for the Jews to leave “because colonialism can’t stand.” So maybe the Zionist should try making clear how the Jews are the indigenous of Palestine, and the Arabs are the colonists? But even assuming the anti-Zionist buys that, there will be a rejoinder: “We can’t bring the world back to what it was thousands of years ago.” But bringing things back to how they were 60 years ago is OK? How does that work?

    Whatever suits, that’s how. Moralism when the Zionist argues pragmatically, pragmatism when the Zionist offers moral arguments. Turning the clock back such that the Jews are robbed of their one and only nation-state in the world, but not so far back that the anti-Zionist would have to put his money where his mouth is and evacuate America. That’s how it all works. And that’s why it is delusion to regard any of the plethora of anti-Zionist arguments as other than a mask over the patently unjust imperialist ambition to rob the Jews of the one and only piece of land in the world that rightfully belongs to them.

        • And thank you too, Ariadne. :) I wish I could post with this level of calmness all the time. But sometimes I have my moods, and then I know I’d better lay off posting here until it passes, for fear of writing things that would reflect badly on CiFWatch.

    • That´s exactly that. A mixture of willful ignorance, perversity, barely concealed mendacity and deliberate mental-disjunction. anti-Zionists are self-made schizoids addicted to their little hatred, just like anti-Semites, though they are still a little ashamed and/or hasn´t the balls to assume their real motivation.

    • a Zionist is not allowed to bring the Bible for support, but an anti-Zionist can quote the Bible as an argument against Zionism.

      A simple but very valid point, you make there.

  3. And the British didn’t have a much more recent policy of colonization and ensuring that the sun will never set on Britain… such hypocrisy!

  4. Moses was a racist :he wanted Jews to separate from the darker coloured Egyptians.

    Moses was a coloniser. He led a people across the desert to take a land from local “traditional” tribes

    Moses was a war criminal as he ordered the slaying of innocents during the various clashes with local tribes during Exodus.

    Moses was a destroyer of the environment. Dumped metals into the water thereby poisoning the fish stocks of fishing tribes. He also marched thousands across the desert sands thereby disturbing scorpion and desert bug habitats. And lets not forget that red water thing.

    Moses also contributed to global warming with his burning bushes and torches which led his people in the desert. Not to mention the carbon foot print of all those camp fires, war torches and of course burning bushes.

    Moses also was an intellectual property thief. Having stolen engineering knowledge from the Egyptians. Though he designed many of the pyramids themselves those designs were the property of the pharaoh.

    Moses was a sexist because he established gender specific roles within Jewish law.

    Moses was a capitalist greedy speculator because he convinced his followers to dump gold for investments in a questionable land deal.
    The Ten Commandments established the unfair property laws which deprive the 99% from sharing the land equally among all of us. There is no such thing as “my goat” or “my sheep”. It all belongs to the collective and had it not been for Moses writing the laws thereby unfairly rigging the system in favour of the greedy goat herders and sugar dealers.

    Moses was a dictator because he allowed Joshua and other thugs to enforce his undemocratic rule for 40 years.

    Moses should be put on trial for his crimes. Even post mortem, we should demand that Goldstone prepare a case for the ICC. His actions and intents are still costing lives and money to the innocent indigenous tribes inhabiting the middle east.

    Moses was also the first Free Mason. We all know what they are up to in controlling our governments, economies and culture..

    Moses also created childhood obesity. The high sugar and high carbohydrate meals like matzo and honey created the first obese kids which cost too much for the health care collective.

    • Great!!! You’re right, we really do need a UN Commission to investigate Moses’s violations of international law. Perhaps a page in the Guardian will be added to the effect of “Moses War Crimes Investigation”

    • “Moses was also the first Free Mason.”

      Interesting thought, interesting but wrong.
      Freemasonry, and its rituals, claim to be derived from the Masons who built Solomon’s Temple.

      • Gerald – ahem – I think you might be taking armaros just a tad too seriously (and although you are right about the basis of the rituals etc, Freemasonry doesn’t actually date back anywhere near that far – probably only a few hundred years in an organised form such as we know it today).

          • The knowledge of PI and the architectural basis for the pyramids was said by scholars to be linked to the masons…
            What I heard was that they originate from the Egyptian masons and architects who were not slaves of the realm but “free” on hire by the Pharaoh…

            …but I also was using this rumor/theory to mock the conspiracy theorists inhabiting the Guardian world

  5. Oh for goodness’ sake. Why do we judge anyone or anything that happened more than 100 years ago by today’s moral standards? For the entirety of human history, power was obtained by military conquest. Colonialisation, ethnic cleansing, imperialism, discrimination, racism, sexism … all those words that today are verboten were just the way it was for thousands of years.

