Abe Foxman of the ADL has responded to Joe Klein's blog where he said that Jewish neoconservatives had divided loyalties in supporting the Iraq war: It
is inappropriate to identify a group that clearly has Jews and non-Jews
within its ranks by singling out the Jews or, worse, identifying all of
them as "Jewish." Again, if you consider the history that has seen
Jews vilified as a group that keeps to itself, is conspiratorial and
has dual loyalties, you will better understand our concern.
Neoconservatives have the right to make their case without having their religion brought up. So, too, do those on the opposite end of the political spectrum, whether Jewish or not. Religious beliefs are personal, and matters of faith belong in the heart, in the church and in the home. In addition, you play into classic notions about Jews by suggesting that, in their analysis, the neoconservatives were only thinking about Israel's interests and not that of their own country.
This is good and highminded, but hogwashian. As three smart Jewish authors have demonstrated (Murray Friedman, Benjamin Ginsberg, and Jacob Heilbrunn), the neoconservative movement came out of the Jewish community. Love of Israel was central. Religious beliefs aren't always personal. I wish they were, they're not. Pat Robertson's religious views are pretty political, and everyone gets to talk about them. Doug Feith came out of a militant Zionist background to support the Iraq war, and do so as a policymaker. Just because he doesn't want to talk about it in his new book doesn't mean the rest of us shouldn't.
Klein's comment, which happily is getting tons of attention, touches on The faultline in Jewish public life today--the extent to which blind support for Israel's militant and racist policies has corrupted precincts of the American Jewish community. Not all of us. Let the foodfight, I mean soulsearching, begin. Zionists vs. antiZionists and nonZionists. And yes, it will be a lot like the conversations over that last extremist fever that swept the Jewish community 80 years ago: Communism. I bet I would have been a Communist. God did me a great favor by letting me be born in 1955, so I could enter a different moment in history.
"This is good and highminded, but hogwashian. As three smart Jewish authors have demonstrated (Murray Friedman, Benjamin Ginsberg, and Jacob Heilbrunn), the neoconservative movement came out of the Jewish community. "
Thats actually false. The neo-conservative movement included Jews and Jewish publications, but was never Jewish in origination, nor Israel-centric.
The main motive for neo-conservatism originally was an animosity towards the new left and the counter-culture (a largely Jewish movement – my mother babysat for Abbie Hoffman for example). The reason it was called neo-conservatism (new conservatism) rather than old-con (who also bore animosity towards the new left and counter-culture), was that neo-conservatives were former liberals or radicals, and the old cons were never.
Are you foodfighting with me Phil?
I'm a Zionist, applying the definition of it that the Jewish people are a people, and have the right and in some cases necessity, to form a nation, and from a nation a state.
The form of that Zionism may vary and still be Zionism. I am very critical of likud Zionism, and even labor.
But, like Meretz, I am still a Zionist, and proud of it.
Proud to be a Jew. Proud to be a self-identified Jew. Proud to be a supporter of Jewish community.
I'd be ashamed of myself if I walked around in the denial of my past – present – future, in a state of walking existential apology.
One feature of Zionism as a general social phenomena is the suggestion to Jews in general NOT to walk in existential apology.
The conversation about Zionism vs a-Zionism vs nonZionist vs anti-Zionist is NOT a current discussion. It was an original discussion in the 30's and 40's when it was HOTLY discussed.
There is some discussion of post-Zionist forms and possibilities.
But, your suggestion is really behind the times.
If you believe that Israel has a right to exist even within the green line, even with a limited right of return, then you are a Zionist.
What do you think, Phil?
Does Israel have a right to exist, as Israel?
For once I like the humor in your headline.
Ridicule of the purge. Thank you.
I love it when Phil touches a nerve, and our resident Uncle Jabo starts spinning and sputtering like an overloaded pressure cooker. Delicious morsels of crazy go flying everywhere as Witty spits and steams until his zionism is nothin' more than a broth of pure humanism, neo-conservatism loses all connection to Israel, and all those orange sunshines, greenies, and chocolate brown windowpanes become completely kosher.
Hell sometimes I do wish I could just drop a tab myself and join the Scary Pranksters. I wanna see Jerusalem man — undivided!
Mickey Kaus "Joe Klein Lives!"
http://www.slate.com/id/2194571/#kleinlives
Joe Klein wrote:
The fact that a great many Jewish neoconservatives–people like Joe Lieberman and the crowd over at Commentary–plumped for this war, and now for an even more foolish assault on Iran, raised the question of divided loyalties: using U.S. military power, U.S. lives and money, to make the world safe for Israel.
Max Boot, Pete Wehner, Jennifer Rubin, Paul Mirengoff and Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League all wrote confidently outraged responses to Klein's raising of the "divided loyalties" possibility–and, indeed, it's not the sort of assertion that has typically gone unpunished in the past. When Klein stubbornly failed to back down in a second post, Wehner somewhat smugly anticipated his near-certain demise:
It's like watching a movie that you now know is going to end very badly, and very sadly.
