Last night’s discussion among progressive Jews on Israel,
, organized by Charney Bromberg of Meretz USA at the Stephen Wise Free Synagogue in New York, was a turbulent one. A lot of that turbulence surrounded me and my views. The divide in the discussion was between Zionists who deplore many of Israel’s actions – and this characterized most of the panel and audience – and progressives like myself who disapprove of the religious-nationalist ideas that animate Israel. At one point a distressed questioner said that I wanted
Israel to “immolate” itself. Her statement got at the underlying emotional electricity in the event. I responded that I had never said that Israel should destroy itself, I want
Israel to reform. That said, I was deeply moved to be included at the event. Here was an acknowledgment that my views are widely held in the leftwing community, including among some progressive Jews.
The evening began for me in a very warm way. Big Bill Pearlman,who frequently comments on this blog, introduced himself. He was gracious and sweet. Then J.J. Goldberg, the editor of the Forward and the moderator for the event, came over to ask me whether I thought we ought to limit the discussion. I said, Probably, because I was likely to say that I am an assimilating Jew, and I feared that this hot-button topic might crowd out the real business of the discussion, progressive Jews’ views on Israel. Goldberg said that I was wrong. The fact that I was assimilating means that I am representative of a body of American Jewry. “And the great thing is you want to stay to fight about Jewishness. Most of them have walked away.” A beautiful and generous statement.
During the ensuing conversation on the synagogue dais, Goldberg related something that Abba Eban had once told him. Eban was arguing with the British politician Richard Crossman. Crossman said, Aubrey [Eban's original English name] you Jews are oversensitive. Eban said, we are very sensitive, but we are a wounded people. Crossman had the last word: you are a wounded people with an atom bomb.
I think that
this idea of woundedness helps to explain the big difference on the panel. The other two panelists, Anne Roiphe and Dan Fleshler,
spoke in sympathy of that woundedness. Roiphe said that with the entire Muslim
world bent on pushing
Fleshler’s comment is the essence of my disagreement with progressive Zionists. I do not see the soldier as a victim. I have little sympathy for him. I see the Israeli soldier as being a much more powerful person than the Palestinian, say a woman who is trying to take her child to a hospital. And I think that I have a better grasp on reality than someone who takes that position.
Which is not to say that I was persuasive. Fleshler said that the progressive community is divided. He implied that before he would build a public coalition with the people who agree with me, he would require that we endorse the idea of a Jewish state. He, and others last night, were saying that we wished to destroy Israel. For my part, I said that I thought of nationalist ideologies as being backward, and divisive. The United States and Europe are trying to move past that type of thinking, and I want to go for the ride. Besides, I want no part of a country that deprives the Palestinians of so many rights, and where the Deputy Prime Minister wants to force hundreds of thousands of Arabs outside the borders. (And I went on that Zionism may have looked good on paper, but it seems to have exhausted its promise, as communism once did; and that things seem to be getting worse not better over there.)
Anne Roiphe then said that she could have dialogue
with just about anyone about
Again: this is the essence of the problem in the progressive
community. The Zionist left doesn’t want to include non-Zionists or
anti-Zionists (I’m not entirely sure which camp I’m in). Yes, they gave me a microphone,
and I am grateful, but I think they have no more desire to empower us than
AIPAC and the Israel lobby do. When push comes to shove, the
Zionist left is by and large going to line up with the Zionist center and right, and invoke
the great threat to Jewish life in the
For my part, when I say that I have a better grasp on reality than the Zionists do, I mean that right now the world does not see Jews as victims and weak. And I think the world has a good point. I noticed two people in the audience last night who appeared disturbed by the conversation. One, a man of about 60 with long hair and a brogue, who professed himself an atheist, got up to say that there was something self-indulgent about our conversation. I took that as A fiddling-while-Rome-burns sort of criticism.
