Maybe Typepad’s comment mechanism is screwy–Glenn Greenwald was not able to post the following yesterday in response to my criticism of his book, A Tragic Legacy, and sent it along to me. I’m sure I’ll have some response of my own, but I’ll get to that later. (In the morning, I try and do my paying work.) Greenwald’s writing follows:
PW: "The
failure here is that Greenwald can never bring himself to broach
an issue
that he knows to be a factor: the Jewishness of the neocons. As I
have
reported here, though it is now widely obfuscated in the wake of the
Iraq
debacle, the Jewishness of the neocon movement was openly acknowledged
in
years gone by . . .
The failure on Greenwald’s part is in refusing to
talk about religion as a
motivator. Oh, he is happy to talk about the
Christian religion as a cause
of the Iraq debacle, but he immunizes
rightwing Jews from such analysis."
(1) It is simply untrue that I "can
never bring [my]self to broach an issue
that [I] know[] to be a factor: the
Jewishness of the neocons." As but one
example, in a November, 2005
post — entitled "American neocons, WMD
Intelligence, and Israel: the
Forbidden Topic" — I wrote:
"What accounts for this climate of fear when
it comes to discussing this
issue [the role of neocons' allegiance to
Israel] is that the ranks of
prominent, influential neo-conservatives, both
in the Government and the
media, are disproportionately Jewish. . .
.
"Thus, the use by anti-Semites of the "secret cabal" stereotype against
Jews
should not and must not prevent us from asking whether particular
individuals at the highest levels of our Government and in the most
influential positions in our media were motivated by a desire to benefit
Israel when advocating and enabling this American war. The existence of an
odious stereotype which is false and offensive as a generalization does not
and should preclude accusations against specific individuals where the
evidence warrants those accusations."
Similarly, in a February, 2007
post — entitled " Enforced orthodoxies and
Iran" — I wrote that Democratic
candidates felt substantial pressure to
take a hard-line position against
Iran because of "how vital it was for
presidential candidates to attract
contributions from New York Jewish groups
generally" and because – quoting
the New York Sun — candidates must "ensure
access to ‘the ATM for American
politicians’ — the ‘large amounts of money
from the Jewish community’ in
New York."
In the same post, in defending Wes Clark, I wrote:
"Is
there anything that Wes Clark said that is not included in these
articles
from the Sun and the Post? No, there is not. In fact, what Clark
said is but
a small subset of what these articles documented.
"It is simply true that
there are large and extremely influential Jewish
donor groups which are
agitating for a U.S. war against Iran, and that is
the case because those
groups are devoted to promoting Israel’s interests
and they perceive it to
be in Israel’s interests for the U.S. to militarily
confront
Iran."
Surely you would agree that it is inaccurate to state that I "can
never
bring myself to broach . . . . the Jewishness of the
neocons."
(2) To the extent you are referencing my book, I do not recall
whether I
specifically made clear that the "Israel-centric neocons" whom I
describe as
exerting substantial influence on Bush’s Middle East militarism
are Jewish.
Perhaps I didn’t. But I cite extensively the statements of
Israeli Likud
officials, AIPAC and the AEI, and a whole slew of
American-Jewish right-wing
activists who represent this group. Is
there really some suggestion that I
shied away from the fact that these
Israel-centric neocons are Jewish?
(3) To the extent that your complaint
is that I don’t emphasize sufficiently
the influence on neocons of their
Jewish religion, that is most certainly
not because I am afraid to broach
that subject. After explicitly addressing
all of the above-excerpted
topics, why would I possibly suddenly be deterred
from making that
subsequent claim if, in fact, I believed it to be true?
The fact is that
I do not think that Judaism as a religion is anywhere near
the influence it
is for neocons as Christian theology is for Bush’s
Christian evangelical
base that believes in Middle Eastern militarism for
theological
reasons. Many secular Jews identify strongly with Israel for
cultural
reasons having nothing to do with religion. I don’t really think
most
neocons defend Israel or place its interests above all else for
religious
reasons. THAT is why I don’t make the argument. Because I don’t
believe it.