But here's the thing: It's now a week later, and as far as I can tell Klein still has his job.
Abe Foxman:"Religious beliefs are personal, and matters of faith belong in the heart, in the church and in the home."
Mr.Foxman,didn't you forget to mention the public space (menorahs,eruvim) and the supermarket (kosher tax)?
P.S Congratulations for clinging to the ADL as long as Mugabe to Zimbabwe.
"I bet I would have been a Communist. God did me a great favor by letting me be born in 1955"
Great judgmement you got there Philip! So you made my day–just when I thought you might have been making a point (somewhere) you reminded me that Jewish anti-Zionism will likely go the way of Jewish Communism. Myself, I can't wait to see you in the dustbin of history.
Richard,
No, Israel does not have a right to exist, which makes Israel no different than any other nation-state on the planet.
"Mr.Foxman,didn't you forget to mention the public space (menorahs,eruvim) and the supermarket (kosher tax)?"
speaking of the kosher tax: one of the many jewish taxes on all others.
found a pig's foot in my container of kosher salt. how many more feet of pigs would be found in salt or peanuts or mustard or ??? if not for the blessed jewish tax?
The assault on Klein by those in the Dershowitz vein can be broken down as follows:
1) religion is “personal,” therefore it is irrelevant to discussions of public policy
2) Jews have historically been persecuted, therefore a collective of Jews in the public sphere pursuing controversial policy shouldn’t be identified as Jewish
This is just another variation of the hiding-behind-“the Jews” canard commonly played by Zionists and secular Neocons.
US Jewish Zionists are motivated by their twisted interpretation of the Jewish religion to pursue US public policy on behalf of Israel (“the Jewish state“), and at US taxpayer’s expense. This makes their “personal” religion relevant to public policy discussions. In the case of the Jewish Neocons, ethnic Jewish nationalism is a keystone to their ideology; thus identifying them as “Jewish Neoconservatives,” as Klein did, is a relevant descriptor that goes to their primary motives, as distinguished from the primary motives of Christian Zionist Neocons or secular Neocons.
Dershowitz’s claim that Klein is attempting to say ALL Neocons are Jewish, and the implication that Klein may be motivated by anti-Semitism is a deliberate misinterpretation of what Klein wrote. This misinterpretation is necessary in order to shield ALL Neocons from public criticism by linking the word “Neocon” to anti-Semitism, thus discrediting it as an anti-Semitic code word.
Because of their ruthlessness and venality, and their shameless willingness to commoditize and demagogue “the Jews” and the state of Israel, Jewish Zionists are indispensable to the bi-partisan, anti-Christian, secular-materialist push (which is what Neoconservatism and its adjunct, Neoliberalism are really all about), as are pseudo-Christian Zionists.
All of these are the enemies of traditional Western civilization, and it shows.
It’s ironic, really. They have all systematically gone about destroying both true Christianity and true Judaism, and now they are whining that Islam is expanding into the spiritual vacuum that they themselves, through their selfishness and greed, hollowed out.
After a right of return with ample opportunity and time is implemented, a general plebiscite should be held to determine how the area Palestine/Israel should be governed.
Weiss: "Zionists vs. antiZionists and nonZionists. And yes, it will be a lot like the conversations over that last extremist fever that swept the Jewish community 80 years ago: Communism. I bet I would have been a Communist."
Based on what I've read here, my take is you might have been taken in initially, but would have ultimately turned against it like Koestler, due to your sense of justice. But the comparison is apt, because both Communism and Zionism are murderous schemes masked by benevolent rhetoric of social justice and fairness, one with ostensible claims on behalf of humanity, the other with ostensible claims on behalf of Jews. Of course, the truth of both is that they are highly sophisticated and elaborate grifts. Those Jews with a sense of justice in the traditional Jewish vein have recognized this.
On the justice note, I question whether Talmudic Zionist Jews, particularly those of the Ashkenazi lineage, even have the right to call themselves “Jews.” In addition to having no blood relation to the Semitic people of historic Israel, their embrace of Talmudic doctrine vis-à-vis treatment of non-Jews is an implicit rejection of the significance of cosmic justice, albeit occasionally violent, preached by many of the Semitic Old Testament figures. The fraud inherent in the Neoconservative ideology (grift) is consistent with the fraudulent character of the mostly Ashkenazi, and Talmudic in outlook, “Jewish” Zionists who primarily formulated it.
Hey Ken, I'm 1/32 Cherokee! Gimme your address, I want you house, you colonist, you!
.
