In the Chicago Tribune, Rabbi Arnold Jacob Wolf, who calls on American Jews to support the peace process, says that Israel is Jews’ "spiritual home."
Our community has always stood with Israel, our spiritual home. We’ve
prayed for peace, for the security of her people, for justice. Whenever
Israel has needed us, we’ve been ready and willing to offer anything
necessary to ease her plight.
Israel is not my spiritual home. America is, and a little of Russia and Eastern Europe, Bukovina and Bialystok. Those were the places my grandparents and great-grandparents were born. Israel is largely a mythology of the 20th century, with Holocaust overtones. I’ve been there and don’t feel a special connection to it. Though Jerusalem does stir my bible-feelings, both Old and New Testament, the "plight" I saw there was Arabs’ plight. You say I’m assimilating, but Wolf’s casual description, printed without demurral in a major newspaper, at a time when younger Jews feel alienation from Israel, is a recipe for dual loyalty and the fervent grasp of the Israel lobby on our politics. Yes I know; for many Jews it is a spiritual home, I understand that; but let’s start growing some diversity, the future of my spiritual home depends on it…
Thank you – I'm not used to reading things like this!!
Israel is a place where you are welcome, whether you personally feel it as a home or not.
Permanently, hopefully, if we make it so.
Your Jewish experience is not the same as the majority of European, Asian or North African. It would be a mistake to generalize, especially in a way that could put your family, or family's family at some risk.
What "your" spiritual home (ie the USA) depends on, is the health of Israel. As goes Israel, so goes the USA. The Arab plight is the result of Arab, not Israeli, policies.
If we did not have the courageious Israelis fighting Islamic fascism on the front line, we'd be facing masked jihadists in the streets of New York, Washington and LA.
Did you see this in the Guardian today?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,2238354,00.html
"The US president, George Bush, today called on Israel to end its 41-year occupation of Palestinian land and predicted a peace treaty would be signed by the time he leaves office.
"Speaking after a meeting with the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, Bush said: "There should be an end to the occupation that began in 1967. An agreement must establish Palestine as a homeland for the Palestinian people, just as Israel is a homeland for the Jewish people."
"He reiterated America's "steadfast commitment to Israel's security" but said the future Palestine must be "viable", "contiguous" and "sovereign".
(end quote)
I notice the AP headline on Yahoo News merely said "Bush sees peace treaty in one year" to which I thought: Yeah Right. I didn't bother to read the article until I saw the Guardian report. When I did read the AP article, I found that Bush's call to end the occupation was indeed reported in the body of the article. But the bombshell didn't make the headline. Why???
Re comment above
Masked jihadis in the streets of New York, menacing poor Ed. I guess he has to have such bogeymen since the Commies are no longer a real threat. America has had no credible internal Muslim attacks (9/11 was done by people on tourist visas, not residents or citizens) but the right-wing hatemongers and hysterics keep shrieking about those bad Muslim bogeymen coming to slaughter your children.
I remember in the 70s my best friend's father warned me that if we didn't keep Russia contained, why she would infiltrate Central America and then invade Miami. Etc. He was a good man but he was one of those voters who thought America was right to fund massacres, torture and genocide in El Salvador to combat the Red Threat.
Three generations ago it was the Yellow Peril (Japan) and before that we had the Negro threat. Oh yes, and weren't we supposed to fear those perfidious Germans in our midst in WWI? There's a strain of paranoia running in this country that seems to switch targets but maintain the same character.
(Or maybe Ed too thinks that all that torture and genocide we sponsored in Latin America in the 70s helped keep Russia from invading Miami and San Diego? Poor Ed…)
America is my spiritual home, and I really don't care all that much about Israel, but I don't begrudge Jews and Christians for considering it their spiritual home. It is the birthplace of the Jewish people and of Jesus Christ. Jews and Christians have had a continuous relationship and connection with the land and idea of Israel for 5,000 and 2,000 years respectively.
Israel is the spiritual home of the Bahai as well.
Do you begrudge Muslims for Mecca being their spiritual home?
Catholics for the Vatican being their spiritual home?
Your complaints of dual loyalty fly in the face of the actions of all the Jews that I know. Their celebration of their Jewish heritage is not a negation of their Americanism. In fact, for many it probably it enhances it.
You are apparently wrong on many issues Phil, why do you speak so arrogantly about this dual loyalty? While your inaccuracies about the democratic candidates will not lead to anyone being harmed, your inaccuracies about the loyalty of your fellow jews could very well lead to more than just headstones being smashed.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8U387880&show_article=1
"fly in the face of the actions of all the Jews that I know"
Tell us more about your friends' willingness to make aid to Israel contingent on it serving U.S. interests, Dave. Maybe we've overlooked a contingent of the Jewish-American community.
"What "your" spiritual home (ie the USA) depends on, is the health of Israel. As goes Israel, so goes the USA. The Arab plight is the result of Arab, not Israeli, policies."
Correct. That's why we now have a preemptive war foreign policy, justify torture, suspension of habeas corpus, and a self-censored press. The only thing missing is tight border policy and
official white ethnic preference–but keep the faith!
