Ralph Seliger is disturbed with me for linking to Joachim Martillo, whom he describes as an antisemite. He says that I am risking my credibility and soul.
I take those ideas seriously. Seliger: "I have felt creeped out by the vituperation and exaggeration in Martillo's comments and at his website." Myself, I don't know that Joachim is any such thing, I regard him as creative and scholarly and yes a little out there. I don't have time to study his blog, let alone my own, I'm unpaid, this can't last. Everyone who reads this blog knows that I'm interested in issues of Jews and power, as I was fascinated by WASPs and power back when I was at Harvard banging my puny fist against the doors of the "finals clubs". (O wicked wicked clubs!) If Joachim called for quotas on Jews or violence against Jews, I would like to know that. I'm against that. Creeped out? I don't care. Can he say something nice about Jews? That's important to me. Joachim?
Who should I listen to? Who should I bar from the conversation? Heinrich Heine said: Be careful of who you listen to. He's right. (Ask George Bush).
Just today an Israeli friend who is a progressive Zionist–let's call him A– offered a kind of answer to this important question. Here was the situation: A and I had learned that B, a progressive Zionist with mainstream connections, had declined to endorse the work of C, a guy A and I both like. And this was justly galling to C, who had given B support. Got all that? And A said: "[There] is the old question of supporting people who don't want to be associated with you — or rather, don't want to be known as associating with you. We all grit our teeth and do it for the cause. At Peace Now demonstrations, Uri Avnery's Gush Shalom people were requested not to show up with their own signs. They gritted their teeth and caved in."
I'm not imprisoned by the Israeli discourse. I am an American, a Jew, not a Zionist. It is horrifying to me that Gush Shalom and the great great great Avnery were ever blacklisted by the progressive Zionists. As it strikes me as a horrifying thing that Peace Now stayed on the board of AIPAC, which is a true prisoner of the Israeli discourse, when AIPAC was supporting settlements. Because I have my own litmus test: rejection of the occupation.
More on antisemitism. We look back at Kristallnacht in '38 as a great warning. Many Jews saw that night as the writing on the wall, and they were right. They didn't even know about a Holocaust, they knew to get out, and god bless them, I wish they'd all gotten out. Soviet Jews wanted to get out because–and I met some beautiful Soviet Jewish Refuseniks the other night–their horizons were limited. They even had jobs, middle class jobs. But there was anti-Jewish discrimination in Russia. Not genocide. I honor that movement. I've heard that there are Syrian intellectuals who are dying to get out to enjoy the freedoms that we have in the west. I've been to Damascus and seen the book stores. I know how those intellectuals are suffering, god bless them. And Palestinians are fearful in the occupied territories, or angry, and their futures are sharply limited, much more than those refuseniks. I blogged recently about the destruction by the Israeli army of a shopping mall in Nablus that reminded me of Kristallnacht. Some will call me antisemitic for saying that. I don't care.
Related posts:
- Andrea Whitmore in the ‘Times’: All we’ve ever asked is that Israel abide by international law…
- Unnh… ‘Foreign Policy’ should probably just let American Muslims speak for themselves
- Al Jazeera Reporter Is Asked to Leave AIPAC After Broaching Dual Loyalty Issue
- Avnery invokes Obama in urging Israelis to recognize the Nakba
- Avnery: Darwish Didn’t Want to be a National Poet, But His People Needed That of Him
{ 50 comments }
I hate it that you keep threatening to end this blog, "I'm unpaid, this can't last." Must we get paid for everything we do? The un-censored dialogue here is a breakthrough and holds the promise of improving our understanding of the world. Can't you think of yourself as a "community organizer" doing the things that need doing, without looking for financial reward? And as a member of the "meritocracy", haven't you in a way already received payment for this service?
"He says that I am risking my credibility and soul."
That's a tad silly and dramatic, don't you think? Your soul definitely isn't up for grabs, and who cares what Seliger or others like him consider credible?