It is possible for someone to analyze these matters
differently than you
and/or to place emphasis on different aspects of them
without being guilty
of taboo-acquiescence or fear. As many columnists
and others have noted, I
have been as willing as anyone else to raise and
discuss the topic of the
neocons’ allegiance to Israel and the role it plays
in their advocacy. In
light of that, I would hope you would consider
the possibility that there
may be other explanations besides "fear" and
"taboos" as to why I don’t
describe these issues exactly the way you would
like.
Gee Phil. Guess Glenn is just a big puss, huh? Only real men are inclined towards conspiracies and seek to paint everyone with the same brush.
By the way, I have it on good word that John Yoo and Alberto Gonzalez converted to judaism before taking their positions in Bushco. In fact, it is apparently now a requirement.
Cannes, you might have enjoyed your comment, which does not make it less empty.
I have watched this before, it is the same game again and again. The real good critiques – America needs now – are blamed for not going to far.
Good you are around Glenn. And next time you debate someone via video, don't worry. It's all in your head only. [I hope you know what I mean?]
typical me!
not too far – not far enough into the direction wanted.
"The fact is that I do not think that Judaism as a religion is anywhere near the influence it is for neocons as Christian theology is for Bush's Christian evangelical base that believes in Middle Eastern militarism for theological reasons…"
Absolutely — Judaism as a religion is not a major factor in the way that some evangelical interpretations of Christianity are… but what brings American Jews to coalesce in their support for Israel is Zionism, not Judaism. It's an important distinction to remember.
"The fact is that I do not think that Judaism as a religion is anywhere near the influence it is for neocons as Christian theology is for Bush's Christian evangelical base that believes in Middle Eastern militarism for theological reasons…"
Absolutely — Judaism as a religion is not a major factor in the way that some evangelical interpretations of Christianity are… but what brings American Jews to coalesce in their support for Israel is Zionism, not Judaism. It's an important distinction to remember.
There is a danger that this blog turn into some sort of "flypaper" for conspiracy lovers of every stripe. One of the saddest and most curious things about the whole neocon business is how it recalls classic antisemite conspiracies.
All that has really happened in fact, is that the American political system is eminently gameable and is being constantly gamed by all in sundry… It is the "kalpavriksha" or wish fulfilling tree of the Hindu mythology where any group of highly focused, well organized and well funded con men without regard to race, color, or previous condition of servitude can get anything they want.
The difference here is that the Middle East is "The Witch in the Wardrobe" a closet opening on a Narnia/hell… and instead of leading us, as others have, to a crippled health care system, despoiled nature or a country floating in firearms, the neocons and AIPAC have led us to a geopolitical catastrophe of historic dimensions.
The only uniquely Jewish stereotype that I really can see at play here is the one about the Jews' terrible and eternal bad luck.
link to seaton-newslinks.blogspot.com
Leander sez "but what brings American Jews to coalesce in their support for Israel is Zionism, not Judaism. It's an important distinction to remember."
Gee, Leander, thanks again for such banalities uttered as profundities. Besides the silly tautology (ya might as well say "what brings Jews to support Israel is their desire to support Israel" duhhh, isn't that what Zionism is?) what makes you or that banal statement the authoritative view on what makes "American Jews coalesce" about Isreal or anything? No doubt, you and the rest of the closet "neocon'ism is a Jewish conspiracy" wankers would explain that you are doing "the Jews" a kindness by making the "important distinction" between Judaism and Zionism (gosh youre so insightful!), so when the iron boot comes out, you can happily wash your hands of it all by proclaiming how you were merely opposed to Zionism, not Jews, and in your brilliance, you had, on many a blog, pointed out this "important distinction."
Of course, no one will believe you then, just as no one believes you now, just as no one believed your spiritual forebears in your fatherland when they made their lame excuses.
"I have been as willing as anyone else to raise and discuss the topic of the
neocons' allegiance to Israel and the role it plays in their advocacy. In
light of that, I would hope you would consider the possibility that there
may be other explanations besides "fear" and "taboos" as to why I don't
describe these issues exactly the way you would like."
Yes Mr. Weiss, like the possibility that his career may advance. He's not afraid he's just looking to make it to the big leagues. There is a difference.
