In the comments to my recent post on Antisemites being on my side of these issues, Richard Witty said that I had failed to demonstrate journalistic "due diligence" and had indulged in a "prejudicial journalistic exercise" in reporting from Hebron after a tour there with Breaking the Silence and not getting the other side of the story.
Richard–what's the other side of the story? I invite you to defend the behavior of the landgrabbing racist religious neocolonialists I observed on that trip.
Another gripe. Noah Pollak says that he didn't accuse Philip Giraldi of being an antisemite, just established evidence that Giraldi is unreliable. Noah, I think this is irresponsible of you. Whether or not it was your central point, I don't care; your piece was arguing implicitly that Giraldi is antisemitic. Own your implications.
Great comments. I have lots more to say. Just this for now, which I ought to repeat and repeat and repeat unto the horizon: Israel Shahak writes in Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years, that the righteous business of hunting antisemitism is outweighed now by the task of interrogating Jewish and Zionist belief systems for strains of exclusivism and chauvinism. That's where I am. Richard says I blame the Jews for everything. No: I am interrogating my traditions. I'm a proud Jew. There are tons of us. But we are microscoping the exclusivism and chauvinism in light of the 60 years of expansionism and Arab-are-not-people ideology that has licensed…
Hebron.
That word again.
Related posts:
- Antisemites Are on My Side of These Issues. How Much Should I Care?
- Ritual Stoners of Hebron to Raise Money at Marriott-NY Tomorrow Night
- Hebron Fund begins charm offensive by calling Obama policy racist
- History and Hebron
- Emanuel Suggested Criticism of Israel Bombing Lebanon Was Criticism of ‘War on Terror’
{ 30 comments }
Lately I have been equating the intransigence of the fanatic settlers more and more with 1960s Alabama Gov. George Wallace standing in the doorway, personally blocking the integration of a university — and have been thinking that the amount of determination it took to overcome segregation in the American south is what it is going to take to clear every last settler out of the West Bank.
It has to come to that (unless somebody can come up with a deal for a lot of rent — no kidding).
It has to come to that for the safety of the nation of two-thirds of all living Jews (at least at one time): the USA. It has to come to that as long as our 51st state is capable of starting a war with the rest of the world without consulting the rest of us — which is why we are missing a couple of buildings in downtown NYC.
It's not just the looks like a duck, etc. thing; Israel's religion is the religion of America's Christians, even if not the other way around. No question about it; when the settlers dispossess Palestinians they are doing it under our flag (and with our high tech weapons).
If you want to imagine how hot under the collar the Palestinians' (craziest, terrorist) supporters around the Islamic world get when the "state" of Israel moves in next door — just imagine how hot illegal settlers get when forced out and multiply by ten because the Palestinians are on the victim side of illegal!
Somehow Israelis who support settlements have get smart and realize there is no critical need served by taking land in the West Bank.
WWII Germany's idea of "living space" was at least critically needed farm land (even if was someone else's), access to mineral mines and fossil fuel fields. Israel's is just space to live — literally, nothing else. There isn't enough in Israel proper? In the day time on Manhattan island there are three times as many people as there are in Israel proper.
The sheer nonsense that the consensus in the Arab world is to drive Israel into the sea, that terrorism against the USA or Israel is primarily fueled by racial or religious hatred (independent of invasion fomenting hatred) has to die out.
The sensible idea has to be spread (aren't Jews supposed to be smart) that the cost making the whole world hate you for your endless brutal behavior — for no critical benefit — is damnably self-destructive — for "your" other 50 states too.
Israelis have to do a Mel Gibson (we hope he is doing this) and come to realize that there is something very sick inside of them — about the way they see Palestinians.
Better that you investigate your traditions, and your heart, rather than interrogate anyone.
That is what I "accused" you of, interrogation. I'm glad that you acknowledged the relentless approach.
I call it a fixation, driven by anger and reaction, rather than an inquiry into truth, relevance, and applicability.
I asked you to find a more surgical, a more effective approach, that involved less browbeating of people, and more criticism of ideas and actions.
I guess you didn't get that. Maybe I didn't express it clearly.
There are odd bedfellows in the world. For example, an orthodox Jew that I dialogued with recently described to me how conservative Muslims and orthodox Jews in Israel have formed an active coalition to ban the annual gay pride parade in Tel Aviv.
Also,
The audience here is part of the message.
The structure here is of speaking to the converted.
You are not educating anyone. With your finite amount of life time, you are not making respectful presentations to those that have different views than yours and explaining the math of how you got to your current conclusions.
When activists speak only to the converted, their information serves the purpose of arming, rather than informing.