"I'm not imprisoned by the Israeli discourse. I am an American, a Jew, not a Zionist. It is horrifying to me that Gush Shalom and the great great great Avnery were ever blacklisted by the progressive Zionists. As it strikes me as a horrifying thing that Peace Now stayed on the board of AIPAC, which is a true prisoner of the Israeli discourse, when AIPAC was supporting settlements. Because I have my own litmus test: rejection of the occupation."
You are imprisoned by the Israeli discourse, but not in the sense of "censorship".
You are imprisoned by the absence of political strategy and discipline towards the goal that you state, or rather "litmus test".
Some of us hold "litmus testing" as an immature political stance, a stance for those committed to being on the armchair, permanently in the periphery, NEVER accomplishing.
Being asked not speak is not blacklisting, its relative to strategy.
I won't walk in a demonstration with anyone carrying a sign "Death to Israel", NEVER.
Backbone isn't constructed by the perspective of non-compromise or non-strategy. Its constructed by the perspective of determination IN CONTEXT, respecting context.
That Uri Avnery accepted that, indicates that there is more merit to it than you judgemental litmus test.
If Phil sincerely respects the Jewish Community he must now dialog with SOG.
Hey wait a minute. Martillos not an anti-Semite, he's an anti-Semite light.
Should Those Who Critisize Israel Be Called Anti-Semite Lights?
http://homo-sapien-underground.blogspot.com/2008/08/should-those-who-critisize-israel-be.html
Richard, no one mentioned anything about signs that read "Death to Israel." It is a fact that many of the leading "peace" groups and antiwar groups in this country have refused to allow protesters to carry signs saying "No War For Israel." Or "End Israeli Apartheid." Or "Stop the Israeli Occupation of Palestian Land." Or "One Democrat State in Palestine."
Would you walk in a demonstration with someone carrying these signs? And why do you immediately paint a picture in the reader's mind of someone carrying a sign saying "Death to Israel." Such imagery serves the purpose of diverting all attention from the brutal Israeli aggression and in its stead creates an image of a lunatic who wishes "death to Israel," whatever the hell that means. But, mission accomplished, right? We're immediately taken from the concrete reality of Israeli killing, torture, and brutal aggression, to the fantasyland of "poor little Israel." Poor, poor, little Israel…
The "antisemite" label really bothers me. An Arab is every bit as semitic as a Jew, if not more so, yet "antisemite" is reserved for anti-Jewish sentiment. It should properly be called what it is: "anti-Jewish," just as "anti-Arab" or "anti-Muslim" sentiment is so labeled. We would be better off dropping "antisemite" from the vocabulary entirely.
Martillo's comments certainly feed anti-semitism. Whether he personally is anti-semitic or not is a different question.
Maybe he is ignorant as to the potential and actual affects of his words and is merely naive.
Higgisnlads,
You strike me as someone who will willingly express a great deal of momentum and outrage politically. I consider that 90 degrees to thought and politics that is likely to result in kindness and greater good.
It takes mutual sensitivity (the most important word, sensitivity) to realize justice in the world. You won't get there by outrage alone.
If the need is force, then maybe outrage accomplishes the collective political will necessary.
If the need is to convince, then it hinders.
Richard,
Why do I strike you "as someone who will willingly express a great deal of momentum and outrage politically?" And what exactly does that mean? And what does it have to do with the matter at hand?
For the record, I am a very sensitive person, and I try to avoid the need to convince, although I do admit it is sometimes difficult when "conversing" through a computer screen. Most of all, I am interested in understanding, and I think the best way to achieve understanding, and kindness, for that matter, is through straightforwardness and absolute honesty, and complete purity and integrity of motive. I am not interested in any sort of intellectual dissertations, and I have no patience for academic obfuscation.
Martillo is anti-Zionist rather than anti-Jewish, and has stated this countless times. I don't know many of his sources, but he seems to be far more honest and realistic than those who have called him "out there" or worse. If I'm not mistaken, Joachim has made it clear that his intent is to expose Zionism for what it is, and to stop the inevitable backlash against Jews. Is he fighting a losing battle? Probably. But he is far more realistic than those who believe that the current situation can go on without negative consequences.