The second man was Saifedean Ammous, a Palestinian graduate student (and occasional contributor to this blog), who slipped into a back row of the synagogue and left before the session was over. I know Saif well enough to know that he was turned off by the air of agonizing about soldiers at checkpoints. Ammous has often attended sessions of Jewish soul searching, and they always have this character: the feeling that by expressing discomfort and outrage over the occupied territories, one has somehow atoned. When more is called for at this point, in view of the moral enormity of the situation – action, condemnation. As Ammous once mocked that attitude to me: "The tragedy of an armed soldier abusing an old man at a checkpoint is that such a noble Jewish soul had to descend to such lows, which really hurts the soul of Jews everywhere to watch. Damn those low-life criminal terrorist Arabs, forcing us to do things that don’t look too good on camera."
I know that some Jewish readers will say, You care about the opinions of a Palestinian graduate student and an Irish atheist more than you do the opinion of your coreligionists. They are right. Indeed, a problem in the Jewish community right now is we refuse to see ourselves as the world sees us. We have a hunkered-down self-involvement, an embattled feeling of let us talk about this among ourselves before we go public, a great sense of alarm about threats to Jewish lives in the Middle East, and in that an indifference to the slaughter of Arabs.
As Goldberg predicted, people would want to talk about Jewish identity and assimilation. Bill Pearlman was one of the first questioners, and asked me how I could think of myself as Jewish when I was: not religious, married to a Christian, and "an avowed enemy of Israel" (his words). I said that my family had given me a core sense of identity as a Jew, and that in midlife I thank my Jewish tradition for my bookishness and my concern with social justice. Bill didn’t think that was a good answer, but I told him we’d have to have coffee some time and not take up the audience’s time.
Anne Roiphe was distressed by Perlman’s question. She said that discussions of who is a legit Jew and who is not become very personal and mean-spirited very quickly; we should rule them out. I find I don’t fully agree with her; I think Jewish identity issues are very important, including the toughening and abandonment of ideals that Zionism has demanded of American Jewish identity. Frankly it made me wonder whether Roiphe has good friends who have intermarried, and doesn’t want to go there in the discussion.
Later in the conversation, Roiphe brought a negative comments I made about Jewish women in an article in New York magazine some 10 or 12 years ago. I apologized to Roiphe for those comments. Afterward, on the synagogue steps, Roiphe said that it was not necessary for me to apologize. But I said that I regretted the comments and was sorry if I had hurt her. (I think the comments were to the effect that as a young man I had found Jewish women to be bossy and that was one reason I married out. Though there might have been more snarkiness in the original, which happily, I have forgotten.)
Related posts:
- My Mistakes in Talking About the Progressive Zionists
- Progressive Zionists and AIPAC Have Same Litmus Test for Candidates: Support Israel!
- Progressive Zionists Are as Bedevilled by the Dual Loyalty Issue as Their Neocon Cousins
- (at last) the dark night of the soul for American Zionists
- Jeffrey Goldberg suggests anti-Zionists aren’t Jews
{ 39 comments }
concerning Bill's question about Phil's Jewhishness.
I wonder what he considers the greater threat to Israel: Phil's deficient Jewishness or Hamas' guns?
__________
Bill might try to think of us deficient gentiles also once in a while. Israel is a problem for us also not just for world Jewry.
I'm glad you appreciated being there. And you might like to know that I share some of your concerns about what was said last night, though I do consider myself a progressive zionist.
I was the person whose question prompted JJ Goldberg to relate Abba Eban's anecdote (which I thought was insightful). As you may recall, I introduced myself by saying that I wasn't raised to be Jewish and only came to feel Jewish at a later age. In fact, my Jewishness is such that I've got my mother asking curiously the nature of my identification. (I even attended the event with my Korean girlfriend, who I know from a Zen center.) Then I asked how this debate was different from other debates.
(As an aside, Dan's comment about the effects on the soldier are echoed in Buddhist teachings.)
Your answer was just that these were the things you wanted to talk about. I gathered that you view it as different because you have a different relationship to the issues – because you are Jewish. Fair? If so, isn't that a kind of particularism, not so different from that which you criticize?
I think it's an important point (not only because the same claims made about the NAACP as made about AIPAC don't resonate in the same way, as I suggested in my question), but because it gets to the heart of particularism.
