Adalah-New York was understandably upset that Susan Sarandon went shopping at the grand opening of Leviev, the jewelry store owned by a Russian/Israeli Jew who has backed the settlements in the West Bank. Adalah wrote her a letter, asking her to cut her ties with the store. Sarandon's people emailed them back. “We received the information you sent. Ms. Sarandon will do her own exploration on this topic before drawing any conclusions.” Adalah is saying happily that Sarandon is "exploring" the character of the store. This is absurd. No one needs to do an "exploration"; support for the settlements is patently offensive, as offensive as support for Jim Crow in the '60s. Sarandon, a leftwinger, should join the outcry, and try to redeem the New York liberal establishment on this question.
Something else. Why do we call them settlements? The writer Dan Swanson points out that this is an Orwellian phrase. They are "colonies." "If these aren't colonies, what are? Any construction across the Green Line, in direct violation of Res. 242..." Yet to call them colonies is to place oneself out of the mainstream discourse. That's what makes it Orwellian. Yet we have accepted the innocent euphemism, a linguistic victory for the other side...
This from Tony Karon:
But they are settlements. European colonies in Africa came with those with home country settlements and those without. As the Europeans moved west into America they didn't colonize the Native American lands, they settled them after forcing out the natives. This is exactly what the settlers are doing in the West Bank. I don't see the term as an euphemism; perhaps you have a overly romantic view of the settler-Indian wars and the resulting genocide.
But they are settlements. European colonies in Africa came with those with home country settlements and those without. As the Europeans moved west into America they didn't colonize the Native American lands, they settled them after forcing out the natives. This is exactly what the settlers are doing in the West Bank. I don't see the term as an euphemism; perhaps you have a overly romantic view of the settler-Indian wars and the resulting genocide.
Here's a link with a good photo from the Leviev protest.
Susan Sarandon is about as left wing as the liberal fraudosphere in matters concerning Apartheid Israel. Alan Dershowitz was there also this past weekend purchasing his blood diamonds. Anti-Semitism been very very good to him. Here is his handsome mug shot coming out of the store posing for the protestors.
Perhaps they were objecting to the imposition of political correctness.
Who issued the "fatwa" on the diamond merchant, and on what basis?
Or, maybe the campaign is orchestrated by competitors?
I'm not sure. Are you?
Adalah has got good intentions. But…
Adalah should consider to heal the
Palestinian society by steering the
leaders and people to moderation
and civility on both sides, and especially
on the Palestinian side.
I think it is best thing, to achieve an
internal Palestinian justice first,
and it will lead to reconciliation
with the Israelis.
All tactics to liberate the Palestinian
by attacking the Israeli policies,
and supporting the Hamas style
terrorism, has been extending the
suffering of the ordinary
Palestinians.
The militant support for the
extremist Palestinians, hurts the
ordinary people in Palestine.
===========================
This W-M crowds are not the real
friends of the Palestinians.
The are fake selfish people.
==============================
Their purpose is to hurt as many
innocent and guilty Jewish people
as possible, and evenly spread.
In Hebrew the post-1967 settlements are distinguished from the settlements of the mandatory period. The former are an expression of hitnahalut while the latter represent hityashvut.
Hitnahalut expresses the idea of inheritance while hityashvut suggests conquest and settlement of the time of Joshua.
I am not sure how native speakers perceive the distinction, but at the very least it makes it possible for the Israeli Zionist population to view the pre-1967 crime of stealing Palestine from the native population as somehow different from the post-1967 crimes.
Leviev and the Lubovitcher's are quite offensive even without the settlements.
The Alter Rebbe was strongly anti-Zionist, but Shneerson saw Israel as an opportunity to bring secular Jews back to Judaism and wanted to work within a framework of Israel's existence.
Thus he never challenged the Alter Rebbe's conclusions about Zionism but strengthened the anti-goyish tendencies of traditional E. European Judaism to justify the harshest treatment of the native population and theft of the country not on the basis of Zionist ideology but on the basis of pure hatred of non-Jews.
Sarandon should think about these attitudes before she patronizes a Lubovitcher establishment.
I was able to create a lot of animosity towards President Summers at Harvard simply by translating Lubovitcher texts (in some cases graciously supplied by the Harvard Friends of Chabad).