You have got to be kidding Todd. He's not anti-Jewish. He's just anti-Zionist. Personally I think that he and his crazy wife should be in a mental ward. But not anti-semitic, please.
Does anybody have a clue what Richard Witty is saying? All these posts, so little light.
Weiss contends "ABC" and this guy starts dissembling about the letter 'Q'. Huh?
If he wants to discuss the price of tea in China, there are likely better forums for him to do so elsewhere.
"All these posts, so little light."
Indeed. One has to think they were never really intended to shed light.
BTW, here's the link to that Lustick article Phil was talking about–
http://www.polisci.upenn.edu/faculty/faculty-articles&papers/Lustick_MEP_2008.pdf
(Joachim, don't let the bastards intimidate you.)
Higginslads,
You strike as a "political man", meaning an activist that defines a lot of their identity from being right in their conclusions, and a measure of their good is being forceful in the pursuit of political agenda.
Its both praise and insult at the same time.
Martillo often expresses anti-Jewish content, hidden behind is rationalizations of ashkenazi "critique". Its an evocation of hatred, pretending to be "scholarship".
That he uses incendiary and contemptuous language often in his "scholarship", is a tip off that his "scholarship" is not exactly a study, more a gathering of weapons.
"Soviet Jews wanted to get out because … their horizons were limited. There was anti-Jewish discrimination in Russia. Not genocide. I've heard that there are Syrian intellectuals who are dying to get out … And Palestinians are fearful in the occupied territories, or angry, and their futures are sharply limited, much more than those refuseniks."
Back in the Scoop Jackson era, when Soviet Jewish emigration became a political cause celebré, the overheated rhetoric implied that pogroms were imminent. With hindsight, I think that was greatly exaggerated. Russia doubtless has some residual antisemitism, as does the United States. But Jews are among the Russian oligarchs, just as they are among the U.S. oligarchs. No limited horizons there.
Palestinians, who can't even get to work, or travel, or export their strawberries, or get medical care thanks to the Israeli checkpoints, have a far better case for emigration relief than the Soviet Jews ever did. But even Palestinian Fulbright scholars aren't allowed out by Israel, and the U.S. doesn't say squat.
Don't expect the Jewish Lobby to acknowledge, much less thank us, for the exorbitant privilege accorded to the Soviet Jews under false pretenses.
Ricahard,
I am not an activist (aside from writing an occasional email to a politiician and signing online petitions). As for politics, I wish I could tell you I'm not political, but I do have a habit of continuing to check in on the internet with what's going on in the world. It is said that to be alive is to be political in some sense. Aside from living on some sort of commune somewhere (something I have contemplated in the past and am continuing to investigate), I would imagine this statement is largely true. I can tell you that when I leave the computer, the paper, the media in general (I don't watch any TV outside of the Mets and some football) – when I take a break from these things, boy do I feel better. But I digress. I have no political agenda that I'm aware of. I'm an unaffiliated voter in New Jersey. I changed my affiliation temporarily to Republican for the primary (a necessity in NJ) in order to vote for Ron Paul, because I sensed he was one of the few who would talk at least somewehat openly about the Fed, the unnecessary wars, etc. But I'm not real active at all, in the usual sense. That's a little about me, for those who care…:)
I'd like to remind the Seligers of this world who insist on drawing a line between anti-Zionism and anti-Jewishness that the distinction is actually very difficult to justify. After all, Zionism's ideological roots spring from ideas in Judaism and Jewishness. Also, the majority of people who today chose to call themselves Jewish mean by that that they support Zionism. It is a large part of what the word has come to mean in this secular age.
To demand that all criticism of Zionism avoid any examination of it's ideological roots is really just another way of blocking effective discussion.
The perfect example is Mr. Seliger's attachment to the concept of "antisemitism". This idea is of course is central to Zionism's self-justification, and, as the flip side of the concept of "choseness," it is also central to modern Jewish identity (cf Richard Witty). Now Seliger is entitled to believe in whatever fantasies bring him comfort, but why must everyone else also subscribe to this mythology of an eternal seed of hatred planted by G-d in the heart of every gentile? Can't we just call the notion racist and move on?