Better that you go to a Jewish Community Center, or an Evangelical Church, and have public conversation, respectful of others' sensitivities and knowledge while still knowing what you do know.
More like the structure here, set up by Phil's lonely Articles, each in turn, is of speaking to the unconverted. You know, those who don't buy into the one-sided spin of our mass media, influential thinktanks, and the Congress that consults with them exclusively, not to mention the neoconning Bush2 regime.
Phil's the one crying out in the wilderness, not the other way around. Witty himself has made a point of saying this in some of his past arid huffy posts regarding the fact that the Mondoweiss posters are a mere handful; even in belittlement there is truth.
"Crying out in the wilderness" is a cult phrase.
He's also not changing hearts and minds.
To Richard Witty…
"Better that you go to a Jewish Community Center, or an Evangelical Church, and have public conversation, respectful of others' sensitivities and knowledge while still knowing what you do know."
A worthwhile sentiment, but how do you propose Phil accomplishes this? Its up to you, but I would suggest reading Mark Braverman's article entitled…
"The Jewish People, Zionism, and the Question of Justice".
It can be found on his web site "Jewish Conscience…
http://www.jewishconscience.org/2.html
Here is one specifically relevant paragraph…
"When I returned to the United States and began to talk about my horror, sadness and deep concern over what I had seen, I was told by many of my fellow Jews that I must not talk like this. I was informed that this makes me an enemy of the Jewish people and that I was opening the way for the next Holocaust. I was told by many Jews that I was disloyal to my people, that I had “gone over” to the “Palestinian side.” One Jewish rabbinical student informed his colleagues that I was obviously a convert to Christianity “masquerading” as a Jew in order to cause the destruction of the Jewish people. I have spoken about my experiences before many groups, almost all of them in churches. I have yet to speak in a synagogue. I am trying hard to make sense out of this and to figure out a way forward. Here is what I have figured out so far."
If Phil is to have any hope of doing what you suggest, it is people like you who must make it possible. Otherwise, you are simply "suggesting the impossible" (at least at the moment it wuld seem to be impossible.)
There are plenty of forums in shuls and churches to initiate and/or participate in discussions relevant to living an ethical life.
If its framed as a browbeat, only the converted will show up.
I would recommend that in his presentations Phil think in terms of how to appeal to someone like my aunt, whom he knew fairly well.
Intelligent, compassionate, open-minded, progressive, respected, and Zionist in the sense of supporting the logic and healthy institutions of Israel.
To Richard Witty (again)
I do not think your response addresses the issue. Did you read Mark Braverman's article? It hardly strikes me as "browbeating".
"There are plenty of forums in shuls and churches to initiate and/or participate in discussions relevant to living an ethical life."
It seems to me one of Phil's ongoing "points" or emphasis, is the inability, or unwillingness, of most American Jews, to engage the issue of ethics "VIS A VIS" Israel's treatment of Palestinians.
It is also Braverman's point. It is not a criticism of you. But it seems to me that if someone as intelligent, and compassionate, as Braverman can find no audience in the American Jewish world…how is Phil supposed to do so?
And Braverman, as far as I can tell, is not anti-zionist (as is Phil).
This is not a "general issue", or generalization of Jews. It is highly specific. And it is this specificity which must be addressed (easy for me to say, I know, I am not Jewish).
At the risk/certainty of getting "verbally barbecued" here, I would also say that Christians (of the non Christian Zionist variety, like myself) have not made sufficient effort (gross understatement) in reaching out to the American Jewish community, in a supportive way, on this issue.
"It seems to me one of Phil's ongoing "points" or emphasis, is the inability, or unwillingness, of most American Jews, to engage the issue of ethics "VIS A VIS" Israel's treatment of Palestinians. "
Thats not my experience.
Most Jews that care about Israel have been intently affected by a few chain of events in the last 5 years that have shifted their attitudes from live and let live (as evidenced by the wide support for Oslo), to more defensive.
That is the series of Hamas led terror attacks in 2002 and 2003, that hit Israelis deep in their home areas, to the bone. (There is a parallel to Finkelstein, in verbally touching intimate raw nerves relative to the meaning of the holocaust.)
The second was the three years of shelling from Gaza.
The third was the potential three-front war in 2006 (first relative to Hamas in Gaza and West Bank, then layered on by Hezbollah in Lebanon).
Sympathetic Jews and Israelis experienced those each in VERY different terms than the left or other dissenting groups.
And, that combination of relentlessness and brutality, combined with the intra-Palestinian civil war, convinced many that there was no possibility of peace now.
That, waiting was the best solution.