For me, acquiring a Jewish identity has helped me to understand others better. What I had already learned about racism and queer theory, before coming to understand my vague Jewishness in part through those theories, took on quite a new life. My identity and another's may be quite different in many ways, but we each have identities, and each came to have them in roughly the same process. In that way, I can relate on what I think is a deeper level than I could through mere acknowledgement that we're all human. That erasing of differences seems to require recreating the other as a copy and denying them their identity. So for me, particularism isn't antithetical to universalism. We are all, universally, particulars.
Concerning Saifedean Ammous's presence: The progressive Dan Fleshler had already made it quite clear that any actual input from Saif would be unwelcome–
http://www.realisticdove.org/archives/123#comment-559
And Bill – here is an answer to your question "what's your plan?"
1.
Part of the 'Holy Land' should be turned into religious resorts for Jews to go to on their vacation.
2.
Another part should be turned into a large graveyard for Jews to be buried so they are in the right spot when the Messiah finally comes.
3.
The rest of the land should be turned back to the Palestinians and the rest of the Israeli Jews should go back to the countries they come from and still hold or are entiteled to citizenship.
Don't tell me I'm not funny.
Your comment about Labor Zionists preferring the Nationalist Zionists over Post-Zionists (if I may be so bold?) like yourself reminds me that THE WALL was the idea of Israel's Labor Party at first. To be fair, they intended to build it entirely within the Green Line, as a purely defensive measure allowed under International Law. But the Israeli public didn't trust Labor, so they elected "tough guy" Ariel Sharon to implement the idea. And of course he perverted the project into the atrocity which it has become.
The problem was that even if the wall had been built as Labor wanted it would still only have been a means to "manage" the Palestinian Problem, not end it.
Story I heard Robin Williams tell on HBO. He was perfroming some where and a group of Germans came up to him afterwards from the audience and told him how much they enjoyed the show and they don't have anybody back home who is has funny. His reply "that's because you killed them all".
But no question, you have that teutonic jocularity going, without a doubt.
One last thing Klaus my man,If any country should be broken up its Germany. Your country was responsible for millions upon millions of deaths. Both by your own hand and depite what that prick Martillo keeps spouting, precipitating communism in Russia. Without Germany the 20th century would have been a vastly better place.
Well, we didn't kill them all, some of them went to funny Hollywood. Billy Wilder?
Bill, you are intelligent: Germany might deserve to be broken up – but would that solve the Palestinian problem?
Matt wrote: "We are all, universally, particulars."
Indeed, but we all don't base our allegiances on our mother's bloodlines. There is particularism and then there is tribalism, and if we're gong to think clearly about them we must be careful with our language.
Another distinguishing characteristic is the depth of commitment. We all have private allegiances, but the willingness to see others suffer on behalf of these interests varies widely.
(That looks like I'm accusing you of something, Matt — which I'm not. I'm just suggesting that we don't say one thing when we mean another.)
David, of course there's something to what you say. But I think you're assuming a lot about what others would inflict merely for their own sake. A universalism built on recogniztion of the particular can be (and has been since the beginning) used to justify zionism based on the right of peoples' to self determination, as embodied in the UN charter. What seems like tribalism may need closer inspection. Is a gay pride march similar to tribalism? Is the NAACP?
On his blog Dan F. (the "realistic dove" who, like Dershowitz, calls himself a progressive) references an essay re. Wolfowitz, Feith and co. where he concludes: "I found no evidence whatsoever that these officials were motivated mainly by concern for Israel. The most one can say is that perhaps a commitment to Israel gave these officials added impetus to do what they believed to be in America's best interests."
So the (putative) capacity for self-deception of these officials exonerates them!
Dan himself alludes in all seriousness to "the still-widespread notion that the war in Iraq is a 'war for Israel.'"
Does he imagine that by deprecating the facts to his community of paranoids he can wish them away? That dishonest language can magically transform reality? That it can make any reasonably informed and dispassionate observer into an "anti-semite"?
Dan F. is not a well man.
"He was gracious and sweet"
I couldn't resist a bit of mystical research, so I googled the phrase. The first entry was the gods' sent aswer:
"He was gracious and sweet as a nut"
I agree with Bill Pearlman that Germany should be considered for dismantlement, but not for the same reason. The way I see it, the threat of destruction, and nothing less, would force Germany to remove the holocaust leash from its neck and fight for its survival. My guess is that the gas chamber myth would be exposed to the world within the first two weeks, five and a half million Jews would quickly be removed from the death toll, and the world to turn its wrath away from a decent, hardworking people and aim it at history's boldest liars and extortionists.
