Rightwinger Shaul Mofaz was defeated by centrist Tzipi Livni for the leadership of the Kadima party in Israel. As you know. The great Uri Avnery:
Sounds a lot like George Bush in '04 and McCain in '08, right? This is surely the same Stan Greenberg who worked for Clinton and Gore, and whom Wikipedia identifies as working with Carville to come up with "leftleaning" policy initiatives in the U.S. As for Greenberg's horse in Israel, Mofaz is a hawk who was accused of calling for 70 dead Palestinians a day as chief of staff during the second intifada.
This again reveals the complex relationship of Disapora Jews to Israel. Zionism, a nationalist ideology, is a core value that transcends political affiliation when it comes to American Jews. Alan Dershowitz is a liberal Democrat here and a religious nationalist in the Middle East. As my great grandma said to my great grandma in Bialystok: Go figure.
Related posts:
- I’m Wrong About Greenberg Working for Mofaz
- Major U.S. Power Figures–Tisch, Greenberg, Milken–Linked to Charity that Funds Settlers’ Militias
- Alleged Israeli ‘Quota’ in 2001: ‘70 Palestinian Bodies a Day’
- Emanuel’s Middle Name Is Israel. And I Guess So Is Obama’s…
- Intolerance in the Middle East cuts both ways
{ 18 comments }
The attitude that is common to most American Jews is sympathy for Israel's defense.
The majority of American Jews favor reconciliation with the Palestinians, rather than continued animosity. They perceive the Palestinians as predominately angry with them, and willing to use violence against civilians to express that anger.
And, as the anger preceeded what is now called the occupation, they don't ascribe the anger TO the occupation, but to something deeper, something more existential.
It may be true that the anger is prejudicial, or the anger may in fact be limited to the consequences of the occupation.
Neither you nor I, nor anyone else here knows for sure.
Given that status, not knowing, an Israeli administration cannot gamble. They must stake out a secure position. The question then is what constitutes that secure position.
Likud takes a position of collecting bargaining chips (that they are not even willing to bargain with though). Labor similarly, though they are willing to bargain. Meretz and parts of labor take the position that Israel should do what it can unilaterally, but not to the point of exposing civilians to terror.
Israel is a multi-party state. In the states, many criticize the two-party state as not enough options. In Israel, there are perhaps too many options. (Likud, Kadima, Labor, Meretz, Community, 2 Arab parties, Shas, Israel Beitanhu, National Torah).
All players, none majorities.
The very inspiring reality of the current situation, is that it is a generally peaceful transition, defining an actual democracy. There is no bloody civil war between parties. There is no threat to militarily annex the state. The most there are are personal accusations.
Civil rights of minorities at home, racist settler colonialism abroad.
This always does appear to be disconcerting when it is encountered. Extreme right and progressive Democrat in one package. But it nothing new, of course. It is called left wing zionism. We saw it in Michael Indyk and Dennis Ross who successfully guided the Clinton administration into a de-facto, if never articulated policy, of expanding Israel into the West Bank. We see it with our very own Richard Witty who can sing soothing songs on the need for a Palestinian state in the West Bank but reject every argument for getting there by dissembling on and on about complications or need for security or whatever obfuscation can be thrown at a practical suggestion for building such a state.
I posted without seeing the above posts — nice RW provides a perfect example of what I my point.
In particular there is this particular dishonest and sleazy assertion:
"It may be true that the anger is prejudicial, or the anger may in fact be limited to the consequences of the occupation.
Neither you nor I, nor anyone else here knows for sure."
Of course every sentient observer knows that Palestinian anger goes much deeper than the consequences of the occupation. His statement implies that if, in fact, the anger does go deeper than the day to day atrocities of occupation, then this provides justification for continued occupation. I know, I know, RW does not state this explicitly, he just lets it hang to dispense doubt and confusion, if called on it he can come back with some denial and dissembling tangent.
These kinds of comments are not designed to reach agreement between the parties, they are designed to prolong debate. The time, as we sit and argue today, is being used to expand the West Bank settlements and seize more land from the native Palestinians. That is the object.
