Amazing news from Israel. Richard Silverstein passes on the information that the novelist A.B. Yehoshua has called on the Bush Administration to remove our ambassador till the Israelis begin to dismantle the settlements. And, notes JTA, Yehoshua lashed out at the lobby here:
Yehoshua further described all West Bank settlements as illegal and described the "Jewish lobby" as having "become a powerful tool of influence on Israel’s behalf within the U.S. administration."
JTA then notes that Yehoshua is a leftwinger who has "flouted convention" for decades. Trying to delegitimize him. He is actually mainstream.
Alas this is the moral idiocy that has enveloped almost all American Jewry. They do not see the existential crisis Israel finds itself in–of its own devising. They denounce any American as an antisemite who addresses the power of the Israel lobby. And so it is, once again, brave Israelis calling for sanctions against Israel for its criminal behavior and acknowledging the plain truth of the lobby, while a lame American president says mildly that the settlements "ought to go," and American Jewry sleeps. And leading American Jewish liberals like J.J. Goldberg smear Walt and Mearsheimer as "bigoted." Some day children will study this disgrace of my proud people as they study other moral collapses in which the intelligent argued vehemently that black is white: Stalin’s intellectual defenders and the apologists for segregation.
Related posts:
- At the Jewish Theological Seminary, a Leading Scholar of ‘Arab Jews’ Denounces Islamophobia
- Former Knesset Speaker Describes American Jewry as ‘Semi-Autonomous,’ Influential Structure Built by Zionism
- UN Special Rapporteur calls for Israeli sanctions unless it lifts the Gaza blockade
- Avraham Burg: ‘World Jewry Is a Superpower’
- Dennis Ross Says American Jews Must Be Obedient to Israeli Politics
{ 29 comments }
I don't think that Jewish crimes against the goyim will ever cause Jews to lose sleep. My guess is that Jews are lobbying 10000x harder for Jonathan Pollard's release than for dismantling any settlements.
As long as Jews control the culture, academia, media etc the subject of the settlements will never come up for discussion.
you hit the nail right on the head anon2. the crimes of the JEWS are so enormous, so epic in scale that they can only be atoned for by blood, and lots of it. Please tell me what an individual can do to help in the plans that you must have to exterminate the vermin
Philip is right…some day what Israel is doing and Jews are supporting will fall on their heads…which it has already started doing in public opinion of the Jewish community and Israel.
But not half as hard as it is going to fall on the heads of we Americans who are complicit in this..which it is already doing in world opinion of America.
The longer this goes on the more impossible it will become to repair the damage.
To the childish prankster "Rudolph Hoess", you try to spread vile disinformation, hoping to scare people from seeking the truth, it won't work! Skinheads do not make a posting at 7.45 AM
"American Jewry … do not see the existential crisis Israel finds itself in — of its own devising."
Evidently not. Israelis such as A.B. Yehoshua perceive the lethal corner Israel has painted itself into. The U.S. Israel Lobby, which goads even U.S. presidents into tolerating Israeli duplicity and sandbagging of U.S. foreign policy, still regards itself as occupying an unassailable position of strength.
It's much later than they think. Reckless decisions, such as this weekend's seige of Gaza, are fatally undermining Israel's worldwide support. The EU openly condemned the move as "collective punishment."
Founded on counterfactual myths, zionism was always headed for a crisis. Israel's militaristic bravura evinces a deep-rooted misunderstanding of its actual bargaining power.
Just as global stock markets appeared invincible until they started falling apart a few weeks ago, Israel appears set on continuing its ill-advised expansionism until the day it realizes that the dream of an imposed, colonialist Jewish-majority state in Palestine may have been just that — a tragic dream, that no amount of American money and arms can salvage.
Let's see what the American community's response is to Yehoshua's suggestion. I'm betting it will be nothing.
I assume that you agree with these two quotes of Yehoshua as well.
"….[Diaspora Jews] change [their] nationalities like jackets. Once they were Polish and Russian; now they are British and American. One day they could choose to be Chinese or Singaporean…For me, Avraham Yehoshua, there is no alternative… I cannot keep my identity outside Israel. [Being] Israeli is my skin, not my jacket. [5]
"Diaspora Judaism is masturbation," Yehoshua told editors and reporters at The Jerusalem Post. "Here," meaning, in Israel, he said, "it is the real thing." [7]
Richard, Finkelstein talks of the diaspora community using Israel as a stage to play out its perverse fantasies. What do you think?
Yes David – Absolutely.
Please see here for an example
http://www.barrefaeli.co.il/
Try to participate more constructively in the conversation, Rudolph/Ofomyn. It will be good for your self-confidence.
Here are some good Israeli fantasies
Seriously, watch these. You'll be impressed.
http://www.ketaketa.com/index.asp?id=19
http://www.ketaketa.com/index.asp?id=20
http://www.ketaketa.com/index.asp?id=22
I think EVERYTHING in the world is the stage for everyone to play out their perverse and other fantasies.