A very sad commentary and not much to hang your hat on Mr. Greenwald. (As willing as anyone?) Given the fact that MSM for 40 years has virtually ignored the oppression of the Palestinian people. The theft of their land and water. Their targeted assasination. Their torture and imprisonment. Their humiliation at check points. Their lack of a vote or a nation to call their own. The great wall of Israel. I would sure hate it if those in this country who now regard Israel as their religion, primarily because of their genetic materials(as opposed to silly religious beliefs)are offended that I and others are finally noticing the lack of reporting on some of these and other issues. It sort of looks like a coordinated effort. Call it AIPAC, Jinsa ,MSNBC or call it a cabal. The problem is you don't want to call it anything. You want to ignore it, to the peril of America. (Yes, that includes all of us)
Whom are you talking to Mickey?
But feel free to attack me for whatever is on your mind.
Do you feel better now????
It's a capital "N" by the way. I insist!!!
And I am very pleased it works here;-)
LeaNder
Something else for mickey:
The German Axis of the Good – I call them the German Neocon Axis – would, as you seem to, say that I – as a self-defined liberal – am a straight line descendant of the Nazis. Now my family and/or real ancestors do not much matter in this political game.
This is my favorite among them:
link to achgut.com
Now to complicate things even a bit more, I often like his writings in the field of culture or arts and/or about Israel or German survivors; I simply strongly disagree with him concerning politics.
Would you have thought, you could ever agree with a neocon? You just have.
The world is full of wonder
leaNder is fine too, simply not leander.
Leander,
I haven't a clue what you're talking about. And just a minor point–if you're going to go on American blogs to comment, you might want to back up your points with links that are NOT in German.
OK, mickeymickey, I thought you would understand my larger line of thought even without understanding the German site.
But here is a the Google translation of Broder's latest attack against the "German antisemitic left", we are – according to him – the direct descendants of the Nazis, as he wrote somewhere else:
link to tinyurl.com
I modify the second paragraph for better understanding. The context is an interview by the Austrian Jewess Isolde Charim with Tony Judt in the "alternative" liberal/"left" Berlin daily TAZ:
"Not for the first time TAZ confirms the prejudice of its readers: „In a certain way the diaspora produces antisemitism“, Judt says in his interview about the behavior of the diaspora Jews. TAZ spreads the left antisemitism very skillfully: One presents a Jew who considers himself a „critic of Israel“ who lives in the diaspora. Well, if a Jew says it, then it can not be antisemitism. So one can criticize Israel „politically correctly “, without exposing oneself to an ugly suspicion."
Now here is what Judt said in context:
link to taz.de
Charim: How should the Diaspora define itself then? Perhaps anti-Zionist?
Judt: No, I don’t think that it should be anti-Zionist, but Jews, if they are Austrian, French, Swedish or Australian citizens, cannot continue to identify themselves in a very special way with Israel. Since that means that they are identified with Israel, if Israel does things which causes anti-Israeli, anti-Jewish feelings. In certain ways the diaspora produces antisemitism – by its refusal to make a difference between itself and the independent State of Israel. We must make a choice against such a negative diaspora. That means that Jews in America, in England or in Austria must find a way to be Jews and Austrians. The liberal history of the diaspora must be one of integration. There is no third way."
Here Hendryk M. Broder, from the German Axis of the Good Guys, is cited. AND IT'S ENGLISH!
link to tinyurl.com
It was a pleasure to have a little chatter with you.
LeaNder
Mikey wrote:
"Leander sez "but what brings American Jews to coalesce in their support for Israel is Zionism, not Judaism. It's an important distinction to remember."
Gee, Leander, thanks again for such banalities uttered as profundities"
and Mikey then goes on to abuse LeaNder whose main sin seems to be that he was born on the "wrong side" of the Rhine.
Now the interesting thing is that the comment that evoked Mikey's ire was not made by LeaNder at all, but by Kevin, presumably one of Mikey's fellow Americans.
LeaNder failed to bring this out in his charitable response.
The point Kevin made was, at any case to me, not as banal as Mikey suggests – it presumably wouldn't have been so to him either were it not for his erroneous belief that it came from a non-American, and a German to boot. And it certainly doesn't seem to be a banal truism for Phil and Glen Greenwald either seeing their bit of controversy about it.
Greenwald emphasizes that religion is by far not the influence for the neocons that it is for "Bush's evangelical base". "Many secular Jews" says Greenwald "identify strongly with Israel for cultural reasons".