Everything that I believe I am willing to state explicitly and have. If you didn't hear it, then don't infer that I believe it.
It makes you into a fraud.
There is no causal relationship between identifying the need for defense, and the different options for how to approach that defense, and occupation.
That is more your bias than mine.
Palestinian violence is completely understandable.
A bunch of racists from E. Europe stole their country.
Much more interesting are the violence and rage of ethnic Ashkenazim and the intellectual contortions that Jewish apologists use to stymie any rational discussion of the associate crimes of Zionism and Bolshevism.
I have two relevant articles on my blog:
Roots of Zionist Jewish Agression and
When Comes Jewish Rage?
Note that Jewish violence, intent to commit violence, incitement to commit violence long precedes the Holocaust, and apologetics for Jewish violence.
I don't think Alan Dershowitz would be described as a religious nationalist(a right wing settler) in Israeli politics. He'll probably be a centrist, perhaps like Michael Oren(Michael Oren actually calls himself right of center). Dershowitz said on numerous occaisions that he supports a two state solution and that he's against the settlements. He actually said, "I'm pro-Palestinian". Though he did go jewlery shopping at a store that was boycotted and protested outside by pro-Palestinian anti settler groups in NY, NY.
He did that as civil disobedience against the demonstrators, objecting to the source and selection of target.
Its true that Dershowitz is a liberal, and a liberal Zionist.
I've seen him argue with Meir Kahane (available on YouTube), objecting to the thesis of Greater Israel, and also objecting to the vicious methods of his followers.
Kahane was raging, by holding it in. He considered Dershowitz an ant for even objecting to his interpretation of Torah.
Dershowitz, a non-adherent, telling him what being Jewish was, what Israel was.
Things got ugly, and still get ugly, when dissenters misrepresent history and law to make their points. Then Dershowitz defended Israel (carelessly but assertively and condemningly). Finkelstein and Chomsky called him a racist bigot and a plagiarist. Dershowitz called Depaul.
An escalation by zealots, unwilling to apologize, unwilling to see the other's perspective at all.
I have reported on Dershowitz before.
I just heard him speak yesterday in Newton. See announcement below.
I will post a report on my blog within a day or so, but he is an extremist Ashkenazi ethnic fundamentalist, who differs from the most extreme German Nazis of the 30s only in that he modifies standard German Nazi discourse by subsituting Jew for Aryan and Palestinian, Arab or Muslim for Jew.
Christians and Jews United for Israel
Sunday, September 21, 2008 | 03:00 PM to 05:00 PM
Third Annual CJUI Genesis Award presented to Professor Alan Dershowitz and Gordon College Israel InitiativeTeam Temple Emeth Sanctuary, 194 Grove St.,Chestnut Hill,Ma. 02467 Special Guest Speaker: Tom Trento, Director, Florida Security Council Music and Refreshments Admission free RSVP@CJUI.ORG
Time:
03:00 PM to 05:00 PM
Location:
Temple Emeth Sanctuary,
194 Grove St,
Chestnut Hill, MA, 02467,
RSVP@CJUI.ORG
Contact:
RSVP@CJUI.ORG
"Liberal Zionist" is an oxymoron.
I can remember listening to a "debate" between Chomsky and Dershowitz a few years ago, aired on DemocracyNow! It may have taken place at Harvard, though I'm not sure. At the time I was best described as a "Chomskite," i.e. one who devours every word the man says and writes and then goes on to parrot what he says without allowing virtually any differing ideas to shape my mindset.
Anyway, it occurred to me, even at that time when I was "rooting" for Chomsky, that the whole "debate" was nothing more than a charade. It was as if both men were playing roles. Chomksy repeated the same crap that all Chomskyites have heard ad nauseum, without offering any meaningful ideas for change, and without really delving into the true players on the scene, as is par for the course with Chomsky. Dershowitz played the role of Israel's defender, with a bit of "compassion" for Palestinians, but the point of the whole "debate," as I look back on it now, was simply to deflect criticism from Israel and its agents. Dershowitz did it directly, and Chomsky did through the usual method of insisting that Israel is nothing more than a "U.S. client state" and it cannot do anything on the international stage without the U.S.' approval – the standard BS from Chomsky.
you see, what is LEFT is USA is Centre-Right in the rest of the world.