Higginslad,
I would not have taken you for a Ron Paul guy.
Ah well. Everybody thinks that they are "right" and that everyone else is wrong.
It ain't true. The reality is that everyone has pieces of insight and contribution, and the art is to find a way to unify and transform, not divide and get vain about one's knowledge.
For what its worth, the emphasis on critiqueing the fed is overblown, and frankly irresponsible given the absence of better alternative, or commitment to reform.
Revolution is an easy word, that means little.
Dipshits like Seliger and Richard Witty are trying to mau-mau you into shutting up. Assholes like them have a problem with the First Amendment, because it sheds too much light on the ugly racist endeavor they support so whole-heartedly.
I am a sort of wannabe historian, and the jobs of the historian is to provide a coherent (and not necessarily "nice" interpretation of the past).
Yet, I believe my interpretation of Jewish history gave reason for pride even though my major hypothesis forced me out of Jewish studies.
Here it is (from Khazars and Medieval Judaism).
In other words the construction of the medieval and hence the modern world required four elements:
I would argue that the last is the most important and that without comprehending the achievement of the Khazar ancestors of E. Jewry and Arab Jewish scholars we cannot understand how our world came to be.
Of course, this view of Jewish history puts me in direct conflict with Zionist beliefs that the Diaspora was at best valueless and needed to be negated and that Palestine is the homeland of the Jews, whither all Jews must be settled.
Yet to tell the truth, until I actually began to see what Zionism had done to Palestinians and then investigate what it is doing in American society, I was sympathetic to Zionism and the State of Israel.
I can no longer be silent. Because I have gradually realized that the historical approach that I developed 30 years is kryptonite to Zionists, I have begun to apply it to the history of Zionism in the Diaspora in way that threatens Zionists, who now consider me a despicable anti-Semite.
Their scorn is pointless, for I am no longer so far outside of the mainstream of Jewish studies, and in any case, as I pointed out in my blog, economics is going to bury Zionism. The political arguments are pointless.
Richard,
I'm not a "Ron Paul guy," at least not what I would imagine you have in mind when you say that. I caution against anyone who thinks they have all the answers in one candidate, or in one idea, etc. You seem to feel the same way.
It's interesting to note that you make an insightful and down-to-earth statement such as: "The reality is that everyone has pieces of insight and contribution, and the art is to find a way to unify and transform, not divide and get vain about one's knowledge."
But then you go on to label me a "Paul guy," and make a blanket statement about critique of the fed and a generalization about "committment to reform." Incidentally, your statement assumes that all critiques of the Fed are absent accompanying better alternatives, or that even Paul's critique of the Fed lacks such alternatives. But that isn't so. And I'll go one step further and quote Mencken in making the case that ,even absent immediate alternatives, critique is still justified:
"The fact that I have no remedy for all the sorrows of the world is no reason for my accepting yours. It simply supports the strong probability that yours is a fake."
A bit cynical perhaps (indeed!), but the point being that I needn't have a "better" alternative in place in order to criticize the current situation. That's just a great way to keep people trapped in the same old quagmire. I may not have a better idea right now, but my immediate criticism (I'm speaking generally now) may prompt someone else to step in with a better idea. I may not agree with said idea, but it's different from the one I initially criticized, and it may lead to other, even better (or worse) ideas. The point is that stifling criticism is itself irresponsible, much more so than criticizing something without a better alternative immediately at hand.
I would argue that the last is the most important and that without comprehending the achievement of the Khazar ancestors of E. Jewry and Arab Jewish scholars we cannot understand how our world came to be.
This is of course a wide and almost empty mental space, much room for speculations …
I would argue that the last is the most important and that without comprehending the achievement of the Khazar ancestors of E. Jewry and Arab Jewish scholars we cannot understand how our world came to be.
