The crisis of Zionism in the United States–and I think actually the end of Zionism as an invigorating ideology for the next generation of Jews–arises from two big factors:
1, Israel is practicing apartheid in the West Bank, as is becoming more and more clear in spite of the denials; and there is something inherent in Zionism that licenses this behavior. Because if you embrace an ideology that is based on a religious claim to land, before long you are going to have fundamentalist crazies practicing ethnic cleansing in the name of god. That would seem to be a basic political law the world around. It happened in '48, it's happening in '08. And in the age of Obama, how many young American Jews are going to sign on to that program?
2, Zionism's dual loyalty problem, in the wake of the Iraq disaster. Which is what I want to talk about here.
But the Iraq war has shown the true basis for the dual-loyalty concern. The evidence continues to mount that the pro-war braintrust and pro-war movement had as one of its key concerns Israel's security, and that this was a hidden agenda. The fact that neoconservatism came out of Jewish life escaped no one in Jewish life; and in the last year or so Joe Klein, Walt and Mearsheimer, and I have all pointed out that delusions about securing Israel were an important factor in the spread-democracy ideology behind the Iraq war. After all, Israel was repeatedly attacked by Saddam. And if there's one country whose population has continued to support the American effort there, it's Israel. That's because Israel's only answer to the Arab world has been militarism.
I bring all this up because of my ongoing dialogue with Ralph Seliger, and because I just learned that his organization, Meretz USA, a group of progressive Zionists, took no position on the Iraq war:
Wow. And these guys are on the left!!! This is added weight to my argument that American Jewish leadership, even progressive leadership, has to have a soulsearching about its role in the Iraq war. As I note often, the only reason I'm doing this blog is because of a conversation I had with a close relative 6 years ago where he said, "I demonstrated against the Vietnam war but my Jewish newspaper says this war could be good for Israel." I was shocked by the statement; it was an open admission of dual loyalty. But I learned before long that that attitude was pervasive in the organized Jewish community. Even the Union for Reform Judaism (which I believe was full on against Vietnam) supported the war. Now that the war has proved to be a disaster, it has consciously or not, provoked a deep reckoning in Jewish life: Why did the U.S. adopt Israel's militant/invasive policies toward the Arab world? What was the Jewish leadership's role in that bad decision?
Ralph Seliger has been more vociferous than anyone on this issue. He says Iraq had nothing to do with the Israel lobby in the U.S. I think he's defensive, because neoconservatism, i.e., the spread-democracy delusion, had gained a foothold even in progressive circles. He has told me that the position I find so shocking above was driven by Meretz's 501c3 status, that it can't speak out on American policies. I think that's horse feathers. Many organizations that are 501c3's are far more vocal. Meretz's board had a fierce debate about this; I don't think it was just about the legal issue. I think the real reason that good leftwing Meretz sat on its hands as the U.S. drove off the cliff is that members of Seliger's own community were for the war because they thought Saddam deserved it for paying for suicide bombers, or for the Scuds in '91, or for the Arab Liberation Army in '48–i.e., they figured eliminating an enemy of Israel was a good thing. I bet some of them drank the koolaid on spreading democracy to the Arab world (even as Israel can't practice it in the Occupied Territories). Even at Meretz, I believe, they rationalized Israel's bankrupt approach to the Arab world–militarism, occupation–and so saw the merits of this approach for the U.S.
Several times I've referred to the panel that Asian-Americans hosted a year ago, in shame, over the killings at Virginia Tech by that crazed young Asian-American kid. Maybe that's because Koreans have a shame culture. They felt a real responsibility to account for the kid's actions, even though they clearly bore no responsibility. The difference here is that pro-Israel organizations do bear some responsibility for the greatest foreign policy disaster of the last 40 years, a decision that has destroyed my country's image around the world. And yet such organizations routinely offer the single gunman theory of the Iraq war: George Bush did it on his own, with Cheney. So I say again, There has got to be an accounting of the Jewish role in the disaster, within the Jewish community. And there will be. Seliger (who I'd note is the son of Holocaust survivors; i.e., I can understand his reasons) has been completely defensive. As have many other Jewish leaders, as was Yivo in a shameless monsters' ball of Mearsheimer and Walt-bashing last November.