For Finkelstein, Zionism is similarly, a stage for him to play out his very personal references, same as he attacks.
The teachings of Judaism, and of Christianity as a morphed sect of Judaism (essenes and liberal Talmudic interpretations), are applicable. "Turn the other cheek". (Understand the world through others' view, so that one can bring actual compassion to the world.)
The political reference is too spineless to manifest that. It picks sides to demonize. The "just" is that which offends least by the critical political method.
But, humanism is constructed of loving all, warts and all, and transforming all through loving, rather than through condemning.
Someone on this board once called Phil a satchel of shit stuffed into a silk stocking, or words to that affect.
I think that's a more accurate description of Jewish Zionist "liberals" posing as "humanist" even as they provide cover for Neocons and fascists to plunge the world into war through the Trojan Horse of Zionism.
Jewish liberals provide the reasoning that will get the world to peace.
Take care of your own, WHILE you work for the greater good of your neighbor.
It contrasts radically with condemnation, which advocates for noone's well-being.
Liberal Jews only provide "cover" for neo-cons, in the sense of defending Israel's dignity in the face of demonization.
That contracts radically with legitimate criticism of policies or actions.
That takes getting informed.
Of course, if you have no care for whether your own efforts are for good or ill, continue.
Chris Moore (aka Ed.) is completely obsessed with the Jews Richard. He wouldn't know what to do with himself if he had to actually deal with reality.
"Jewish liberals provide the reasoning that will get the world to peace."
Oh, so we're back to the supremecist delusions of "choseness."
"Take care of your own, WHILE you work for the greater good of your neighbor."
You mean venerate your own as "chosen" WHILE you bash in the skulls of your Palestinian neighbors.
Witty, your cliches and platitudes aren't fooling anyone. Talk about living in a fantasy world…you should be writing Hollywood scripts like so many of your sleazy Jewish liberal cousins, or tribal fairy tales like your ancestors.
There will be no Hollywood Ending for Zionist fascists.
IS Ed Chis Moore. Who is Chris Moore and why does he engage in sex with men?
Odd, Ed (or Chris).
What are you committed to? What do you live for?
Certainly politics cannot be satisfying unless it is consistent with some other more real personal values.
I don't sense the personal value of service to community in your posts.
Where do your criticisms lead? Is there any proposal made? What would be the effects on others of those proposals?
The neo-conservative arguments contain some truths. So, in order to choose a different path than their proposals, requires some intelligent inquiry.
The Walt/Mearsheimer path of attempting to dismiss the messenger, rather than present a more compelling and plausible message, then fails.
And, it doesn't fail because of some conspiracy, but because the positive content of some prospective real proposal got lost, or was never made in fact.
There will be a Hollywood Ending for Chris Moore and here it is
http://www.counterpunch.org/AS3_moneyshot.jpg
Enjoy Chris.
I think that the crimes of Israel go a bit beyond those of segregationists. I don't recall Lester Maddox or George Wallace using torture or napalm, taking land, bombing or shelling anyone, invading neighboring countries,shutting down villages, denying basic necessities, or really doing much more than enforcing separate but unequal with local and state police. Israel and American Jewry have quite a bit to answer for.
Witty wrote:
"Where do your criticisms lead?"
Hopefully to an awareness by average Americans of what Washington's blind, Zionist-bought loyalty to Israel is costing them — financially, morally, and spiritually.
"Is there any proposal made?"
Yes. Discontinue Washington's blind support for what Jimmy Carter calls "apartheid" Israel.
"What would be the effects on others of those proposals?"
Average Americans would quit getting attacked by Arabs and Muslims angry about Washington's blank check support for Israeli tyranny, and America's reputation around the world would immediately rise by a function of ten.
"The neo-conservative arguments contain some truths."
And what do you believe these "truths" are: that Israel should be blindly supported by the US indefinitely, perchance?
"So, in order to choose a different path than their proposals, requires some intelligent inquiry."
That's exactly what Walt, Mearsheimer, Finkelstein, Weiss et. al. have been doing, but no…according to "liberal humanist" Richard Witty: "The Walt/Mearsheimer path of attempting to dismiss the messenger, rather than present a more compelling and plausible message, then fails."
Be honest, Witty. You know as well as I that even nominal, reasoned criticism of the devoutly Zionist status quo will always be met with ridicule, derision, and shouts of anti-Semitism by the Neocon claque and their collaborators, whom are firmly in control of the Zionist enterprise and are using it to advance a larger fascist agenda.
The only logic that these types understand is that which is administered by a sledgehammer.