Anon: I've never ever heard my jewish friends and colleagues advocating FOR aid to be sent to Israel. I think most of them just want for Israel and the Palestinians to make peace and get on with their lives.
Hey Charlie – What's your take on Ron Paul's newsletters?
I can only see Ed's comments as being meant satirically.
Bush talked of an end to the EXPANSION of the settlements and 'UNAUTHORISED' outposts. He did not mention the settlements as such. Yet already years ago the International Court of Justice declared these to be illegal on the basis of the Geneva Convention. They are also against Security Council Resolution 242 to which both the USA and Israel are parties.
Apart from legalities it can be said that they are incompatible with the coming about of a viable and contiguous Palestinian state that Bush claims to be in favor of.
There is perhaps a tiny bit of progress in the fact that Bush referred to the West Bank as 'occupied' territory. The official Israeli designation is, I think, 'disputed territory'.
Arie Brand. I believe you are right. Ed was using irony–his real beliefs are the opposite of his post's literal meaning.
This is where my spiritual home is…
link to barrefaeli.co.il
That is great news Phil. I bet though that the Palestinians think Israel is their spiritual home. That's probably why they are sometimes spiritually imprisoned and spiritually targeted assassinated fighting for spiritual freedom in the spiritual occupied territories.
Spiritual Mondo White Boy
Huckame: re RP newsletters issue (Is he a racist?):
Did you see him on Wolf Blitzer show?
RP has essentially taken responsibility for being negligent in allowing unsigned racial slurs against blacks to go out under his name banner some fifteen years ago, has vehemently disavowed those ideas, and has explained how his own ideas and long voting record are totally contrary to those hateful ideas, and announced his respect for MLK's stance; as well, he is the only candidate who would abolish our war policies, mostly directed against non-whites, and would end the War ON Drugs, which disproportionately negatively impacts Americans of African descent… At the time of the publication of the newsletters in question , RP was not reading the newsletters for a period of time because he was speaking, running for president and had a busy medical practice (having never taken the usual congressional perks and subsidies).
Sounds like Ron Paul is just the type of man we need to provide some real oversite and accountability. Not to mention judgement of others' character.
If his name was Ron Paulstein you'd probably be claiming that all Jews are racists and homophobes.
jossey:
Assuming you know RP's long record in congress, and can compare it to his competition, which candidate do you think would best provide some real oversight and accountability, and, as well, that all important good judgement of others' characters?
If his name was Ron Paulstein I don't know what you'd be claiming since I don't know you.
I have not been following the Ron Paul campaign closely, but I liked the idea of a new message being injected into the debate.
Charles, I'm curious: is the RP community noticing that the smear campaigns are all coming out of Zionist mouthpieces? Are they putting 2 and 2 together?
I've noticed a real hatred (or fear) of RP that seems to go way beyond ideological differences. It's coming from both the left (TNR) and the right (NY Sun).
I find it hard to believe that Ed really thinks Israel's primary problem is 'Islamic fascism' and 'masked jihadists', and that because of Israel we are not seeing the same on the streets of the US. Israel's problem remains Zionism and that ideology's obsession with Jewish separatism and domination, and the consequent dispossession of the Palestinian population, all of which have added fuel to Islamist trends certainly, but still remain the basis of resistance.
As for his contention that the US depends on "the health of Israel. As goes Israel, so goes the USA", this has to be a joke. Were it not for the freedoms the US stands for and its willingness to fight when legitimately attacked, there would likely not have been a victory in Europe, a vote of recognition of Israel's independence which opened the land to large scale immigration, military aid, numerous UN vetoes, and etc., etc. I would say that Israel depends on the US much more than the US depends on Israel. Not only that, but were the US as obsessed with ethnic or religious issues to the degree Israel is, there is little likelihood the US would be in a position to aid Israel to any degree.
The criticisms of Ron Paul are coming from a wide variety of media and perspectives.
Validly.
It is extremely ironic that many of his supporters, here for example, criticize that Jewish organizations contribute to political campaigns and condemn the prospect of their influence, but do not criticize that neo-fascist organizations and personnel widely contribute to Ron Paul's campaign.
Why the double standard?
trouvere – here is the epiphany I had about Ron Paul.
For several months now people have raised concerns about Ron Paul's connection to white supremacists. These people were shouted down by Paulians as being zionist pigs. Then it actually comes out that in addition to Paul having white supremacist supporters (something he can't actually help) he has a newsletter with his name on it that is consistent with White Supremacist propoganda.
So the realization I had is that the people like yourself who tried to demonize those who were telling us the truth about Ron Paul are the real creeps.
Go find some black homos to beat up and have a good day. If one of them is Jewish and you get the trifecta than I'm sure it will make your year.
Why the double standard?
Posted by: Richard Witty | January 11, 2008 at 11:00 AM
Because they are creeps Mr. Witty. They have no intellectual integrity. Just fear and hate.
"The criticisms of Ron Paul are coming from a wide variety of media and perspectives."