As the ultimate reason behind the adoption of Judaism: the slave trade, again confirms our deepest suspicion, that all evil things were ultimately brought into our world by the Jews. (irony alert)
Joachim, my impression is, that you lure via colorful Judaica , which you always twist firmly around the over centuries well-established mythoi. These ideological twists are what harms your work deeply. Your defenses against fascist thought have long ago broken down. You welcome it with open arms as long as it supports your aims. That's not the job of a historian but the job of a propagandist.
Can he say something nice about Jews?
That feels like a question to me. Let's assume it is. What's your answer?
Interesting.
Wonder what the gentleman in question would say in response to my website?
People, who have not studied the slave trade make false assumptions about it.
Here is rest of the comment about slavery.
People in English-speaking countries because of the movie industry often don't understand that the vast majority of the population in the early Medieval period were slaves. Serf derives from Latin servus. In general the Slavic Slave had far higher status than the enserfed (i.e., enslaved) peasant.
Philip,
It's amazing how many antisemites post comments on your website.
Hello Philip, this is my first post even though I am a long time lurker from Europe. I really enjoy reading your blog and the many comments on your posts, especially the ones from Joachim Martillo. IMO, he is an extremely well informed human being and anyone who calls him an "anti-Semite" is simply delusional or misguided.
Israel's actions certainly feed anti-semitism. Whether Zionists personally are anti-semitic or not is a different question.
Maybe Zionists are ignorant as to the potential and actual affects of their words and are merely naive?
I think I got Martillo right.
higginslads,
I know a few individuals that I otherwise trust that have been taken in by the Ron Paul appeal. I'm in a band with one.
I think there is a lot of prejudicial bullshit that accompanies the critique of the federal reserve.
Most don't even really know what it is, or what it does in the world. But, they do repeat that it is demon.
Is that you? I don't know.
I'm NOT a fan of financial speculation. I believe that work should be primarily rewarded, not ownership, not multiplicative return on investment for gain.
And, for that reason, I favor the tax approach of Obama of willingly taxing estates, of willingly taxing speculative income, and minimally taxing work.
And oppose the tax reduction proposals of McCain and Paul commonly.
Oculto en mi pecho bravo
La pena que me lo hiere:
El hijo de un pueblo esclavo
Vive por él, calla y muere.
j.marti
so now that the denigrading tag of antisemite has been introduced successfully why dont we go on and lets keep enumerating israels many humanitarian crimes against the palestinians, and the israeli zionist lobby that hushes politicians and newsmedias reporters or bookwriters who dare to call israel by its proper name…..
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/
israel is a myth whose standing in the world as a haven for jews is protected by a bodyguard of lies enforced by zionist and its supporters who do not have the moral backbone to make a stand for truth and justice. they fear losing either their jobs or status within the corporate world or within their slavish community hierarchy.
im with martillo on this one…. economics is going to bury Zionism. The political arguments are pointless.
in the book of daniel from the old testament prophet there is this famous scene where a hand appears and writes on the wall…
Then they brought the gold vessels that had been taken from the temple of the house of God which had been in Jerusalem; and the king and his lords, his wives, and his concubines drank from them. They drank wine, and praised the gods of gold and silver, bronze and iron, wood and stone.
the writing is on the wall….mene, mene, tekel, upharsin.
Mene, Tekel, Upharsin. This is the interpretation of each word.
Mene: God has numbered your kingdom, and finished it;
Tekel: You have been weighed in the balances, and found wanting;
Peres: Your kingdom has been divided, and given to the Medes and Persians."
Michael Weis,
It's amazing how many knowingly false charges of antisemitism are on Phil's site, yours included.
FGS burke please have a heart and spell things out for us dumdums who dont speak Spanish or Aramaic. And of course you dont mention that the 'interpretation' of mene mene is Daniel's, and you dont explain how it derives from the words, which totally obscures your point. I must give you much credit for rich allusions, and then take most of it back for your obscurity.
For the other dumdums I will present the results of my inquiry.
Oculto en mi pecho bravo
La pena que me lo hiere:
El hijo de un pueblo esclavo
Vive por él, calla y muere.
The Google translation:
Hidden in my chest Bravo
The penalty to me what hurts:
The son of a slave village
Lives by him, silent and dies.