I know you probably mean well, Witty, but face the facts: you are a useful idiot no different than the useful idiot Jewish-American Communists hoodwinked by Stalinism. You are enabling Neocon fascism the same way they enabled Communism. You Jewish ideologues have never been right. The only thing you've been "chosen" for is as highly malleable pawns useful for ushering in the latest diabolical authoritarian scheme, the appeal to which your religion apparently makes you highly susceptible.
Wise up.
Right on, Phil. I find myself going back to Tony Judt's articles as I search for different, more productive and progressive ways to support Israelis and avoid the binary split which many American Jews are trying to force on the discussion. It's difficult to be a true friend when the ground rules are in the "with us or against us" tradition. Since when did Jewish thinking get to be so binary?
One other thought: Jews thought they were safe when collaborating with Stalin under Communism. They think they are safe while collaborating with Bush under Neoconservatism. They were wrong then, they are wrong now. I personally couldn't care less if their collaboration with Bush bites them in the ass the same way it did with Stalin (recall, their collaboration with Stalin later resulted in the Holocaust, and when Stalin finally turned on them, their pathetic flight to safety in Israel.) But for those few Jews that actually care about the existence of their descendents, I suggest you wash your hands of the Neocon Stalinist/Nazi kapos. Your people are better off sticking to prayer. Leave the politics to philosophical Christianity, which is a much more expansive and universal belief system and a variation of which will rule in the end. Everyone will be better off. Really.
"It's difficult to be a true friend when the ground rules are in the "with us or against us" tradition. Since when did Jewish thinking get to be so binary?"
Exzctly my point about the demand for political correctness with regard to Israel.
Its possible to both love Israel, speak precisely and without generalization, propose positive different approaches.
In asking Ed if he had any proposals (a positive) or what principles his political stands rest on, he only presented a repitition of condemnation.
Perhaps he doesn't know what a principle is, or what a proposal actually means.
I can see it in a meeting, a "proposal", but only a political meeting, an agitation meeting, not a political meeting as in "lets figure out how to meet mutual needs".
I'm committed to peace and justice, not resentment and "justice".
The "justice" that results is a different shade.
Walt and Mearsheimer's conclusion that our government's blind support of each successive Israeli government policy is not in the interest of the US or Israel is not new. As many commentators have pointed out, W & M simply dragged this long affair into the light. Bush's recent tepid speech about the settlements carried no hint of at last bringing to bear diplomatic and economic sticks to BOTH sides. We put no economic pressure on Israel during the Lebanon crisis of 1982, but instead congress encouraged Israel by offering even more financial support. The text next below (note its date) could be written today by W & M or Ron Paul:
Heretical Thought for Middle East Peace
By: John V. Whitbeck – 10/12/03
With the latest American "peace plan" joining its predecessors in
history's trash heap and with the United States astounding even those who expect the worst from it by vetoing a U.N. Security Council resolution urging Israel not to …(pick one), the time may be ripe for a radical reevaluation of the American role in the search for Middle East peace.
In June, the respected Pew Research Center released the latest of its global opinion surveys, which polled more than 15,000 people in 21 countries in the wake of the invasion and conquest of Iraq. A primary focus of press reports was the surge of anti-American sentiment in the Muslim world. In traditionally pro-American Jordan, 97% of those polled opposed America's "war on terror," while, in NATO-member Turkey, 83% expressed an unfavorable opinion of the United States. The selection of Osama bin Laden by the publics of five of the eight Muslim countries surveyed (Indonesia, Jordan, Morocco, Pakistan and Palestine) as one of the three political leaders they would most trust
to "do the right thing" in world affairs did not go unnoticed.
Less noticed, but no less significant, were the responses to another question. Those polled were asked whether the United States is too supportive of Israel. In 20 of the 21 countries surveyed (notably INCLUDING Israel), most of those polled said "yes." There is no prize for guessing the one country where most said "no."
Israeli support for this proposition should not come as a complete surprise. Israelis have to live in Israel/Palestine. While their lives since Ariel Sharon provoked the current intifada in September 2000 have not been the living hell experienced by Palestinians, they have still become unpleasant, insecure and stressful. Increasingly, the essential realization that occupation and security are mutually exclusive has been sinking in.
No American national interest is served by Israel's continuing
occupation of the Arab lands which it conquered in 1967. American supporters of the occupation tend to be Christian fundamentalists concerned about being personally "raptured" up to heaven after the much-to-be-hoped-for Battle of Armageddon, Jews who feel personally guilty to be living prosperously and comfortably in America rather
than having emigrated to Israel/Palestine or politicians interested only in preserving or furthering their personal careers by not offending the other two groups.
Americans in these three groups, which are critical to the formulation of American Middle East policy, do not have to suffer the consequences of the occupation or the resistance to it, and their support for the occupation rarely reflects any genuine concern for the best interests of Israelis (let alone Palestinians). Their militant "pro-Israel" activism is purely self-centered and selfish in its motivation. It is also the primary obstacle to peace.