Be careful what you wish for, Mr. Perlman.
Hi, Found a cool news widget for our blogs at http://www.widgetmate.com. Now I can show the latest news on my blog. Worked like a breeze.
Phil has seriously distorted what Dan and Anne said and what Meretz USA and Ameinu intended in sponsoring this dialogue with him.
Phil completely ignores Anne Roiphe's initial words recounting how she walked out of (along with Michael Lerner) a panel they sat on with Cynthia Ozick and other right-wing Zionists, when they made it impossible for them to speak.
And Dan Fleshler never equated the suffering of Palestinians at a checkpoint with that of the soldier. He pointed out that the soldier and Israeli society are damaged and undermined by the morally repugnant burdens of occupation. This is one of our arguments as Zionists in the Jewish community that the occupation must end. If anything, this concern should bring you and us closer together.
We invited you to our forum in good faith. It's you who seem intent on backing away from dialogue.
The "hunkered down self-involvement" you accuse us of is precisely what we are acting against. Just don't expect us to give up our core value of defending the existence of the State of Israel. But like you, we want to see "reform" there.
Don't create a false dichotomy between you and us. We are not chauvinistic "nationalists." We don't argue for nationalism as such, but in a world inhabited by many more nation-states today than existed before the fall of the Soviet Union, don't expect us to surrender the right of the Jewish people to self-determination. We can discuss why and in what ways the Jewish people are a nation (one of the world's oldest) and not merely a religious group (as the gentleman with the brogue assumes). Listen to us before you assume that we don't work for equal rights for Palestinian Arabs
who are citizens of Israel and for the right of Palestinians who are not Israelis to have a state of their own.
Phil, I couldn't attend the talk (stuck in a cheap hotel in Tel Aviv) but your commentary on the talk is a brilliant critique of many of the key issues at play here. I too would rather commune with a right-wing (and preferably religious) Zionist rather than listen to the tortured hand-wringing of the "Zionist left", because I know that where the issues that matter to me are concerned, their views are the same and the right is simply more honest about it. Moreso, your ability to not be drawn into tribal reasoning is admirable – I think most of us succumb to this kind of thinking much more often than we admit to ourselves. With you, your sincere engagement with Judaism and the Jewish community is something I've rarely seen. More often people either run with their herd or break away from it in anger and disgust. You do neither here… again, I admire you for it. If my comment is sychophantic, so be it, I just really liked this entry on your blog.
Corrective ideas:
Zionists and Anti – Zionists should take a look at the reality.
The Jewish problem is the Jewish religion.
It does not make sense since Spinoza pulled off the veil of God.
Please, Zionists and anti Zionists unite against all kabbala waiving old fashion religious propaganda.
This can open the door to the secular alliance with the secular Muslims and Christians in the Holy Land and elsewhere.
We have to break down the separating wall between the humans against the will of the religious gurus and tyrants.
Phil's report and the comments are such waste of energy, because the direction of the debate is completely wrong.
You seem a little intimidated phil. Maybe you are too deep in the world of the israel lobby to see it for what it is. It's powerful, ot be sure, but it's entirely foolish and not at all serious. What are they going to do, track you down and tell you jokes? or their problems?
Phil, there is an interesting discussion related to this post here:
http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=554
Hello, all my good and loyal friends. How are you, David? I took the trouble to describe what actuaally happened at this event on my latest post:
http://www.realisticdove.org/archives/134
Christopher Brown, I am curious if you actually read the article I wrote about Iraq. If you did, and you think I was trying to "exonerate" the bozos who got us into Iraq, then I think your "capacity for self-deception" ought to gauged by trained clinicians. There were a lot of "facts" in that article. Which of them were wrong? What other "facts" did I ignore?
MORAL SOLUTION.
I said this before and I say it again – regular Jewish folks and Israelis today are product of elaborate system of propaganda, of the historic and political lies that make them (as Germans before WWII and Soviets before Gorbachev opened secret KGB and Politburo archives) accept ideology and behavior of victimhood and superiority.