"Neoconservatives have the right to make their case without having their religion brought up." — Abe Foxman
Great, Abe. Let's try on Jim's Corollary:
"Migrants have the right to make their case for Israeli residency without having their religion brought up."
Oh, wait! The Law of Return says that Jews anywhere in the world can make aliyah, but Palestinians living next door can't move in, even if married to an Israeli.
Well, scratch that idea. As long as Israel defines itself as a 'Jewish state,' we have every right to put the religion of its supporters under the microscope and examine the suppurating pathology of how a religion (or at least some of its adherents) can endorse apartheid. Zionism and Aryanism are brothers in arms; they merely glorify different tribes.
I believe Chomsky said the "right to exist" concept was invented just for Israel.
"Zionism and Aryanism are brothers in arms; they merely glorify different tribes."
Hertzl said anti-Semites would be the best allies of Zionists. Edwin Black's "The Transfer Agreement" shows that Herzl was onto something:
http://www.transferagreement.com/
Jewish anti-Zionism will likely go the way of Jewish Communism. Myself, I can't wait to see you in the dustbin of history.
Along with the out-dated notion of a hyper-militarized ethnic nationalist state, yeah, that would be grand. Long live the dustbin of history!
Phil,
Will you soul-search similarly on whether the US is a legitimate nation.
It claimed to be founded on "consent of the governed", but at the time of the constitution, it was consent of the male, white, property owners, which is a far far slimmer majority than even the worst interpretations of Zionism.
And, it took a civil war, 110 years of Jim Crow, women's suffrage FIGHTS, a thousand broken treaties with Indian tribes, to realize anything that could reasonably be called "one-person, one-vote".
Clearly colonial, now again neo-aristocratic. (Old con AND neo)
And, if I remember accurately, as idealistic teenagers on the Cape, you an I DID undertake some of that same fundamental and existential political soul-searching.
Sometimes world events stimulate fundamental questioning, sometimes in proportion to events occurring, sometimes utterly out of proportion.
Are you a revolutionist, seeking overthrow, uprising? And worse than that, are you a revolutionist in someone else's community?
And, if you are a revolutionist in someone else's community, aren't you then morally equivalent to the neo-conservative presumption of advocating in regime change, in the name of "consent of the governed"?
Which con is that?
Has the butter that feeds you effected your independance (in any way), honestly?
Should it?
Which butter, which feeders?
Ed, "Jewish sense of Justice"? Do you mean like "an eye for an eye? Sounds more like revenge to me. Perhaps you meant a human sense of justice?
"Jewish sense of Justice"? Do you mean like "an eye for an eye? — Laurie
—
Contemporary Western notions of morality and justice did not evolve in a vacuum. They were built brick by brick over the course of centuries, millennia…
The Old Testament — Hebrew bible — is integral to today’s morality. (The New Testament is obviously even more so.) But my point is that the Old Testament figures established the idea of God’s law and God’s justice as a form of cosmic justice (not unlike karma) that would punish the wicked and reward the righteous. Sometimes the wicked were Jews, often they were enemies of Jews. The collective reverence for justice and morality was handed down to Jesus, who took it to new heights, which eventually evolved into Western civilization’s notions of morality and justice.
When Jewish morality did not collectively evolve–it seems to have gotten stuck and even devolved on the post-Christ Talmud — the sense of cosmic justice as applicable to their own wickedness seems to have gotten lost. But it does still, from time to time, peek through.
Does it peek through here?
"In short, then, Iranians have every reason to feel insecure. Many have lived with the threat and fear of a hostile, nuclear-armed Israel and an aggressive, nuclear-armed United States all their lives. But, evidently, it is only Israel’s and the United States’ security that matters. Israel’s ambassador to the EU, Oded Eran, recently argued that, for the first time since its creation, Israel is facing an “existential threat”. He points out that,
“We know from the past the destructive nature of the nuclear weapons and it doesn’t matter whether you react or not afterwards because the harm can’t be reversed. That’s existential threat.”
Now, this is the argument that is being and will be used to justify a strike on Iran. The premises are;
1. A nuclear Iran will be, in Olmert’s words, “not just a threat for Israel, but for the whole world.”
2. Israel should not have to tolerate such a threat.
The conclusion, therefore, is that Israel has the right to strike preventively against Iran to stop it getting nuclear weapons.
The first thing to note is the unevidenced assumption that Iran is in fact attempting to develop nuclear weapons. The IAEA has emphasised (though not strongly enough) many times that, although it can’t say for definite that Iran isn’t pursuing nuclear weapons, neither can it show that it is. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the working assumption must therefore be that Iran is simply exercising its legal right to enrich uranium and develop a civilian nuclear programme.