Those Israelis who feel that America is too supportive of Israel
presumably can see that America's involvement since 1967 has not advanced the cause of peace but, rather, has blocked it, with
America's periodic pretenses of peacemaking simply providing an "only game in town" cover behind which the occupation could be perpetuated, deepened and made more nearly irreversible. They presumably wish, for their own sakes, that America would "reform."
Now — a heretical thought. Virtually all governments and commentators agree, at least in their public pronouncements, that deeper engagement by the United States is essential if Israeli-Palestinian peace is ever to be achieved. Wrong. The best hope for peace would be total American disengagement — and the sooner the better.
Imagine that the U.S. government were to announce that it was washing its hands of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, that it would no longer give any military, economic or diplomatic aid or support to either side and that it would no longer use its veto to block any U.N. Security Council resolution with respect to Israel/Palestine, even one imposing sanctions on either or both of the parties to the conflict. Having never been an "honest broker," the United States would at least become an honest bystander.
Israeli politicians and American Christian fundamentalists would be appalled. However, if the Pew poll is to be believed, many Israelis would be relieved — and finally see light at the end of the tunnel. With the U.S. out of the picture, the occupation would become, and be recognized to be, unsustainable. The great boulder blocking the road to peace would have rolled itself out of the way, and the real road to peace (not to be confused with the "road map") could finally be open
for travel.
As a hugely beneficial side-effect, American disengagement would, with immediate effect, diminish to the vanishing point anti-American rage throughout the Muslim world and the consequent threat of further terrorist attacks on Americans and American interests. There would no longer be any need to continue the series of wars against Israel's (hence America's) enemies. American civil liberties could be restored,
and hundreds of billions of dollars could be redirected in
constructive ways that would actually enhance the quality of life of Americans. America might even become respected abroad out of admiration, as it once was, rather than simply out of fear, as it now is.
A dream? Of course. Just a dream. America will continue to block the road to peace, and America — and the world — will continue to pay a massive price for this.
John V. Whitbeck is an international lawyer who writes frequently on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He is a guest columnist at
http://www.yellowtimes.org
It would be better if the US instead GOT INVOLVED, and put its weight into peace (as Yehoshua suggested).
Washing its hands is powerless and cowardly.
Bush is incompetent to make peace happen sadly. He is the only US president to accept Israeli settlements in the West Bank as part of Israel, as well as East Jerusalem.
Richard, if the U.S. stopped funding and arming Israel, there'd be a much stronger inclination for it to make peace with its Arab neighbors.
You love to talk about resentment and "justice." Is justice just an abstraction for you? Let me try to make it clearer, Witty: What if someone came and kicked you out of your home, and then put you and your family in a refugee camp, dependent on hand-outs for your very survival, for the rest of your lives. What if in trying to resist this, your sons were killed or imprisoned and tortured for intelligence.
Then would you be lecturing us on resentment, or "justice"?
Rather than paranoia about Christians and Muslims, Witty, try empathy–your little ethnic supremacist state displaced A LOT of people. They are still alive, still suffering. These people, whom you occasionally claim to care about, though they are second-class (or worse) citizens according to the government that rules all of Palestine, want what is THEIRS. Justice is not an abstraction for them, it is the solution to the crime of racist Zionism on their ancestral homeland.
Everything comes down to the right of return. Do Palestinians still have a claim to their homes in Palestine?
Two-staters and "liberal" Zionists say, definitively, "NO"… In other words, the well-being of Jews in Israel is more important than anything else. Palestinians be damned.
And then Witty is perplexed–why oh why do they have so much resentment for us?
Gee, Rich, that IS a toughie. Let me think about it–I got it! They're irrational anti-semites! Muslims and Christians just want to kill Jews! Right?
I think its a good thing that the US has and does fund Israel for its defense.
Historically, the Arab states and militias had initiated unilateral all-out war on three + occassions.
And, the routine is that the militias wage low level war on Israel permanently and constantly.
I get that you adopt the vengeance method of discerning "justice". I don't believe that that stands up to ANY valid ethical system of thought.
The reality of the world is that someone has a claim on all ground. All land is now titled. Even the land that leaseholding former residents resided on, is now titled.
The reconciliation of claims therefore CANNOT be the same as a desert society.
It takes courts, not rhetoric, to determine if something was "stolen", what degree of rights different individuals/groups/organizations have, and what is the best way to remedy the wrong.
I've studied obviously more than you, but some that confirms that some/much Israeli land title is not perfected to the level of consent by a reasonable person, and is needed.
The right of return is UNLIKELY to be implemented except on a very limited basis.
Specific claims might be opened up with appropriate evidence to support individuals' contentions, with some acknowledgement of a class of unidentified claims paid to a Palestinian trust.
I don't really see how removing anyone from their current homes is just, if that is what you are implying.
Comments on this entry are closed.