But I'm not talking about criticisms, Richard. I'm talking about the smear campaigns like Kirchick's (who, remember, did the same thing to Rachel Corrie). And it just isn't true that these are coming from a "wide variety of media and perspectives."
What is Kirchick saying that is untrue?
Would it make a difference if Chris Matthews was doing it?
Why didn't Chris Matthews uncover these newsletters? Is Matthews part of a conspiracy to protect white supremacists?
Ann Althouse condemned Ron Paul for saying that the only thing that stopped the Rodney King verdict riots was that the welfare checks couldn't get through. That was true. I lived there at the time. The postal service had suspended operations. The media was running photos of big crowds waiting outside post offices. Ron Paul might not have been overly sympathetic about the plight of welfare recipents, but he was right about their reaction to the checks not getting through.
smear campaigns – that's a good description of what Weiss does.
RP had at least 4 newsletters going out in his name during the relevant times, 15 years or so ago, that are in question ( timed public questions according to how he is doing as a viable presidential candidate–read getting financial support from little people who can least afford it). The handful of newsletters in question (over a period of decades) covered either political or economic/investment issues. He, in keeping with his principles, was during that time supporting himself and his family sans direct or indirect government funds–in short as an individual, not a member or collective spokesman for a sub-group of Americans.
Mister Witty says: "It is extremely ironic that many of his supporters, here for example, criticize that Jewish organizations contribute to political campaigns and condemn the prospect of their influence, but do not criticize that neo-fascist organizations and personnel widely contribute to Ron Paul's campaign." The key here is Mister Witty's adjective "widely." Mister Witty is saying that just as American Israel Firsters support Israel uber alles, RP supports neo-Nazis. Please google
RP's legislative history. Guilt by association, please.
CHIEF RABBI THANKS BUSH FOR WAR AGAINST IRAQ
"I want to thank you for your support of Israel and in particular for waging a war against Iraq," Metzger told Bush, according to the chief rabbi's spokesman.
Bush reportedly answered that the chief rabbi's words "warmed his heart."
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1198517338408&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter
"smear campaigns – that's a good description of what Weiss does."
I think you should put up or shut up.If you can't back this up the accusation rebounds on yourself.
Let's play guess-the-tribe –
"Ron Paul is one of those people the more you learn about him, the more disturbing a personality he becomes."
answer: link to youtube.com
Bader Ginsburg: U.S. Supreme Court makeup signals Jews' acceptance
By The Associated Press
WASHINGTON – Ruth Bader Ginsburg said Thursday that the change in U.S. acceptance of Jews can be seen on the Supreme Court, where two members are Jewish yet their faith played no role in their selection.
Ginsburg, appointed to the court by President Clinton in 1993, is the sixth Jewish justice. Justice Stephen Breyer, named the following year, is the seventh.
"Our religion had nothing to do with our appointment. It didn't influence our choice in one way or another," Ginsburg said.
Advertisement
Referring to her five Jewish predecessors, Ginsburg said, "We're justices who happen to be Jews. We're not Jewish justices as they were."
Ginsburg, 74, spoke at a 100-year-old synagogue in downtown Washington about her heritage and participation in the television documentary "The Jewish Americans" that is airing over three weeks on public television.
Louis Brandeis, the first Jewish justice, joined the court in 1916. In the documentary, Ginsburg describes Brandeis' encounters with anti-Semitism on the court in the person of Justice James McReynolds.
"McReynolds was an out-and-out anti-Semite and he treated this brilliant man with utter disdain. When Brandeis would speak at conference, he would stand up and leave the room," Ginsburg said.
One year, she said, there was no official court photograph because McReynolds refused to stand next to Brandeis.
"Brandeis ignored it. Dignity is the right word to describe his response to that bigotry," Ginsburg said.
Ginsburg was born and raised in Brooklyn, the daughter of an immigrant father and a mother who was born four months after her family arrived in the United States.
"She was conceived in the old world and born in the new world," Ginsburg said.
Ginsburg's mother was a bookkeeper before she got married.
"What's the difference between a bookkeeper in New York's garment district and a U.S. Supreme Court justice?" she said in the documentary. "One generation."
By applying Martillo's theorem which defines what I suppose is a lower bound to the growth of suffering perception: "Jewish perception of the amount of historical Jewish suffering doubles roughly every century", I can fairly say (though knowing nil about him) that Justice McReynolds is reputedly the worst man ever to set foot on the supreme court (we know what the "jews with pens" club has done to the american historical record). I can also fairly say that the man was probably a prophet. It has been this way for a long time: those hated by the jews are often those who best understand them.
By the way, how many generations the soviet criminals needed to morph into the neocon exterminators of middle-eastern peoples?
No anti-semitism here folks. If you see something that looks like it, call your shrink immediately, because you are CRAZY.
In view of the full historical record, both official, semi-official, partisan, and revisionist, what exactly is "anti-semitism'? And what are its roots? Nobody today disputes that childhood American History textbooks were slanted. That's for starters.