The ONLY answer to that would be exactly what Soviets did in 1990-ies – telling people the truth, opening the archives and telling the truth about:
1. Zionist answer to the attempts to save European Jewry during WWII
2. Truth about pre-Zionist Palestine land and population distribution (the lie about "empty land")
3. Publish ALL documents from Isareli military and state archives about Isareli atrocities against Palestinians.
I call this three-step scenario a MORAL SOLUTION.
I believe that all nations and peoples are moral and responsible. That is why so much is invested by powers that be in the propaganda. When and if the true story of pre and post 1948 Israel history will be widely known and supported by opened archives, Israeli society will politically change itself and the people of Israel without any external help, without envoys, "Accords", "Quarters" or armies of "advisors" will come up with simple and just resolution of the crisis in no time.
And that would be the end of Zionism as we know it and the beginning of new, moderate, patriotic, democratic Zionism.
Otherwise – we all know where the road that has aparteid as midpoint leads. And we ARE at that midpoint, and the whole world knows that, despite all the awkward propaganda that says that you can have a State that is simultaneously "democratic" and "Jewish" where non-Jews do not have equal status.
No state can be democratic and German, democratic and French, democratic and Hutu, democratic and white or democratic and Jewish.
As educated as we are as people, we do know that BETTER than anyone else after what happened in Nazi Germany. So who the hell do we fool?
BTW, about "progressive Zionists" – what is their stand on Finkelstein – Larudee scandal at DePaul? This Monday the students will start the liquid fast in protest.
Take a look at this (and there are many other groups that are just formed in support of Normans' case):
http://finkelgate.blogspot.com/
Alex Chaihorsky
Reno, Nevada.
Hey Alex, a liquid fast is a little half assed don't you think. Now, if they set themselves on fire, like the Budhist monks in Vietnam, that would be a protest. Or commited suicide, like the Japanese in WW2. That would be impressive. But a liquid fast, what the hell is that?
to bill pearlman
Dear Bill,
If the thought of a political protest by a group of young students against a stupid decision by a university dean in your mind calls for an act of suicide, many things about you start to become clearer.
No, not everybody is that rabid, my poor disturbed friend, people do have something that we call a common sense (we know, we know, its so-o-oo "not" you!). And I feel very concerned for your kids (if you have any) if that is how their father teach them how to exercise their civil rights. Or you only recommend this methods of protest to other people's kids?
I attended “How to Talk Candidly about Israel” on Thursday and thought it was a pretty terrific event. Years of education, experience, deconstruction, activism, and mindfulness were embodied on that stage in the Stephen Wise Auditorium. But Philip, I feel your account of the evening is very Philip – it’s focused on the most personal aspects of what happened to you that night – I get it, it’s your blog – but this retelling missed what I thought was the most powerful part of the event – the attempt to actually change the conversation about Israel. I thought Dan Fleshler was up there trying to change the conversation about Israel. It was pretty damn impressive. Philip, you can argue that you were trying to do the same thing. But I’d disagree with you, because you kept yourself at arm’s length from the actual intent of the evening – and your blog continues to keep you at arm’s length from the actual intent of the evening, contrary to Dan Fleshler’s blog, which takes the analysis further and then some, and includes a full report of his remarks.
You made some great points. What determines a great point? When it fundamentally changes the conversation. When you said, “you cannot pretend that an Israeli and a Palestinian have the same level of power” (that’s not what you said, but I hope I’ve translated the gist), that was a conversation-shifting contribution, because in my opinion, every successive point had to engage it, include it, be tested by it.
That’s why the event was so remarkable and why I was disturbed by your reductive retelling of it – because an attempt to actually change a conversation breaks new political ground – if a commitment had then been formed to move forward on a mutually acceptable message – that would have been interesting. Maybe I’m dissing your blog because J.J. Goldberg has no blog, in which I could post my disappointment in his moderating skills (post-halftime: his opening remarks blew me away). The supremely articulate and wise Goldberg failed to focus all of you into a conclusion / bring the arc of the dialogue to a (temporary) close. I wish he had made the three of you actually come to an understanding on what I believed to be the original intent of the event: forging common language.
to mari07
What kind of "common language" other than plain English we need to tell the truth?