And what is RIGHT WING in USA is fascist in ROW.
@ higginslads: 'the point of the whole (Chomsky-Dershowitz) "debate," as I look back on it now, was simply to deflect criticism from Israel and its agents.'
In the case of Chomsky, it's hard to tell if he is an operative who is part of the Zionist conspiracy, or if he is merely following his indoctrinated programming. The same question can be asked of many "liberal" U.S. Jews who end up shilling for Zionism. I tend to lean towards the (perhaps overly optimistic) view that most of them are following their programming, and there isn't a lot of premeditated malice there. But it may not really matters either way, because the results are the same.
Dershowitz is an easy target because he does not take great pains to investigate the details of his assertions.
His views are NOT rightist by any stretch. They are genuinely liberal, genuinely emphasizing live and let live.
He, like I, object to a formula that dictates "let live", only to the Palestinians, and not to Jews, not to Zionists.
He objects to anti-semitism, the political form of if it is the selection for which Jews or Israel are the only objects.
So, by his math, Finkelstein expresses anti-semitism for his fixation on Jews focused memory and invocation of the holocaust, or Phil for his repeated "self-inquiry" as to 'why there were so many Jewish names in discussion of the Wall Street confusion'.
@ Ed: "In the case of Chomsky, it's hard to tell if he is an operative who is part of the Zionist conspiracy, or if he is merely following his indoctrinated programming. The same question can be asked of many "liberal" U.S. Jews who end up shilling for Zionism."
Yes, I have wondered about this as well, and I also don't wish to insinuate premeditated malice on the part of everyone. As you say, in the end, it doesn't really matter, because the results are the same, although I would argue that those who are merely acting as a result of their environmental/social/familial indoctrination can conceivably acquire different information and change their mindsets, whereas those who are intentionally spreading disinformation and outright lies in order to further an ideological fantasy are too sick to be helped to see the light of humanity.
Chomsky is a fascinating case study, and I find it hard to believe he's not in some way an official Zionist agent, perhaps Mossad, as opposed to just being an regular guy too blinded by Zionism to discern reality in matters concerning Israel. His essays are so carefully constructed, using his extensive linguistic background, so as to appeal strongly to the reader's sense of human dignity and equality while simultaneously deflecting all meaningful criticism of Israel and its agents.
There is an interesting email exchange between Chomsky and Dr. Kevin Barrett, an independent candidate for Congress in Wisconsin. Barrett posted it on his site with the heading "Noam Chomsky Does Not Want You to Read This." It's a great illustration of how Chomsky operates, starting out polite and responsive, but then, when it gets to the heart of the matter and Chomsky is presented with questions he doesn't want to answer and realities he doesn't want to face, he becomes mean-spirited and distant, and his words and sentence structure morph from having a more human and personable character to one that comes across as being almost computer-generated, and which negate any substantive discussion by deliberately avoiding the issue and talking in circles. In fact, Dr. Barrett points this out to Chomsky in one of his emails:
"If I were a paranoid conspiracy theorist, I would suspect that I'm in the middle of a Turing test, communicating with a CIA computer-generated linguistic simulacrum designed to drive me crazy, rather than the great, honorable dissident Noam Chomsky."
http://www.barrettforcongress.us/chomsky.htm
Incidentally, on a personal note, I've had similar email exchanges with William Blum and James Kunstler, among others, who start out polite and end up either venomous or just plain ridiculous in their attempts at obfuscation and issue avoidance.
There is only one fraud here, Witty.
You've got some nerve with your reply to syvanen, especially after your hysterics towards Phil Weiss about maintaining the status quo at the DK.
There is no inference. There is literally hundreds of posts proving his/her obvious point….
Only relative to your fascistic litmus test of demonizing any that desire peace and not punishment.
Comments on this entry are closed.