But let’s, for a moment, assume that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons. Does it then follow that, as Netanyahu put it, “[the arsenal] will be directed against ‘the big Satan,’ the U.S., and the ‘moderate Satan,’ Europe”? Let’s look at the current nuclear club. Has Israel ever used nuclear weapons on anyone? Has France? Has the U.K.? No; the only country ever to drop a nuclear bomb on another nation is the United States. They dropped two on Japan – a non-nuclear state. There has never been an instance of a nuclear attack on a nuclear state. The reason for this is obvious: an attack on a nuclear state would result in a retaliatory nuclear strike and states don’t commit suicide. There is thus no reason at all to think that a nuclear Iran would actually use nuclear weapons on anyone. As historian Martin van Crevald writes, “[Israel] has long had what it needs to deter an Iranian attack…Should deterrence fail, Jerusalem can quickly turn Tehran into a radioactive desert — a fact of which Iranians are fully aware.”
But even if we assume that Iran is developing nuclear weapons and that, should it get them, it would pose a threat to Israel, the United States and the world, would that then justify an Israeli/U.S. preventive strike against Iran? Well, let’s reverse the situation. As we have seen, Israel is a nuclear power with enough nuclear weapons to “turn Tehran into a radioactive desert”. Its political and military leadership have long made clear that they are prepared to launch a military first-strike against Iran. The U.S. has also made its aggressive intent towards Iran known and has enough nuclear weapons to turn the whole of the Middle East into a radioactive desert. What’s more, both states have a history of aggressive military intervention (the U.S., for example, helped topple Iran’s democratically elected Mossadegh in 1953). Even Tony Blair accepts that Iran has a “genuine, if entirely misplaced fear, that the US seeks a military solution in Iran.”
If we argue that Israel has the right to strike Iran preventively because it fears an Iranian nuclear threat, does not Iran have the right to strike Washington and Tel Aviv for the same reason?
If basic morality does not suffice, international law is clear on the matter. Preventive military strikes are illegal. Under international law (.pdf), the “use of force is only permissable in the case of armed attack or imminent attack or under UN authorization when a threat to the peace has been declared by the Security Council and non-military measured have been determined to be inadequate.”
As an American Society of International Law (ASIL) paper, entitled ‘The Myth of Preemptive Self-Defense’ (.pdf), explains, the United Nations Charter (a binding treaty to which both the U.S. and Israel are signatories) explicitly forbids the use of force except in self-defence or if authorised by the Security Council in response to an imminent attack. But to use force under Article 51 (which permits states to use force to defend themselves) requires that, “An attack must be underway or just have already occurred in order to trigger the right of unilateral self-defense. Any earlier response requires the approval of the Security Council. There is no self-appointed right to attack another state because of fear that the state is making plans or developing weapons usable in a hypothetical campaign.”
Thus, in the absence of “incontrovertible evidence” of an “imminent” Iranian aggression, there is absolutely zero justification for any military action against Iran, regardless of its nuclear status."
I forgot the link. But Eran is scheduled as one of the witnesses
before the Committee Of Foreign Affairs on July 9th, next. The subject is too make stronger the partneship between Europe and
Israel…
On another note: On July 1 last Howard Berman's legislation to
strike Nelson Mandela and the ANC & its other leaders from the terrorist s-list, recognizing the ANC used both peaceful and terrorist means to end apartheid in S Africa, was signed into law by Shrub.
Is there an analgogy here for Palestinian orgs in the next ten to twenty years?
After Israel stikes Iran? Iran stated this week that an attack by Israel on it would be seen by Iran as also an attack by USA…
Gee, I wonder why…
Hope all the average Americans have a good backyard b-b-que
over July 4h….
"Does it peek through here?…"
Charles, perhaps I should have said "peek through in the form of individual Jews of conscience" ie the proprietor of this blog and other tenacious Jewish critics of the current corrupt Zionist/Neocon/left-liberal status quo.
"the history that has seen Jews vilified as a group that keeps to itself, is conspiratorial and has dual loyalties"
-Mr. Foxman.
It's almost like there's a spirit forcing him to tell the truth, yet his fear and avarice keep occluding it, and what we hear and see when he speaks is exactly that spirit-wrestling.
The vilification isn't for those attributes in isolation, it's for what happens when these attributes are attached to the engines of well-being of the host economy.
Russia and now seemingly the US being only contemporary examples.
What's wrong in that history isn't all on one side of course.
Persecuting people will tend to make them conspiratorial, and divided at best in loyalty.
Conspiring in ways that diminish the well-being of people will tend to make them persecute you.
Age-old story:
Want people to be nice?
Stop being an asshole.
I find it hard to believe that the Richard Silverstein who made the sour comment above is the same RS I know and read. There was a similarly puzzling pop from Ed on another thread the other day.
Is our name-stealing bot back?
It's good to see Joe Klein stand on his dig about this. He's been carrying GOP bilge water for far too long; I can't think of a better way for him to restore his credibility than to take on the gorilla in the room. Can he sustain it?