On the other hand if we want to spin the issue yet another way, then sure, we need to agree on "common language". i.e. CODE to yet again find special words for obvious things.
How dubious the word "apartheid" is? What is uncertain about the words "illegal occupation"? "Torture"? "Ethnic transfer"? "Genocide"?
Is it the same JJ Goldberg who is famous for his calling the French "Cheese-eating surrender monkeys" for their opposition to the criminal Iraq war that you are calling "supremely articulate and wise"?
Wise??!! You need to get out more, buddy.
Word games again, Dan? The burden of your article is to exonerate the architects of the Iraq war of acting on behalf of (supposed) Israeli interests.
One may conjecture that the Iraq War has been fought for oil, dollar hegemony etc., but one motive for the war that is clearly demonstrable is the one that Dan F. denies.
Pearlman's challenge to Weiss's Jewish identification was out of line. I have Italian American neighbors that speak no Italian, know very little about contemporary or historical Italian society or culture. Yet, they identify strongly with the Italian heritage. They feel that they belong to some sort of imagined community by virtue of ancestry. It seems harmless and may one day inspire them to broaden their horizons by learning Italian or visiting Italy.
I associate Pearlman's interrogation of Weiss with the sort of evil Eastern European extremist organic nationalism that lead to so many mass murders, genocides and ethnic cleansings in E. Europe.
Pearlman seemed to imply that Weiss could not legitimately partake of Jewish (or as I would say ethnic Ashkenazi) heritage unless he acted as a cell in the organic body of the Jewish nation. Fleshler seemed to have this mentality to an extent as well.
Extremist organic nationalism is evil because internal minorities are almost invariably viewed as diseases in states consolidated on extremist organic nationalist principles. One should not be surprised that extremist organic nationalist states are bad neighbors.
Ann Roiphe's comment that if it came down to a choice between Israeli Jews and Palestinians, she would choose Jews represented a Nazi moment for me.
I could envision a German grandmother circa 1935 expressing discomfort with German Nazi treatment of Jews but concluding that if she had to choose between Germany and the mistreated Jews, she would choose Germany.
Personally, I have always considered Theodor Seuss Geisel (Dr. Seuss) heroic as an ethnic German American, who took a consistently anti-German stance once Hitler became Kanzler. Some programs are so evil that right must trump ethnic identification. Dr. Seuss understood. Roiphe does not.
This sort of confusion among ethic Ashkenazi Americans is one of the reasons, I refuse to view German Nazism as exceptionally heinous. I have seen the same mentality among Zionist colonizers and among ethnic Ashkenazi Americans that I find among German Nazis of the 30s and 40s.
The discussion was not in my opinion particularly candid, for it did not address several important issues that ethnic Ashkenazi Americans should discuss among themselves, for they will eventually become part of the national discourse.
Racist ethnic Ashkenazi Neocons have introduced regime change to the national discourse in the case of Arab and Muslim states, it is disingenuous for Zionists to attempt to delegitimize any discussion of the abolition of the Zionist state.
A large segment of the ethnic Ashkenazi community is trying to demonize Arabs and Muslims with accusations of Islamofascism and Islamonazism. I was perfectly willing to entertain the possibility that such a current exists in Muslim thought, but I have visited many Muslim communities, attended Juma` services, read the Islamic literature from Hassan al-Banna to the present day.
I have concluded that the terminology of Islamofascism and Islamonazism has no connection with reality and is a Zionist attempt to prevent American non-Muslims from engaging with any sort of dialogue with either American Muslims or with the Islamic world.
But since the issue has been opened, we really should be able to discuss the affinities of Zionism to Fascism and Nazism without accusations of anti-Semitism.
Since working in the Occupied Territories, I have spent a lot of time in reading fundamental and current Zionist ideological literature. The Jabotinskian form is not very different from German Nazism and in fact anticipates the worst of German Nazi biological determinist and eugenic ideas. Socialist Zionism is an extremely racist form of Fascism.