I wish he would be a bit more specific here. If religion is taken away what is there to identify with? The Brooklyn accent of many new settlers?
Finally, Mikey, keep in mind, next time you get indignant about the audacity of non-Americans who dare to raise their voice on this blog, that we are all under the Empire's sway. We are not allowed to vote in your elections. Acknowledge at least our right to comment on your (our) business.
I thought Glenn Greenwald's pieces were quite good. I wasn't familiar with his work before but I'll try to keep up with him now. Here are the links to the two posts he discussed–
link to glenngreenwald.blogspot.com
link to glenngreenwald.blogspot.com
But I think Glenn is wrong to interpret Phil's complaint as not emphasizing sufficiently the influence on neocons of their Jewish RELIGION. As any follower of this site would know, the subject is Jewish IDENTITY (which of course in today's secular world relies heavily on Zionism). I suspect Phil's complaint is that the frankness seen in those blog posts somehow didn't make it into the book, but I'll let him speak for himself.
I wish he would be a bit more specific here. If religion is taken away what is there to identify with? The Brooklyn accent of many new settlers?Arie sez: "I wish he [Greenwald] would be a bit more specific here. If religion is taken away what is there to identify with? The Brooklyn accent of many new settlers?"
OK, I'll break it down for you, since it forms the backstory to poor abused Leander's game too.
A*N*T*I*S*E*M*I*T*S*M
That, Arie, is the "more specific" you seem to be missing, that comprises the "cultural reasons" Greenwald identifies as attracting secular Jews to Israel.
You see Arie, there are some (including some on this board) who would like to opportunize off of the perfectly legitimite protest against those who would brand every critic of Israel an "anti-Semite." And of course many of us Jews, including Phil and Glenn, have been tarred with the "self-hating Jew" brush as well (non-Jews tend to take this phenomenon more seriously than we Jews do; it is, in fact, mostly a cultural aspect of Jewish debate, which includes calling the holder an opposing viewpoint a MORON at the drop of a hat).
Anti-semites, Arie (including those who have hit the blogosphere comments sections) have seen this a God-given gift. Just look at how David Duke, Pat Buchanan, the imbecile Kevin Macdonald and countless other American goosesteppers have taken hold of this argument to their own advantage. "I'm not an anti-Semite…I'm pro-American, and criticizing supporting an Israeli government which ultimately is against American interests!! Wah wah wah!"
Of course, scratch any oif these true anti-Semites, and they can't help eventually pointing out how Likudniks in Tel Aviv and Washington (yes, the neocons) have seized control of the brains of the American gentile elite, blah blah blah, a 21st Century Protocols.
There's more than meets the eye, Arie.
I think mikey is saying that the core of his concept of Jewishness is "A*N*T*I*S*E*M*I*T*S*M". This is fine — whatever turns him on, as they say. (Although I think most people already suspected this and didn't need to be told.) But he must consider the possibility that others will see him as rather neurotic.
And to the extent he is willing to cause suffering in others because of his neuroticism, then his condition merges into racism and must be opposed.
It's (almost but not quite) amazing how much ignorance David can pack into one little post.
For David to deny and (in not so veiled anti-Semitic fashion) write off as "neuroticism" the indisputable FACT that European Jewry's relationship with Jerusalem/Israel/Palestine has for centuries been mediated and largely shaped by the material reality of anti-Semitism (both in the post genocide relationship to the Israeli state and the deep cultural yearning for liberation from Christian oppression epitomized in the pre-modern greeting "next year in Jerusalem") shows extraordinary ignorance of basic history.
In yet another leap of logic, David lambasts me for "the extent he is willing to cause suffering in others because of his neuroticism" without knowing A SINGLE IOTA of what and who and when and where I have or intend to "cause suffering" in anybody (except perhaps the egos of dimwitted posters), and then warns me that "then his condition merges into racism and must be opposed."
Goodness gracious!! So I am Chicken Littleberg shouting the sky is falling in worrying about anti-Semitism, yet the omniscient DAVID, with ZERO information at hand, expects that my mental illness will imminently "merge into racism" (wow, is that a clinical term?) and MUST BE OPPOSED.
LOL. Bring it on(??)
Arie: We are not allowed to vote in your elections. Acknowledge at least our right to comment on your (our) business.