    No state on earth today naturally evolved from its own native peoples. In fact, the very idea of a nation state is relatively modern, with fixed borders marking the boundaries between one “country” and another. For most of the world’s history, tribal or ethnic zones of influence were the common currency.

    So what’s the point in analysing the behaviour of Moses (or anyone else for that matter) in the light of the “enlightened” views that have come to pervade Western thought in the past 50-100 years?

    • Yes, it’s a bit of a lame and pointless article isn’t it.

      The right of conquest ended after WWII, since then, it has been illegal for a state to acquire territory by war, and expansionist regimes are generally frowned upon. It’s not complicated.

      • By “a bit of a lame article” I presume you are referring to the spurious and nonsensical diversion taken by Lezard in his book review?

      • Oh, is that so? Very convenient, eh, debutante? Go tell this news to your islamic heroes. Meanwhile, you should be warned that the right to self-defense hasn´t ended, but I reckon that you, diletante, will feign you don´t get it. You are not complicated at all, dementante.

      • So Dubitante (who has to add the @ for twitter users in case they don’t know for themselves that it’s necessary) would argue for Moses’s case in distributing the land since Israel won it before WW2.

      • ‘The right of conquest ended after WWII, since then, it has been illegal for a state to acquire territory by war’

        Not in defensive war.

        And the matter of 1967 and its aftermath is much more complicated than you allow.

        You dictate to Israel who her enemies are or were, and what she might or might not do to deter them.

        But you’re a fundamental enemy of Israel yourself!

        • “The right of conquest ended after WWII, since then, it has been illegal for a state to acquire territory by war”

          Unless Muslims are conquering non-Muslim territory — consider Northern Cyprus by Turkey or West Papua and East Timor by Indonesia.

        • “Not in defensive war.”

          A myth that’s hard to substantiate outside the Zionist narrative. The UN, the ICJ and the authors of UN Resolution 242 disagree.

          Obviously you’re also buying into the myth of ’67 being a defensive war too. Try harder.

          • dubi, Try reading the record of what your islamfascist dictatorships said leading up to June 1967. The “push the Jews into the sea” racis by nassar, the record proves you wrong.

            And Nassar was so heart broken over his humiliation, that his rallying cry of the destruction of Israel went unfulfilled, that he died a few years later.

            I’m guessing that you would prefer that Israel wait until it was under attack by 5 Arab armies before it could respond, but as a wise man once said, the best defense is a good offense.

            Happy Nakba dubi!

            • Dubi, unlike the joke called Thank God I’m an Infidel, actually lives in Israel. Live Long with a 9th of Av feeling, Anthony Posner

      • “The right of conquest ended after WWII,…”

        Quod erat frackin’ demonstrandum, my point about anti-Zionists defining the terms so that they won’t suffer the consequences of their rhetoric themselves. “After WII” meaning if Doobs is an American, he doesn’t have to evacuate his stolen land in favor of the American Indians, or if he’s a descendant of Germanic invaders who displaced the Celts in Britain, he isn’t obligated to make room for a Welshman or Scot wishing to exercise his Right of Return.

        The letter of the law. It’s a fine concept that allows the anti-Zionists to preach at the Jews from the comfort of their own stolen lands and atrocious track records. That’s why they keep hammering those words “illegal settlements” and “according to international law…” ad nauseum. Because they know full well that if they had to go by the spirit of the law for a change—not to mention by true morality and justice—they’d lose. They’d lose big time to the fact of the Islamic imperialist aggression unjustly carried out against the Jews returning to the one and only piece of land in the world that belongs to them, and to them only.

        Ignore the red herring of “international law”; hold the anti-Zionists’ feet to the fire of their moral bankruptcy!

        • Exactly. Losers such as this debutante uses selective legalese to their convenience, all the while posing as humanitarians. Yeah, dilletante has no time to be concerned with every human rights violations because he focuses exclusively in the I-P conflict, and excluse on Israel s misdeeds, Surely, the much worse conflicts doesn´t attract a wink of his incredible humanistic fervor. In sum, he/she/it is a hypocritical douche-bag, most probably with a Judeophobic mental derrangement.

          • “Surely, the much worse conflicts doesn’t attract a wink of his incredible humanistic fervor.”

            I’ve wondered about that ever so often. Why the lack of obsession about Sri Lanka, for example? One attempt on their part to answer that question is that “Palestine is the key to world peace.” Evidence for that totally mystic, irrational assertion? None offered. Ever.

            Push a little harder and you might get a more honest answer: Arabian oil. This, together with appeasement of those whom the whole world has seen to erupt into violence in the face of a few stupid line-drawings, is much closer to the mark. But it takes a lot of pressure to nudge the anti-Zionists into admitting it. Because, once they do, it’s no longer about any kind of humanitarianism or moral kindness. It’s their selfish interests. Which, of course, every person and nation-state is entitled to, but not on expense of others. They know it, and that’s why such honesty doesn’t come out easily from them. Puts all their grandstanding in a different, and uncomplimentary, light.