I know Sternhell argues that Socialst Zionism is a form of nationalist (not national) socialism and not a genuine Fasicsm because Socialist Zionism did not reject (the forms of) democracy, but Sternhell is either ignorant of Eastern European Fascist thinking or purposefully ignored it.
Greenwald has opened up the discussion of the arguably treasonous behavior of a important segment of Ashkenazi Americans, but it was not discussed at Thursday's meeting.
In order to control discouse Ashkenazi American Zionists are willing to subvert the US constitution or deny constitutional rights to Muslim Americans via accusations of treason and terrorism support. I simply see far more treason and terrorism support among ethnic Ashkenazi Americans than I find among Muslim Americans.
We have to start discussing ethnic Ashkenazi racism. Eastern European ethnic Ashkenazim in E. Europe were not obviously more or less racist than other Eastern Europeans, but Eastern Europe was and remains to this day a very racist region.
In becoming Americans Eastern European Ashkenazim were beginning to leave such racism behind, but the Israeli government organizations that dealt with the Diaspora were concerned that the Ashkenazi American community was becoming undependable and made a conscious effort to reindoctrinate Ashkenazi Americans in Eastern European racism.
One can analyze Israeli educational materials that target Ashkenazi Americans to find the inculcation of racism and hate. (In some sense the Israeli government does exactly those sorts of things of which Zionists accuse the Saudi government).
The Israeli government also partners with hate groups like the David Project in a way that we have not seen since the 30s with the German American Bund. Unlike American Zionist hate groups which receive material aid from the State of Israel, the German American Bund received little material aid from the German government.
Ethnic Ashkenazi Americans should be discussing the increasing level of racism among an important segment of the ethnic Ashkenazi Americans.
I am no expert on racism, bigotry and superiority theories in general, but I instinctively distinguish between two forms of prejudice – one is the form of primitive tribalism that usually more strong among lower classes and being ostracized in educated classes and another – based on elaborate religious, ideological or pseudo-scientific theroies that is actually becomes stronger and more elaborately expressed among upper and educated classes.
The prejudice I encountered in my own life were:
1. Russian traditional anti-Semitism – very much the of the first type – one cannot imagine hearing anti-Semitic remarks among educated people and being an anti-Semite would be a shameful thing in these circles. That does not mean that some do not hold these views, but very few would venture to verbalize them even in close circles.
2. Traditional East European Jewish superiority toward mainly slavic Russians, Ukrainians, etc. Mostly of the same first type and being shunned (but quietly shared) at educated Jewish circles.
3. Contemporary Diaspora Jewish prejudice toward anyone who is not a supporter of Israel, be a Jew or non-Jew. These are mostly of the first category although recently neocons attempted to bring these into second category but only with limited success.
4. Diaspora Jewish prejudice toward all non-Jews (Goyim) of the first type based mostly on folksy Rabbinical tradition. Most people acquired that from their parents or grandparents and have no idea of the parts in Talmudic literature that gives such prejudice chilling theoretical foundation.
4. Diaspora and Israeli Jewish pejudice to all non-Jews (Goyim) of the second type, when some very well religiously educated Jews can actually point to the talmudic sources that declare non-Jews to be so much less human, that it borderlines with animals and argue in favor of the validity and relevance of such views today.
5. Western anti-Jewish attitude that is very much suppressed and rarely discussed in public based on what some people would like to believe to be the negative stereotypes BUT in fact is much more based on negative attitudes toward AIPAC and other Jewish lobby groups, Israeli behind-the-scenes political influence, Israeli politics in the Middle east and overuse of politics of Holocaust.
This type I would not call a prejudice but rather a political opinion, because it overwhelmingly based on politics of Jewish groups rather than anything else.
6. Chinese prejudice toward non-Chinese (more precisely non-Han) based on very deeply held belief that all non-Chinese are just barbarians. Because relatively few westerners live and work among Chinese this prejudice expresses itself as a yet harmless fascination with "a different species".
In comparison to the ability of traditional Chinese of all classes and levels of wealth and education (and even ages) to be extremely reserved, respectful and polite toward others and never "lose face" even in very tense and "adrenaliny" situations, certain lack of self-control of Europeans do look a bit barbaric, I have to admit :) To see how a group of Hong Kong businessmen completely turn into stone from embarrassment when they are forced to witness two Israeli executive "negotiate" – is a real treat for anyone who is interested in world cultures.