Summers' case was not helped by his apparent sharing of Lubovitcher anti-Black racism of the sort that it is easy to observe in Crown Heights.
Summers' expression of hatred was somewhat more sophisticated for he esteemed and admired Wisse's work on E. European Jewish folk culture but he denigrated Cornel West's engagement with African American folk culture.
lets stop picking on the people of the book in israel, and those flying the racist zionist banner, they are holier than thou and ought to be able to murder as many arabs as they deem necessaray, if you think otherwise you are obviously an anti semite.
just dont let americans in the hinterlands discover what is being perpetrated in their name and with their tax dollars.
Richard Witty: have a look at this article from Yedioth Ahronoth, "The Settler National Fund." It's clear Leviev is not some random Jewish diamond merchant that was targetted capriciously:
http://www.peacenow.org/hot.asp?cid=247
" The fund was established by Gush Emunim, a sort of modern JNF in the eyes of its founders, and no political changes have affected its zeal for purchasing land. The LRF has purchased in its own name approximately 20,000 dunam in Judea and Samaria, most of it funded by money from right wing Jewish millionaires such as Lev Levayev, the Swiss tycoon Nissan Hakshuri and other less well known donors, such as the Argentinean businessman Bernardo Ernesto Hamiel. About half of the lands were 'redeemed' by the fund, and the rest are registered with the fund as the trustee after being bought by private developers."
For goodness sake, if one can't protest a major settlement funder, can no citizen action be taken to reverse the settlement process? This is a mother's milk kind of protest, like boycotting settlement goods only.
"I was able to create a lot of animosity towards President Summers at Harvard simply by translating Lubovitcher texts (in some cases graciously supplied by the Harvard Friends of Chabad)."
I live in area of Brooklyn near Crown Heights and the Lubovitcher sect. I can tell you that these folks are from another planet. Most Jews are nothing like them and don't want to have anything to do with them. To associate their positions and texts with the maority of Jews is akin to associating the majority of Christians with the most extreme Christian fundamentalists, blacks in this country with street gangs, and Muslims with Al Qaeda. It's just wrong and intellectually dishonest.
I am jewish and I have no problem boycotting leviev or settler goods. I will and I do.
That being said, the hypocrisy of those who write here complaining about how horrible Jews are makes me want to barf.
Summers had a midlife crise and was "getting in touch" with his Jewishness. As part of that activity, he put together Shabbat 1000 as an official Harvard dinner that was co-sponsored by Chabad.
In any case, the Lubovitchers are one of the more modern Hassidic sect and have international political effect. They certainly count as part of the Israel Lobby and the organized Jewish community.
I discuss Shabbat 1000 in link to eaazi.blogspot.com
.
It was not the main reason to drive Summers from the presidency, but it seems to have gotten the most traction.
In the 90s, Lubavitchers from Brooklyn headed west to a small town in the middle of Iowa and took over a meat packing business. Their relations with the goyim were the subject of a book–
Stephen G. Bloom, Postville: A clash of cultures in heartland America, Harcourt 2000.
Bloom is pretty sympathetic and, as the title indicates, tries to paint the encounter as somehow symmetrical. But the depth of the hostility to the goyim is still very shocking. The group ended up literally taking over the town and driving the gentiles out.
Although the book had a major publisher it remained pretty well buried But it was widely discussed in the Jewish community. For example–
"Indeed, there are many Jews–Orthodox Jews and undoubtedly non-Orthodox Jews–who were quite offended by Bloom’s book, by his disloyalty to the Jewish people, demonstrated by his 'washing Jewish dirty laundry in public.'"
"I believe our current White House Chief of Staff is a Lubavitcher."
I believe you are mistaken.
The Lubavitch do some great things. Chabad House for example is genuinely inviting, and not particularly dogmatic at all.
Their focus is NOT to convert anyone in the slightest.
I spent a couple days with a Lubavitch rabbi in 1986, an old hippie that I used to organize low-income food coops with in the mid-70's (he was the supplier and very patient with our odd financial management).
He lectured on the progression of enjoying life. I don't remember much of the specifics, but the theme is wonderful.
I'm glad that there are people that are different from me.