            “…most probably with a Judeophobic mental derrangement.”

            I definitely agree. However, as I have said in the past, even when the anti-Zionist is motivated by other than Jew-hatred, anti-Zionism is illegitimate. Nobody has the right to oppose the Jewish nation’s entitlement to the Land of Israel, for any reason.

            • I think that anti-Zionism would be acceptable IF AND ONLY IF its followers were EQUALLY anti-France, anti-German, anti-Mexican, anto-Greece, anti-China, anti-Jordan, anti-Cuba, anti-North-Korea, etc, etc, etc. AND if they preache the dismantling of ALL countries, like that wise Beatle AND with equal fervor. In fact, the priorities should be the most ancient countries, like China. But, imagine if these pricks would have the guts to face the Chinese.

              But, never mind, anti-Zionists are just anti-Semites. Even Hamas´ gangsters are more honest than those macchiatto-spoiled anti-Israel euro-scum.

              • “I think that anti-Zionism would be acceptable IF AND ONLY IF its followers were EQUALLY anti-France, anti-German, anti-Mexican, anto-Greece, anti-China, anti-Jordan, anti-Cuba, anti-North-Korea, etc, etc, etc. AND if they preache the dismantling of ALL countries,…”

                No, that’s exactly where I disagree. There may be a few (possibly very few) who fit the example you give, of equal-opportunity, honest-to-God-consistent anti-nationalists, but they aren’t right either. As a Jewish nationalist, their being against the existence of all other nation-states is the affair of the members of those other nations, but the fact that they’re against the existence of my nation-state—regardless of all else—is a casus belli as far as I’m concerned.

                I have from time to time encountered an anti-Zionist claiming equal-opportunity anti-nationalism, saying: “I’m against all nation-states, not just yours. I think humanity should evolve beyond national divisions.” My answer has always been the following: “You are entitled to your pipe-dreams, just not on expense of my nation-state.”

                I agree with you most anti-Zionists are motivated by Jew-hatred. The thrust of my argument is: Even if it weren’t so, and therefore even if they claim they aren’t so, they don’t come clean. I’m not in the business of probing into the dark recesses of people’s hearts—I leave that to the Authority On High—therefore, to my mind, it is enough to condemn anti-Zionism on the basis of its practical end-result of undermining the Jews’ right to self-determination on their one and only piece of land in the world.

                • I meant that anti-Zionism would be “acceptable” in the sense of a defensible ab-inition position, not meaning that I agree with it. I do think that nation-states are the best solution for solving human conflicts to date. I was just pointing out that anti-Zionists that use the anti-nationalist excuse are either lying, or being incoherent, inconsistent and biased as they would not spend even a micro-fraction of their energy preaching the dismantling of, say, Cuba or Iran or Nigeria. They curiously focus exclusively on Israel, which shows that their real drive is pure Judeophobia. But they are so coward and f***ed-up in their political-correct mental muddle, that they don´t have the balls assume what they really are: anti-Semites AND low-expectation and patronizing racists. In this sense, I have more respect for Hamas, which states clearly what they are up to.

        • or if he’s a descendant of Germanic invaders who displaced the Celts in Britain

          Just a little correction: a) the Angles and Saxons didn’t displace anybody and b) the native Britons weren’t actually Celts.

  6. As the Islamist-croc might say:

    Moses sei still
    Sprach das Krokodil
    Denn ich fress nur Christe,
    Jude ich kei will

  7. McCollum’s comment in the Guardian is a demonstration of his ignorance as well as his prejudice since we all know that Moses didn’t reach the promised land and hence could not have given areas to his followers, but then who expects accuracy and honesty from Guardian contributors anyway?

    the LORD said to Moses and Aaron, “Because you did not trust in me enough to honor me as holy in the sight of the Israelites, you will not bring this community into the land I give them.”

  8. Nicholas Lezard has a strange and unhealthy obsession about Israel, which I know from first-hand experience. It’s a shame, as he’s a great writer and an entertaining guy.

  9. Moses, like me and probably you if you are Jewish, also stole land that wasn’t his … Nicholas Lezard uncovers why us Jews are kleptomaniacs

    This is simply pathetic. Lezard neither said nor insinuated anything of the kind.

    Why does this website publish such drivel and conjure up anti-Semitism where it does not exist – instead of combatting the genuine article?
    I still can’t work out if it’s just propaganda to bash the Israel-critical Guardian or plain paranoia.

  10. Pingback: A few good links | eChurch Blog

  11. Pingback: Resources for Genesis 17:5 - 8

Comments are closed.