In conclusion let me just say that after serious and lengthy investigation of the Talmudic texts that form the foundation of Jewish prejudice toward non-Jews, I abandoned the beliefs of Talmudic Law (Oral Tradition) being a God-given and thus became a kind of a Karaite, a Jewish movement in Judaism that does not follow Talmud as law and allow for personal and very literal interpretaion of Pentateuch.
For instance the instruction not to boil the yound goat in its mothers' milk that is interpreted by Rabbinical Judaism as a pretext to not to allow even a touch betwen any milk and any meat, that leads to having two sets of utensils and dishes, in Karaite tradition can be interpeted differently fy different individuals including literally – not to boil the young goat in its mother's milk.
Because if that Karaites also interpret biblical "Do not murder" and other rules as applied to not killing any human being, not only to not killing a fellow Jew, as it is explicitly stated in Talmud.
I think that many religious and not-so-religious Jews would embrace Karaism rather than Reform Judaism if it would be better known among us.
Alex, your so full of shit it's mind boggling but lets for the sake of argument say your actually a Karaite. Isn't it true that the site of the temple in Jerusalem is revered has a place of worship and that intermarriage is not only forbidden with gentiles but also other Jews. Also, the only Karaite synagogue in America is in SF. How do you get there to daven, or lain the trope. Things you should know if you were a true karaite.
Dearest Bill Pearlman -
You need to pay more attention when you read, then wait a little, focus, try to digest and understand what you did read and then you may not be tempted to write some of your boorish outbursts and actually look like an adult.
Re-read my post – this is what I said:
"In conclusion let me just say that after serious and lengthy investigation of the Talmudic texts that form the foundation of Jewish prejudice toward non-Jews, I abandoned the beliefs of Talmudic Law (Oral Tradition) being a God-given and thus became a kind of a Karaite, a Jewish movement in Judaism that does not follow Talmud as law and allow for personal and very literal interpretaion of Pentateuch."
Got it? I never said that I am a traditional Karaite from one of the Karaite communities, I said that I adopted Karaite tradition toward Talmud and interpretation of Torah and thus became "kind of a Karaite".
And you need to check youself for hormone imbalance, my passionate, but utterly unfocused friend.
Ok, so don't pass yourself off has a Jew, when your not. Actually I can accept Phil Weiss more than you. You I think are just a classic Russian skin head nothing more.
I have occasion read 19th century documents in which self-styled sophisticated Russian anti-Semites discuss the superiority of Tatar Karaite Jews over vulgar Yiddish-speaking Rabbinical Jews, but it is such an obscure and elite prejudice that I have to smile at the accusation that Chaihorsky is a "classic Russian skin head" because he expressed a preference for Karaite over Rabbinical Judaism.
The comments from Joachim Martillo regarding there being no problem with Islamofacism, or there being no such thing as a facistic strain in Islam are, well, funny. They are also expected being that he is an Arab American who is married to a Muslim (if not Muslim himself at this time). Joachim if my religious and ethnic cousins were acting as yours are I too would look to blame it on the Jews. While I take pity on you, given your circumstance, I don't think history will be as forgiving. I'm referring to real history, not the type you construct for your own political (and religious?) agenda.
to Bill Perlman
You are a rare specimen. I understand that your ideology just cannot allow Jews to be any different from you, because if there is even one Jew who does not share you pathetic racist way of thinking all you can do is to go and hang yourself. That is why Zionism is doomed – an ideology that does not allow dissent is already dead.
But on me being Jewish allow me to challenge you. I will send to Phil Weiss the copies of synagogal records and marriage licenses for three generations of my ancestors (including pre-revolution records) together with say, US25,000 and you will do the same.
If I am Jewish (we will use a usual Israeli Rabbinical Court definition – I get my money back plus your money and you will issue a formal apology and formally call yourself a pig. And if not – you get all the $50,000.
If you turn this down – all of us will know that you are full of shit and may be Phil will be finally convinced that allowing your rant here is just a unwarranted abuse of his bloggers.
Have balls? Then accept.
Comments on this entry are closed.