In contrast, former architects of Palestinian suppression and hard military action, Sharon and others, experienced a change of recognition and of heart, that the Palestinian were not going to disappear as Likud had fought for, and that a mutual recognition was the only viable path.
It took a long time for that change of heart to occur, and was still presented in a portfolio of opportunism and absence of trust-building.
The manner in which dissent occurs makes a difference.
Its the difference between transformed hearts and minds, and bitter defensive hearts and minds.
The hardening did not occur in a vacuum. It was stimulated by real violence. When the left only focused on "the underlying cause" and not the "underlying cause", the left's voice diminished.
Few were interested, regardless of the merits of case.
The problem of the day is to get people interested again, to appeal to their native compassion, rather than their native defensiveness.
On Hebron, one way that Phil could make his points widely would be to read, interview and summarize some of the views of settlers, then read, interview and summarize some of the views of left and Palestinians.
The complete and accurate summary of reality would get communicated. People would be able to judge for themselves, informed, and informing.
Its different than a repitition of Hebron, Hebron.
Or Georgia, Georgia.
How anyone can compare the American South to Israel is beyond me. Whatever the exclusive sins of the South were, the homes of black's were never demolished by tanks. If the claims about napalming Palestinians are true, that never happened to blacks in the South, either. Outside of riot situations, the state guards stayed out of black communities. Black children weren't shot for throwing rocks, and whole populations weren't thrown off their land and put into camps for generations.
The treatment of the American Indian is far more along the lines of what the Israelis have done, and planned, for the Palestinians, than anything that the blacks went through in the South- and the Indian campaigns were carried out by Washington with the federal army.
If anything the story of the South is more the story of a region that was founded later than its northern counterpart, and was destroyed before it could develop fully along the lines of the North–and sucked dry for generations after its destruction.
As bad as segregation was for blacks, I believe that their plight was made much worse in the South because they were caught in the middle of the constant struggle between North and South for control of the region, and civil rights were a tool as much as a moral issue- as is the case now. Afterall, the North gave us eugenics, white supremacists like Teddy Roosevelt, urban riots and segregation to name a few things.
It's sad to see American history perverted just to discuss Zionism.
A Jewish friend of mine visited Israel and the West Bank with a group of explicitly Jewish medical people a few years back.
On his return he wrote or phoned every synagogue he could find in his state — more than 50 — asking to speak about what he saw. He got not a single invite, though many of the synagogues regularly host Israel programs led by explicitly Zionist and right-wing Jewish groups.
Good luck to Phil or anyone else with a non-party-line view of Israel getting into any but the most marginal Shul. . .
A Jewish friend of mine visited Israel and the West Bank with a group of explicitly Jewish medical people a few years back.
On his return he wrote or phoned every synagogue he could find in his state — more than 50 — asking to speak about what he saw. He got not a single invite, though many of the synagogues regularly host Israel programs led by explicitly Zionist and right-wing Jewish groups.
Good luck to Phil or anyone else with a non-party-line view of Israel getting into any but the most marginal Shul. . .
Yeah, Phil, listen to Witty; let's hear juxtiposed interviews of both fanatical sides in your compiled original work to afford average Americans a better view of who's churning up the world into such nasty soup. So you can end up with Zionist egg on your less-than-famous face like Christiane Amanpour.
ASAP after it's original CNN broadcast, Christiane Amanpour's TV mini-series God's Warriors was redacted/reedited by the notoriously pro-Israel CAMERA–and only then, after the Jewish/Israeli portion was deemed fit for the unwashed world to watch, was it rebroadcast, again, and again.
Witty, please respond to Jaffr's comments. We are all waiting with baited breath. Jaffr is actually on the ground you recommended, not in the sacred air–not way up there like you, high above the clouds, far beyond even a wisp of reality.
To Richard Witty and Todd,
First Richard…"The hardening did not occur in a vacuum. It was stimulated by real violence." That statement I would agree with.
The only point I might make in turn, and it is NOT meant as a personal attack…is that I think the level of violence that Palestinians have had to live with, on an ongoing basis, is not sufficiently acknowledged, or even known, by most Americans, including Jews.
That is to say, if the killing of innocent Israelis hardened Israeli hearts…Richard, is it any different for Palestinians?
Todd…this is not meant personally either, but which South, and which Blacks, are you referring to? Even if only to the Post-slavery South, I would disagree. But its' not like the South willingly ended that horror. Slavery in the American South was so much VASTLY worse than anything Israel has done, I am astounded at your comment.
In the recent book "Bury the Chains", the authors' description of the violence that was routinely inflicted on slaves – millions of slaves – is too physically nauseating to contemplate, let alone repeat here.