Most Lubavitch are NOT violent at all, not active "hilltop youth", in the slightest.
The state of Israel offers them protection, from idiots that would attack them for their dress, accents, customs.
That is the reason that the orthodox (of nearly all stripes) adopted Zionism, while still acknowledging that it was strictly a material political arrangement.
In contrast, they invite Jews to be Jews. A few relatively simple physical acts in my life have marked my acceptance of my Jewishness. One is being asked to physically carry the Torah in Shabbat services. Its heavy and takes some physical effort, some suggestion of commitment to carry.
The second is putting on Tefilin. Its more symbolic, being tied to God, but physical as well as symbolic.
Private acts, that harm noone.
The opportunistic potshots at the Lubavitch are really petty, innaccurate, and revealing.
Further,
The aspects of the settlement project that I object to is the intention to annex politically, to take sovereignty as a state enterprise.
Many of the settlers are not "hilltop youth" that abuse Palestinians. Many are simply religiously motivated residents, literally settlers.
With the involvement of the state, its hard to tell the parties apart, or even that the state involvement tarnishes the otherwise genuine settlement (as an accurate term) effort.
The idea that the West Bank should be "Jew-free" is a corrupt one, and as reminiscent of ethnic cleansing, as Israel is only partially rightfully accused of.
When were you in the West Bank, Richard?
"The idea that the West Bank should be "Jew-free" is a corrupt one, and as reminiscent of ethnic cleansing, as Israel is only partially rightfully accused of."
Idiocy strikes again. No one is insisting that the West Bank be "Jew-free". There are Jews living in the West Bank right now that are welcomed by the Palestinians, including a few semi-famous ones, such as Amira Hass, Neta Golan, and Allegra Pacheco, as well as members of ISM, or Taayush or the Anarchists against the Wall. How are they different from any Jews in the settlements? They aren't living on stolen lands, and they are living in peace and equality with their Palestinian neighbors.
Why is this so hard for you to get this? If you steal my land, bulldoze my house, harass and humiliate my children, beat me with impunity, knowing that there will be no consequence for your violence, but serious consequence if I raise my hand in response, I will hate you. I won't hate you because you are Jewish. I will hate you because you are a mean and bigoted asshole. If you keep insisting that my hatred of you is because of your Jewishness, then I might just begin to think that you are saying that your Jewishness causes you to be a bigoted asshole. So you'd be an antisemite as well as a bigoted asshole. Do you really want people to think that your bigotry is causally related to your religion or ethnicity? Or are you just personally incapable of the smallest amount of empathy for someone who not of your identity group?
Richard Witty: I think your view that there's good settlers vs bad settlers is at least, wishful thinking. It's true many or even most of them are there for economic and not ideological reasons, and don't go and seek out Palestinians to beat, but all the settlements take land and water from the Palestinians, and are squeezing the life out of their communities. So even the presence of non-ideological settlers hurts Palestinians.
It's not a question of the West Bank being "Jew-free," and it's disturbing that you invoke what the Nazis did to us to justify the Israeli colonization of and theft of Palestinian land in the West Bank. It's not the mere fact that Jews are living in the occupied West Bank and E. Jerusalem that's a problem; it's the way the Israeli state and the settlers have gone about it, confiscating Palestinian land, cutting off their farms from their villages, running roads through their lands, taking their water. All settlements violate international law and convention. Are you aware the West Bank is under Israeli military occupation, and it violates the fourth Geneva convention for Israel to settle its own citizens there? Do you even care? How can you expect the world to fight anti-Semitism when you make excuses for the Israeli confiscation of Palestinian land, and show no respect for international law? Palestinians are supposed to abide by international law and not hurt Israeli civilians, but Israel should be allowed to ignore it, and steal whatever land it fancies?
For your information, about half of the settlers living in the Leviev-owned settlement Zufim are ideolgical and religious, and they have beaten villagers from the nearby Palestinian village of Jayyous, on whose land the settlement is built and which they are continuing to steal. They have stolen their crops, even whole trees, and the wall that Israel built separates all of Jayyous' most arable land and water resources from the rest of the village, in order to confiscate the land, and give it to Leviev's Zufim, which is slated to expand by 11 times. You can read all about it in this B'tselem-BIMKOM report:
“>link to chris-on-the-bike.de
And check out:
Security or greed –on the location of the wall between Jayyous and Zufim
The rants might be relevant if you read my post, not just what irritated you about it.