I think the debate has moved on, but I completely agree with you. The rest of the world beyond the frontiers of the US empire should be given a 1/20 or something vote, since what happens in the US reaches us all sooner or later.
We should get some kind of swing states function, shifting the results to something slightly more agreeable.
Thanks for the offer, but maybe you Euros can worry about keeping your home grown Nazis, your Le Pen's and the like, under control, and then you can start worrying about "swinging" things over here.
MikeyMikey I have a few questions for you:
1.Why didn't you have the decency to apologize for your mistake about LeaNder's contribution, ascribing a statement to him that he didn't make and abusing him for it? Instead you preferred to talk sneeringly about "poor abused LeaNder".
2. You wrote:
"A*N*T*I*S*E*M*I*T*S*M
That, Arie, is the "more specific" you seem to be missing, that comprises the "cultural reasons" Greenwald identifies as attracting secular Jews to Israel."
Where does Greenwald say that the "cultural reasons" attracting secular Jews to Israel can be summed up or comprised in the term 'anti-semitism"?
3. What is your objection to comparing the stance of some neocons to that of Israeli Likudniks, apart from your rather unintelligent bleating of "blah blah blah" (varied with "wah wah wah")and your resort to the stock argument of a "21st century protocols".
If you read Greenwald's stuff you would have noticed that he argues along the following lines:
Saying that all American blacks are potential rapists is bigotted racism.Pointing out that one particular black committed a rape is not.
Saying that all Moslems are murderous terrorists is a sin of the same kind. Pointing out that one particular act of terrorism was committed by a Moslem is not.
Similarly, saying that there is a world wide or America wide Jewish cabal to subvert foreign policies in the service of Israel amounts to anti-Semitism. Saying that certain specific neocons have mainly Israel's interests in mind in their contributions to the formulation of policy is not. And it seems to me (I don't know whether Greenwald would agree) that these gents' view of where Israel's best interest lies is, in terms of the Israeli political scene, most akin to that of the Likudniks.
4. You talk of a 'perfectly legitimite (sic) protest" against Israeli policies. Just as a matter of curiosity: have you ever, anywhere in the blogosphere, protested against these?
5. You want us "Euros" to keep our home grown Nazis, including Le Pen, under control. I fear that we are a bit better informed about American politics than you are about the European variety. Compare the following paragraph in a Haaretz article:
"While the state has not admitted to the growth of extremist elements in the Muslim community, Le Pen more forcefully emphasizes his well-known opinions: Muslims, or most Muslims, should go back to their countries of origin. The enemy of my enemy has suddenly become a friend. A Jewish doctor in this picturesque town said a few days ago that many of his friends intended to vote for Le Pen. "Of course, because he is the best for the Jews of France," he said. A friend of his, an economics professor who took part in the conversation, conceded that although things had improved, most of the Jews of Aix-en-Provence would vote either for the right-wing candidate Nicolas Sarkozy or Le Pen."
And you accuse David of ignorance ..
Supplementary note:
About Greenwald: I still believe Phil's criticism of him to be at least partly justified. Greenwald's assertion that the Jewishness of quite a few of the neocons is merely 'incidental'to their political stance is hard to swallow.
About Le Pen:
The fact that a number of French Jews seem to have voted for him does not of course mean that he shouldn't be kept 'under control' (though by now this almost eighty years old man seems to me largely a toothless tiger).
I merely find it ironical that exactly that part of French Jewry Mikey should be most comfortable with ( viz. those who allow their identity, including their voting behaviour, to be defined by their fear of anti-Semitism) did not heed his admonition that he should be kept 'under control'.
We can, however, be reasonably sure that at least one Jewish voter in the recent French election did not vote for the old racist viz. Avraham Burg ("…I say Hitler will not define me and who I am.")
Bashanah haba'ah birushalayim
It is not a greeting per say. It comes from the Passover Hagadah.
It is not a reference to oppression nor is it a statement of desire to settle in Palestine. It is an expression of hope that the Messiah will come, restore the Temple, and reinstitute the Passover sacrifice.
Until such time, the physical Jerusalem is not and has not been particularly important in Jewish religion or to Jewish communities, which generally had their own local Jerusalam, which was considered to be the local center of scholarship and spirituality.