I am no "fan" of Israel's treatment of Palestinians, but having recommended to Richard that he read Mark Braverman's article, I will now strongly recommend every one else on this discussion read it as well.
Braverman's comment "Zionism was the answer to the anti-Semitism of Christian Europe." strikes me as hard to argue with. There is plenty of blame to go around. Here is the link again…
http://www.jewishconscience.org/1.html
Dom:
I was responding to the comment that segregation in the South is comparable to Israel's treatment of the Palestinians, and expanded into slavery since it is such a big issue still.
As far as I know, George Wallace never ordered aircraft to bomb or fire on black civilians. And peaceful marches didn't provoke the police or get media attention.
I didn't defend slavery, but the traditional view that slaves were valuabe property that were also beaten 24/7 is false. Sure there were brutal masters, but in many cases slaves were treated as valuable property, as they were. In the coastal South, Irish immigrants were often used as cheap labor to dig canals, or do work when the risk of disease or harm was deemed too much for valuable slaves.
Did the South willingly abandon slavery? No. Did Lincoln free slaves under his rule? No. The North had a major role to play in slavery, and only abandoned the practice when it was no longer necesary. Remember that much of the North was settled long before most of the South, and the view that the South was content to develop as a Jeffersonian rural utopia doesn't hold water, when you look at the fact that the South was developing an industrial base behind the North, but ahead of most of the world- and growing- at the time of the Civil War. That along with the natural wealth and potential for shipping wasn't lost on Northern politicians or industrialists.
Were slavery and segregation good? No. Are slavery and segregation the South's burden to carry alone? No.
http://www.slavenorth.com/denial.htm
BTW, Latin American slavery was far more brutal and widespread than the slavery practiced in either region of the U.S..
Todd, I quote myself:
"Lately I have been equating the intransigence of the fanatic settlers more and more with 1960s Alabama Gov. George Wallace standing in the doorway, personally blocking the integration of a university — and have been thinking that the amount of determination it took to overcome segregation in the American south is what it is going to take to clear every last settler out of the West Bank."
What I was focusing on was the need to get extra tough with ourselves (Israelis and Americans) and face up to the task of removing every last settler — returning the entire 22% of Palestine left to the Palestinians; not just what Israelis don't want — for the future safety of Israel and especially, for me, for the future safety of America. America wont ever be able to return to normal "pre-terrorist" times, no matter how successful in Iraq and Afganistan until– every — last — settlement is cleared (or maybe — really — paying whatever rent is demanded of first world Israelis by third world Palestinians).
PS. Todd; I'm surprised that someone with you apparent perspective on economics would compare Palestinians with American Indians. That might be a fair comparison if there were a billion plains Indians when Anglos arrived in the Midwest in 1850, instead of only a million of the original twenty million who lived there a century earlier before the Spanish diseases came up from the coast and killed 95% of them. The "Mideast Indians" (Palestinians) also had the little complications of roads, schools, farms and businesses.
Occupied territories without people for a people without land. The original version about as credible as holocaust denial.
Denis:
I often hear segregation in the South compared to the situation of the Palestinians, and I don't think that segregation can be compared to the military route that the Israelis take with the Palestinians. Also, as poorly as blacks were treated during segregation, life in the region didn't completely revolve around the situation, as is the case in Israel with its neighbors.
It's fair to say that the settlers will resist, but it's not fair to lay complete blame for the situation at the feet of the settlers, any more that it is to blame poor race relations in the U.S. mainly on southerners, just because it is politically easy to do so, or because practices have changed in another region.
I think that's pretty accurate.
As far as comparing Palestinians to American Indians goes, I don't mean that the civilizations were equal. All I mean is that Israel's plans for, and actions against, the Palestinians are more similar to the actions of removal or war, used by the U.S. government against American Indians, than any actions that the South took against blacks.
Dom,
I agree with you entirely on the degree that many Palestinians have been traumatized.
My metaphor for the region is a mutually abusive marriage, that are forced to stay together. Each refuses to leave and will refuse to leave indefinitely. Each makes token, but unsatisfying efforts to make up, and their sympathizing cousins dash every effort to.
In the South, there are class issues, confused with race issues. But, to diminish lynchings and Jim Crow over a century, is really to revise history.
For example, the majority of Ku Klux Klan came from the ranks of poor farmers, that comprised a formerly populist movement, "gone south".
Other populist movements also turned racist and anti-Semitic.
I personally believe that Zionism and Israelis deserve a great deal of respect, for the great deal that they did accomplish.
I also believe that Palestinians deserve a great deal of respect and honor.
How many here can live with the two concepts simultaneiously?
Can Phil?