I'd like Ralph to tell me, Who was for the war within his leftwing community, and why?
P.S. Jack Ross points out to me: "You make a significant error when you speak of how the 'democracy promotion idea' has found support 'even on the left' – don't forget that it began on the left." Got it, thanks!
"Because if you valorize an ideology that is based on a religious claim to land"
The zionist leaders, you know, those that created Israel, were SECULAR. It is the religious right wing fanatics that are causing all the problems and are not what fits the definition of zionists like the creators of Israel.
And I don't see what the Iraq war has to do with Zionism.
Phil – Would it make you feel better if we nailed Ralph up on a cross and all spit on him because he didn't denounce a war that a majority of non-jews supported?
Next time I have a slice of Pizza in NYC I'll be sure to denounce the Albanians who run the NY Pizza trade and actively supported our bombing of the Serbs. If they get defensive when I tell them that the entire resurrection of the Cold War with Russia is due to their dual loyalty I'll be sure to send them to you to be set straight.
The Jews did learn something from HItler: Their own version of the Versailles Treaty, and the concept of Lebensraum.
But why should Gentile Americans have to pay for it all? At least the Germans paid their own way, took their own risks, and in a mere dozen years, paid the price, And have been paying reparations ever since.
What does The American Jew pay for allegiance first to Israel?
Nothing; they actually get dividends. If Gentile America had no guilt, no matter how far removed, Israel would not be anything.
The issue is therefore, why do not average Americans know nothing about the Nakba, the USS Liberty, Rachael Corrie?
Phil Weiss shows the danger of single loyalty, or who knows what loyalty in fact.
Caught in a cul-de-sac. Alienating his friends, his family, proposing nothing, demeaning everything, realizing no social change, no personal change.
RE: "And I don't see what the Iraq war has to do with Zionism. "
This statement assumes that Israel & USA interests are identical. Not hard to assume that when, e.g., the Israeli spy case just keeps off the media radar, when the attempt to make AIPAC a registered foreign agent was killed, and ditto the fate of the USS Liberty etc…
It also assumes that the prime cause of the war on Iraq was due to Bush vendetta against Saddam a la a hillbilly feud.
My understanding is that the Meretz and other similar liberal Zionist position on the Israel/Palestinian conflict shows the potential of live and let live.
Your equation of Zionism with zealotry, strikes me as similar to the equation of liberalism with the weather underground, because they both adopted criticism of the status quo during the Vietnam War.
Are you more like Karl Rove or Barak Obama?
"Phil Weiss shows the danger of single loyalty, or who knows what loyalty in fact.
Caught in a cul-de-sac. Alienating his friends, his family, proposing nothing, demeaning everything, realizing no social change, no personal change."
Catholics used to threaten ex-communication for heresy as a method of keeping people in line.
It's called cherem in Judaism. Spinoza was also given the treatment.
"Your equation of Zionism with zealotry"
Zionism is zealotry. Any type of blood and soil nationalism, by definition, is zealotry.
RE: "Phil Weiss shows the danger of single loyalty, or who knows what loyalty in fact.
Caught in a cul-de-sac. Alienating his friends, his family, proposing nothing, demeaning everything, realizing no social change, no personal change. "
Witty show the danger of dual loyalty, or as he puts it, loyalty is a
lateral affair, with nothing having priority over other. Just so many bullets in the clip, each equally earnest at whichever one at any time Witty directs his fire.
Phil does alienate his friends, family, not by proposing nothing, or demeaning anything, but by doing the exact opposite. You can be sure Witty has neither the moral integrity or courage that Phil has.
Its very old Phil.
If you have a goal, you'd be better off thinking how to accomplish that goal effectively, rather than trashing Meretz.