A possible rendering:
Buried in my aching heart
Is the pain that torments me:
The son of a people enslaved
Aches for them, silenced and numbed.
From Wikipedia:
Although usually left untranslated in English translations of Daniel, these words are known Aramaic names of measures of currency: MENE, a mina, TEKEL, a spelling of shekel, PERES, half a mina.
And this is the writing that was inscribed: MENE, MENE, TEKEL, and PARSIN. This is the interpretation of the matter: MENE (literally a "monetary toll"), God has numbered the days of your kingdom and brought it to an end; TEKEL (literally a "tokenary weight"), you have been weighed on the scales and found wanting; PERES (literally a "division" or "portion"), your kingdom is divided and given to the Medes and Persians. (NRSV)
PARSIN is additionally a pun on the word for Persians.
That very night King Belshazzar is slain, and Darius the Mede becomes King. (This reflects the historically verifiable defeat of the Babylonian Empire by Persia).
Buried in my passionate heart
Is the pain that torments me:
The son of a people enslaved
Aches for them, silenced and numbed.
As for fascist thought, except for some issues about the nature of Zionism and differences between Eastern European versus Western European fascism, I mostly agree with Zeev Sternhell.
Historical research is a lot like detective work. One must develop empathy for the perpetrator in order to catch him for trial or for explication in an historical text even if the topic of investigation is effectively a cannibalistic serial killer like Hannibal Lecter.
In the case of the German Nazis, they simply are not the incommensurate evil that so many people want to assume. Treating them as such makes the history of Germany and the world from the 1920s-1940s incomprehensible.
The German Nazis were similar to many ethnic fundamentalist movements through Central and Eastern Europe. They were most like the Zionist and shared an important ideological source in Max Nordau.
Most modern anti-Zionists that accept the American propaganda, Zionist-propaganda, or German-guilt version of the Nazis are accusing the Zionists of being absolutely evil by likening them to the Nazis as political analysts and scholars (including many Zionists) have done since the 30s.
I am not so doing if I describe Zionism ad ethnic Ashkenazi Nazism because I do not consider the German Nazis to represent absolute evil.
"Because I do not consider the German Nazis to represent absolute evil."
Now Leander's gonna be REALLY mad!
Mr Witty,
Why do you rave on about Phil's lack of a program to achieve his goals. Maybe his blog is a stage in the development of the ideas that would help make up such a program.
But I fear you only recognize programs that contain the political line of zionism. Forget that Richard.
And why are you so upset with Martillo? He dares to criticize aspects of "Jewishness"?
Excuse me, but I thought every social group has both positive and negative qualities. Is it a taboo to discuss the negative aspects of being Jewish in this forum? Why?
I also find it a bit hypocritical that Richard and other zionists freak out over antisemitism when there simply is no convincing evidence that antisemitism was the necessary and sufficient cause of the Holocaust. Read Hilberg on this. Read Black on this. Are you not aware,Richard,that it was the zionists themselves that helped the nazis beat the worldwide boycott of German goods,and therefore survive politically?
Are you aware that today,in the last year,zionists have allied themselves with far right fascist leaning politicians in Rome and London,just because they wanted soemone elected who wasn't pro-Palestinian?
And yes you won't march with people who carry "death to Israel" signs. That's not because they are calling for action to kill Jews, but because they want to abolish the "Jewish State". But its you,and your zionist pals that equate life of a Jew with the existance of Israel. That's your paranoid trip,Richard. Please stop laying it on us…
Really, who cares what Ralph Seliger thinks about anything? I think Joachim is "out there" on a lot of issues. But some of his research is quite original and useful. Why should Phil have a litmus test or vet who his blogging friends are? I'll leave that to frightened liberal Zionists like Ralph.
David Duke once published one of my Comment is Free articles on his site. I threatened a copyright infringement case & he removed the article, but not before right wing trolls trumpeted that because I'd been "embraced" by an anti-Semite that I'd become one. Gimme a break.