Examples are the Jerusalem of Lithuanian (Vilna), la chica Yerushalayim (Thessalonika), the Northern Jerusalem (Amsterdam). Other cities that have been considered "Jerusalm" include Toledo, Frankfurt, Sanaa, Leghorn, Sienna, Pressburg (Bratislava), Odessa (but not for spirituality or religious scholarship), and probably many others that do not occur to me.
Before Zionism Jewish communities often used Jerusalam as a sort of dumping ground for trouble makers.
There was this woman the Bsulah of Ludmir (Ludomirer Moid), who was acting as a Rabbanit Tzadeket) or pretending to be a female rebbe. The communal leaders sent her to Jerusalem, and for the most part she totally vanished.
That sort of story is repeated over and over again in the histories of Jewish communities.
Arie sez" About Greenwald: I still believe Phil's criticism of him to be at least partly justified. Greenwald's assertion that the Jewishness of quite a few of the neocons is merely 'incidental'to their political stance is hard to swallow."
As one of our previous Republican prez' used to say, "there you go again."
Enlighten me please. Why is it "hard to swallow?" And why is it important? I mean, beyond the banal reasons, which would apply to anybody–eg, the relevance of Hilary's gender to her political stance, or Obama's African American heritage, or Buchanan's Irish Catholicism.
What you will wind up doing, Arie, is moving into that conceptual netherworld which ultimately finds something intrinsic to the Jewishness of these handful of neocons relative to their politics (most of whom are now of little relevance, and ALL–Jewish and non-Jewish–widely discredited as political players, due to their imbecilic war).
You will end up in the inanities and bigotries of Kevin Macdonald, who produced mountains of poorly argued and distorted claptrap showing how Jews were inherently evil, bent for millenia on world conquest.
At least, if you feel soooo compelled to traverse this route, spend a little time pondering what it is beyond the "incidental" about the "Jewishness" of those who contributed to civil rights, justice, medica l, scientific and assorted humanitarian efforts throughout modern western history (not to mention the vast majority of Jews in America who do not and NEVER DID support neoconservatism nor the current regime). Give it a go, eh?
Mikey:
1. I notice that you haven't answered my questions.
2. Your argument that "the vast majority of Jews in America …do not …support neoconservatism" is irrelevant.
The proposition (a) "the majority of neocons are jewish" does not imply the reverse proposition (b) " the majority of jews are neocons". Thus the negation of (b) does not lead to the negation of (a). This is elementary logic.
3.Why is the jewishness of the majority of neocons important and not just 'incidental'?
Because it strongly suggests, at any case for me, why the foreign policy aspect of the neocon project (to make the world safe for democracy under the Pax Americana) got a certain twist that seems to be at odds with this main aim. That twist is: making the Middle East safe for the Jewish State. This seems to ensure that we will have neither democracy there nor a Pax Americana.
Arie sez
"Because it strongly suggests, at any case for me, why the foreign policy aspect of the neocon project (to make the world safe for democracy under the Pax Americana) got a certain twist that seems to be at odds with this main aim. That twist is: making the Middle East safe for the Jewish State."
Suggests to the SUGGESTIBLE perhaps, Arie. US foreign policy has had Israel as a client state as the key lynchpin of its Middle east strategy for some 40-50 years. Yet in spite of this actual history, known to pretty much anyone, you see the tail wagging the dog, a handful of bad Jews controlling the reins of power of the most powerful nation on Earth. Youre right Arie–Bad bad Jews!!!
no need for AIPAC anymore, eh mikey?
(or are they there to fight A*N*T*I*S*E*M*I*T*S*M ?)
I'm with Arie and David here.
First, Glenn Greenwald is right; he has broached this issue forcefully in those posts. I apologize for not doing my homeowrk. Fabulous posts. I love them. They help me understand this issue better.