If you pick only one, then your participation in war is the only result.
"In the South, there are class issues, confused with race issues. But, to diminish lynchings and Jim Crow over a century, is really to revise history.
For example, the majority of Ku Klux Klan came from the ranks of poor farmers, that comprised a formerly populist movement, "gone south"."
Class and race issues confused? That's a good one! And in the North, greed and aggressive brutality were confused with egalitarianism.
Sometimes history does need revising.I would bet that there is more truth to the Lost Cause mythology of the Confederacy, than there is to the phoney egalitarian mythology of the Union.
?
"There are odd bedfellows in the world. For example, an orthodox Jew that I dialogued with recently described to me how conservative Muslims and orthodox Jews in Israel have formed an active coalition to ban the annual gay pride parade in Tel Aviv."–Witty
Odd that you deem said coalition odd considering the common foe named. Look to the Koran, look to the Talmud. Totally understandable. They could add Evangelical Christians too, though I guess not many actually reside in Tel Aviv.
RE: :"Crying out in the wilderness" is a cult phrase.
He's also not changing hearts and minds."–Witty
Which cult is that Richard? Christianity? The poetic phrase apparently originated in the New Testament where it is used many times, e.g., referring to Jesus, Saul/Paul, John The Baptist. As you well know it long ago attained common usage in secular literature and journalism, referring to one (e.g. Darwin) who had a flashlight, so to say, and so the others eventually could see. How about the scales falling from the eyes thing? Cult phrase too, huh?
Cheap shot.
Or, Richard, do you mean to imply that most posters here comprise a cult? Because you aren't changing their hearts and minds? G-D knows you try, I'll give you that.
To Richard Witty…
"I personally believe that Zionism and Israelis deserve a great deal of respect, for the great deal that they did accomplish.
I also believe that Palestinians deserve a great deal of respect and honor.
How many here can live with the two concepts simultaneiously?
Can Phil? I personally believe that Zionism and Israelis deserve a great deal of respect, for the great deal that they did accomplish.
I also believe that Palestinians deserve a great deal of respect and honor.
How many here can live with the two concepts simultaneiously?"
I strongly agree with these statements. My own views are probably a bit odd, but I will try and summarize. If I have one very large frustration with discussions about this issue, it is what seems to me the insufficient effort to see both points of view (and there ARE two legitimate points of view). I include myself in this criticism, by the way.
It is very easy (too easy) to explore the treatment of Pals by Israel…and arrive at "self righteous indignation". As Chomsky has said, it is the easiest thing in the world to "judge others". I have tried to overcome this impulse; I have read now (no exaggeration) well over 20,000 articles by hundreds of Jewish and Israeli authors. I am sure I have over 5,000 stored on my computer. It has been, to put it mildly, an eye opening experience.
And a quick aside (relevant, I think) some Israeli authors…Gideon Levi and Amira Haas are probably the best known…who are forever quoted by Israel bashers…are both Israeli. They are committed citizens of the Israeli state, and as far as I can tell, intend to remain so. They want to see "a better Israel", not a dissolution of Israel.
I personally see Zionism as "liberation theology for Jews". And necessary, given the reality of life on planet earth. Anyone who does not understand this should read "Eichmann in Jerusalem" (Hannah Arendt) and the abridged version of "The Destruction of the European Jews" (Raul Hillberg).
Stripping European Jews of citizenship was THE FIRST STEP in allowing the Nazis to do with Jews "whatever they wanted to do".
I am not suggesting that having been persecuted justifies the persecution of others. Absolutely not. But failing to understand the above is to also fail to understand why Israel is so intensely important to most (not all, obviously) Jews.
I am not anti-zionist; I think the realities of history must be taken into account when trying to make politico-moral evaluations. And I do not trust my own inherited traditions (European/Christian/Catholic) to see to it that Jews are free of persecution.
I also strongly agree with this statement…
"If you pick only one, then your participation in war is the only result."
The complexities and inherent contradictions of this conflict are…human complexities and human contradictions. Genuine compassion , it seems to me, cannot be selective. THAT is an inherent moral contradiction that is unacceptable. Sorry this post is so long.
Thanks Dom.
Richard, thanks in turn, I appreciate your saying that. You "take it on the chin" here pretty routinely; I admire your determination.
I am going to try and post a bit more often; the first time I did so, some months ago, I found some of the replies perfectly bizarre (and infuriating, to be honest about it). I tend to be a bit on the thin-skinned side, I guess.
If there is one thing Phil has written about recently, which really struck a chord for me, it is his suggestion that American Christians and Jews work on this issue together. I will write some of my own thoughts about that in a few days.
Comments on this entry are closed.