Now a bit of candor–I'm outing myself as "C" in Phil's complicated story above. In deference to Phil I won't name who "B" is.
Martillo,
But you do describe Zionism as representing evil, pure or not.
So, we have the juxtaposition of you not regarding Naziism as evil, but Zionism as evil.
That Richard S considers that innocuous, is upsetting to me.
Was that really you posting? Or have you given up on "tikkum olam" in practise, but just using it as a brand?
You are the nicest nasty piece of work I have come across Richard, and I've seen a few. 'Brand' indeed.
If Richard S has joined your ever-expanding cast of antisemitic villains, you will soon find yourself alone with the neocons. Perhaps that's where you've always been.
Thanks, Richard Silverstein, for the response. I have no problem with Joachim, I have problems with his arguments at times.
Here his article about the Cologne mosque which will lead to a gathering of the European New Right here in Cologne. Our own hard-right anti-immigration party is part of it. It's called Pro-Koeln. I think in this context we mainly agree. …
******************************************
Were I have problems is e.g. here: Red Herring: Resisting Islamic Law
Zionist Propaganda in Judge's Opinion
First: Trouble surrounding family strife around legacies are not a specifically Jewish (or Zionist) feature, as not all people that are disinherited accept it without legal proceedings. I experienced a similar story related to a conjugal choice by a non-Jewish co-citizen that had a similar result. [...]
Second:The connection to Zionism is vague and forced here. He simply projects his larger obsession into something only vaguely related. …. ok maybe not completely …
Third: Last but not least, I doubt the following passage:
The argument over Michele's complaint even echoes the question of Palestine. When Michele or Palestinians attempt to address misappropriation or theft, Greiman and Zionists justify their positions by reference to the 4,000 year old heritage of Judaism even though Shaye Cohen argues that Jewishness begins in the fourth century CE. A case can even be made that Rabbinic Judaism did not crystallize until the 10th century CE. In either case Judge Greiman's dissent borders on the delusional and ventures into the Zionist mythology that certainly should not enter into his juridical opinions.
Comment: Its not hard to imagine that "Jewishness" [The Beginnings of Jewishness]developed in relation to other identities around it and that it developed over time, but is that what Joachim suggests? Or is his politicized use of Shaye J.D. Cohen's work in fact a propagandist's misuse? And only the angry Janus face of the extremist Zionism with rights based on the scriptures which he fights?
********************************************
I am absolutely on his side concerning double standards surrounding religious topics lately.
Nordau is on my reading list, Joachim.
Seems I don't quite understand what you are trying to say in the second to last paragraph Joachim.
Most modern anti-Zionists that accept the American propaganda, Zionist-propaganda, or German-guilt version of the Nazis are accusing the Zionists of being absolutely evil by likening them to the Nazis as political analysts and scholars (including many Zionists) have done since the 30s.
I am not so doing if I describe Zionism ad ethnic Ashkenazi Nazism because I do not consider the German Nazis to represent absolute evil.
OK, I am not sure if I understand.
You wouldn't compare the Zionists with the Nazis because you don't consider the Nazis as the absolute evil? Wouldn't you make a difference between the Nazis and ordinary Germans, a difference between a German that ended up in the camps and a German who humiliated or killed Jews and others, or one who gave the orders? None between a Nazi informant and the blackmailed neighbor who had made a joke with the wrong person overhearing it?
What does the antisemitism in their system mean? Do you consider the The Nuremberg LawThe Law for the Protection of German Blood and German Honour, as a purely reactive, defensive measure?
Michael,
I'm curious. Do you comment on Rosner's Blog at Haaretz about the anti-Islamic remarks?
You could write:
"Rosner,do you know how many anti-Arab,anti-Paalestinian,racist comments you have to your blog?"
Anyway,its tough getting work these days.
Caybe you could hook me up with a job in the Thought Police? There are a whole lot of folks who
are offended when people like Pipes dump on Islam. I could note them and report them to the authorities. Would they take action or throw them in the circular file?