I stated that the problem with the settlements is that they are part of a state-supported prior annexation strategy, and that confused the relationship of some of the individuals, some of the individual communities, as genuinely residents.
Contrary to your prejudice, there are racially definitive laws currently in Palestine, that prohibit sale of land to Jews.
There is/was an agenda of ethnic cleansing.
Those Jews that had functionally renounced their Jewishness were welcome, but those Jews that affirmed it were not.
Its not the same as genocide, but it is discrimmination, and then affirmed functionally by many on the left.
It is possible for Palestine to be self-governing, fully sovereign, without exclusion.
Politically adept individuals (those with mature and kind political consciousness) can distinguish between nationalism and exclusion.
In reality, Palestine hasn't yet gotten there.
I've met some of the settlers that DEFENDED Palestinian olive groves from other more expansionistic settlers. They both called themselves orthodox.
I don't have a list, and therefore I don't have an accurate sense of proportion that are expansionistic vs peers.
Certainly, most are beneficiaries of state sponsored annexations.
That is undeniable.
I was last in Israel and in the West Bank in 1986. I stayed in Palestinian hostels on the West Bank. It was a time of "secure" annexation. I experienced some overt and intense hostility, some a "mark" trying to sell me goods, some genuine welcome.
I was definitely scared nearly all the time that I was there. I definitely presumed that the land was functionally a single-state, an annexed one, an assumption that I've long renounced.
I did not meet political activists at all of any stripe, and did not visit any settlements either.
Sorry I lost my temper with you, Richard. I'll address your other points when I can, let me first respond to this one:
"Contrary to your prejudice, there are racially definitive laws currently in Palestine, that prohibit sale of land to Jews."
One reason for that law is that the sale of Palestinian land in the territories to Jews, such as representatives of the Land Redemption Fund which Leviev is one of the main donors of, leads to the creation of exclusively Jewish settlements, and the Palestinans living around them get dispossessed. Several such sales of small plots began Zufim, and the settlement now threatens to annex 70% of Jayyous' land. That law is thus grounded in a genuine fear — and one which has been borne out by reality — on the part of Palestinians that the sale of any land to Jews leads to ever-expanding settlements & the confiscation of Palestinians' lands.
I highly recommend reading this B'Tselem study, link to btselem.org
"Land Grab: Israel's Settlement Policy in the West Bank."
And this article by Akiva Eldar, "There's a system There's a system for turning Palestinian property into Israel's state land"
Cases should be addressed by fair and clear courts.
Generalization and prejudicial conclusions is the problem.
can you elaborate a bit, Richard — not exactly sure what you mean.
If a Jew purchases land from a Palestinian in the areas beyond the 1967 lines, is it land theft? If he purchases land within the 1967 lines, is it land theft? We cant exclude Jews from living in Grosse Pointe Michigan, so why cant they live in Hebron?
"Cases should be addressed by fair and clear courts.
Generalization and prejudicial conclusions is the problem."
Most political agitation generalizes. It hears of a case (even a pattern of cases) and then concludes that ALL should be forcefully removed.
I prefer equal due process under the law for ALL, rather than politically motivated prejudicial judgement.
"I was definitely scared nearly all the time that I was there."
But Richard, you're scared nearly all the time that you're here in the U.S. too. That's your justification for Zionism, remember? Perhaps it's time to accept that it's not going to go away and stop making the Palestinians suffer for what is ultimately a neurosis.
Clearly Richard, you are not easily swayed.
As for prejudicial courts, let's consider the Israeli court system. The following excerpt is from an article about Danny Tirza, considered the architect of the route of Israel's separation barrier.
Your point?
Letters to the Editor of the Daily Princestonian by Mearsheimer/Walt & retired CIA analyst Bill Christison
http://tinyurl.com/2jekk2
The Arabs in the so-called territories in Israel don't have a legal claim to a portion land the land mandated for a Jewish state because they have never ever signed a partition agreement that would give them legality. They have had various opportunities to do so since 1937, but they always refused because they want all the land west of the Jordan River.
Zionsake Editor