Second, the fact that this analysis didn't get into Glenn's book strikes me as not some casual elision as he suggests– Gee, I didn't mention that– but a decision on his part. Glenn, you have a mind like a steel trap. It's what draws people to your work. Dont tell me the steel trap was on holiday here. Yes I'm alleging some degree of intellectual dishonesty. Though no I dont know your intention…
Third, the idea that Jewish "secular" attachment to Israel is somehow of a different and distinct "cultural" order than "religious" is absurd. It is one of the great misunderstandings of this situatin that needs to be exploded. Religion includes a great number of human activities that are also cultural. The famous Catholic engagement with good works– which a Catholic friend who is completely secular tells me was part of his catechism growing up. Or Pedophilia in the Catholic church–another cultural expression of a religious institution. Raising money for settlements in the West Bank in some synagogues. The absurdity here is that I know, and I think Glenn do as well, from your own cultural experience, that just because God isn't mentioned, doesnt mean that there isn't a religious component. If Eretz Israel wasn't the giant goal of the Old Testatment, would secular Jews still be attached/devoted to the JEwish state now? I dont think so. Even Brandeis, a real secular who disdained religion, spoke of the "Jewish soul." Alan Dershowitz, raised Kosher and Orthodox, now speaks of himself as not very religious, but there is a fervor to his comments re Israel that I interpret as religious. My mother never goes to synagogue. She is a "secular" Jew thru and thru. Yet her devotion to the Jewish poeple and Israel, a place she has never visited, seems to me to have a religious character. She would check the box Jewish under religion. As would I. As I imagine a great number of other "seculars" would.
These categories blend. Of course there are issues of Jewish culture, survival, nationalism that also influence Jewish commitments, but similar types of emotion/devotion operate in Christian circles and I dont think you would hesitate to call it religious in that context. I am sure you would say that when George Bush says, "There's a reason for everything," or some other religious-influenced statement, it's part of his Christian world view. I think you're right. I would apply the same standard to my people.
Finally, your point that Jewish religion is not as large a force in the foreign policy as Christian religion, you may be right; I don't agree; and also I concede that your thinking/considerations here are of a more global character than mine, as I'm concerned with one thing, Jewish identity. But again it fascinates me that you should go after Israelcentrism and then remove the religious component of Israelcentrism that you found useful in your analysis on earlier occasions. I think I'll post re this issue this weekend or so, but I find it intellectually irresponsible–in the wake of what you and I agree is a tremendous disaster, one that you and I both opposed going into, one that historians and pols and journalists will be postmorteming for years– to scour the Christian right for its bad religious thinking on Iraq, which god knows they are guilty of, and never say the word Jewish.
"I think I'll post re this issue this weekend or so …"
If you do, I hope you'll give more thought to whether you really want to continue using "religion" in the way you're doing. This is ultimately a semantic issue and I don't mean to imply I disagree with you, but stretching "religious" to cover someone who might not actually believe in God is doing some violence to the English language. There are of course religious Zionists, but we're talking here about the majority who aren't, many of whom are militantly atheistic. If you start saying it's their "religion" which is motivating these Jews, then you're left with no way to distinguish their behavior from, say, the Christian Zionists, whose motivation really IS religious and is of a very different sort.
You could of course just use the term "Zionism" to describe the mix of ideas and beliefs motivating these secular supporters of Israel, but that avoids the crux of the matter, which is that much of Zionism is rooted in the cultural assumptions of "Jewishness". I think the accurate term would be "Jewish ideology," but that term can sound rather loaded; so why not "identity"?
Speaking of the Christian Zionists, here's a Max Blumenthal video about their recent convention.
link to vimeo.com
BTW, I'm sorry to be critical, but–
"Pedophilia in the Catholic church–another cultural expression of a religious institution."
You've done this twice now. Rowan Berkeley's comment the first time you did it bears repeating: "Is this supposed to be a joke, or is it just an involuntary little eruption of slime?"
link to philipweiss.org
Please David. Philip is an equal opportunity basher. Jews control the world, Catholics are little boy buggerers, WASPs are cruel heartless bastards that serve food in urinals, and Blacks are undercontrolled urban savages that are finally speaking honestly about their problems (the ways Jews should admit they are controlling the world). The only group that escapes Phil's slim is that which surrenders all to Allah. And that's because while Phil might be "slime", he isn't stupid and he knows which group is likely to cut his throat in the middle of the street.
Boswell's book entitled Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality is worth reading as a example of the problem of distinguishing practices and doctrine when writing histories of religions.
It is an issue in the discussion of Islam and the conflict over Palestine because Ottoman practices and Islamic doctrines are explicated by various Muslim scholars and theologians over the centuries simply are not congruent.