In general political parties and movements often flirt with or incorporate all sorts of ideas and ideologies that are really bad or evil in some way or another. It is one of the reasons that scholars, historians and diplomats prefer to avoid terms like "axis of evil."
As I see it, all forms of ethnic fundamentalism constitute extremely dangerous ideologies and are evil in reasonable ethical frameworks because they pervert fundamental concepts of right and wrong by judging on the basis of benefit to a specific race or ethnic group.
Yet, I also understand that German Nazism and Zionism evolved out of specific circumstances and history, have complex internal politics, and tend to act rationally within their own intellectual frameworks.
The two ideologies are very similar, very bad but not absolutely evil and like the Holocaust itself completely comprehensible.
As a consequence, there were situations when negotiations with the German Nazis made sense — almost certainly in 1940 — as long as the leaders of the UK and the USA would have been willing to try to understand Nazi politics.
It would probably not have been a primary concern of the UK or the USA, but had there been negotiations, practically the entire Jewish population of Europe could have been rescured.
Negotiations with Zionists would be possible if Arab political leaders made more of an effort to understand Zionist politics and if the Israel Lobby (or Judonia as I prefer) had not rendered the USA an intimidated and dependent client state.
I am quite worried when people try to put German Nazism, Zionism, the Holocaust and other political situations beyond rational understanding. Such people are up to something bad.
Podhoretz and his bomb Iran groupies provide a contemporary example of such maleficent intent when they argue that the Iranian government is full of crazed martyrdom seekers, who want to bring about the apocalypse.
Equating Naziism and Zionism is like equating 20 and 1,000,000.
They both contain 10 to some power as factors.
Philip,
It's amazing how many antisemites post comments on your website.
Posted by: Michael Weis | September 09, 2008 at 08:48 PM
1. mafish
2. r. witty
3. swd of gideon
4. m. weis
5. r. seliger
.
.
.et als
How can I take anything Witty writes seriously when he posts stuff like the following?
Zionists were NEVER allies of the nazis. The United States did NOT take in a "large number" during the depression. They took in a trickle and strictly according to racist originating quotas by geography, and Jews were a minority of the immigrants from each country at the time. Mass murders of Jews occurred long before the invasion of the Soviet Union.
You are a lame revisionist, Martillo.Before the invasion of Poland, the USA in the midst of the Great Depression admitted about 1/4 of the German Jewish population almost entirely outside of the immigration quotas as I remember the statistics as well as a large number of non-Jewish Germans. During WW2, flight from German or Soviet controlled or allied countries was practically impossible.
The Haavarah agreement was effectively an alliance that was critical to the ultimate theft of Palestine from the native population. See The Great Liquidation. Future Israeli Prime Minister Shamir was still talking about German Nazi-Zionist alliance in 1942.
As for the mass murder of Jews, the Wahnsee Conference took place on Jan. 20, 1942. From the start of Operation Barbarossa until the conference, the Germans were killing Soviet Jews as Bolsheviks while liberated Soviet nationalities were killing Jews as collective revenge. Before the invasion, Jews were subjected to sporadic violence with sporadic killings, but there was no mass killing.
One would think that the sporadic violence would have discomfited the Zionist leadership, but they were ideologically pre-disposed to ally themselves with anti-Semites and often believed that Diaspora Jews were contemptible creatures that deserved such treatment.
Zionism is one of the more irrational political ideologies and involves many cognitive disconnects and a refusal to permit facts to interfere with one's world view as Witty frequently demonstrates when he is not demonstrating ignorance of Judaism, Jewish scripture, and Jewish history. Witty fills this vast gap in his knowledge with prejudice, myths and Zionist propaganda.
Yeah, I wouldn't walk with a Death to Israel sign either. Cause the brownshirts would beat the crap out of me and the police would let them.
Bullshit Martillo.
The immigrant quotas were enforced. And, your adjective filled invective said nothing.
"No mass killings" before 1942. Firing squads. I guess that is not mass killings to you. Or, detention without trial, or forced labor.
Your selective racist assertions about Zionist collaboration with Naziism is false.
Its a despicable use of one's intellect.
Comments on this entry are closed.