Why don't you inspire them, encourage them, help them find the logic that keeps them engaged?
Rather than taking below the belt condemnation shots.
It paints you poorly. You're driving your jouralistic career off a cliff, and not because of the content, but nearly solely because of the tone and cornering of those that you identify as opponents.
This agenda cannot take in a positive manner. The best that you can accomplish by this positioning, is to organize grand ethnically based resentment.
That is the success of the effort. Odd.
That would be a moral failing, causing a lot of good people unnecessary harm, and accomplishing very very little.
What is important?
Richard Witty shows the danger of single loyalty to Zionism and the Jewish supremacist state through which it manifests itself.
Caught in a cul-de-sac. Alienating himself from reason, proposing nothing, demeaning everything, realizing no social change, he has resorted to cyber-stalking dissidents on the web in the hopes of quashing any and all criticism of organized Jewry and its goals.
How much damage has zionism done to the jews?
The Israelis will kill steal and do anything else if it furthers their national goals.
Few other nations (if any) have such a zeal to conquer. The personality is set, and it carries on. Carries on after military service.
It is not all gloom, there are questioning Israelis.And they are absolutely powerless.
The far right are in control, whatever the facade.
It is reassuring to hear that the original zionists were secular.
Who can have a meaningful or happy life under Israeli control?
Promoting Judaism is the sole criteria, no matter how many lies.
"You're driving your jouralistic career off a cliff…"
And why is that, exactly? If Phil was complaining about CAIR or some other Muslim group, he'd probably get a lot of exposure.
Usually shaming and so on are used to encourage people to be more open-minded and generous, frequently to be less ethnocentric, but here Richard Witty provides an interesting counter-example of someone trying to shame Phil into being more of a bigot.
From his safe harbor in Goy-defended USA, Witty posits Israel equity, that is, Israel First. He's a traitor.
Oh, shut it witty.
Seriously.
"Caught in a cul-de-sac. Alienating his friends, his family, proposing nothing, demeaning everything, realizing no social change, no personal change."
Yes.
Just like that kid in Hitlerjugend who dared to say "Hmm, maybe this is not right?".
He alienated his friends, who all turned on him like rabid dogs, his teacher called him to the school principal who scolded him and then his parents berated him for daring to question the "great" fuhrer's plan.
Yes.
It is THE SAME THING.
Vikash | Some vocations offer high employment. And Witty's takes a lot of time & thought, possibly confering with others. Control the media, and you've got everyone. They have jargon words, which I don't fully understand: shrill, troll. But Witty is part of the package – the furniture.
Odd comments.
Phil succeeds in alienating those groups in Israel and the US that take leadership in educating American and Israeli Jews about the occupation, that there are people that suffer as a result of religious fanatics.
You are very confused to equate Meretz Zionism with settlement expansion. There is no complicity, no advocacy of expansion that I've seen.
There is sympathy, both with Jews as people and with Palestinians as people.
Anti-Zionism is a poverty. For those that DO identify with a community, be it Israel or Palestine, the assertion that Jews (or Palestinians) should not self-govern is an advocacy of oppression, not of liberation.
If there is any ideology that resembles both the neo-conservative advocacy of forced forms of democracy, or the Stalinist advocacy of forced "universalism", it is "anti-Zionism".
Expansionism conflicts with Zionism, and with Judaism from my understanding. To identify as anti-expansionistic is reasonable.
To be anti-Zionist on the basis of the "inevitability" or even "tendency" toward oppression, is like being an advocate of mass suicide because individuals take up others' space.
Jewish self-governance (Zionism) is a good in the world.
My understanding is that the Meretz and other similar liberal Zionist position on the Israel/Palestinian conflict shows the potential of live and let live.
Meaning? Iraq war: Live and let other people die? US soldiers and Iraqis soldiers & civilians.
Complacency par excellence.
"Witty"-STFU already!!!
Really, no one here gives a shit about your Jewish supremacist ideology or apologias for the murderous, thieving, self-worshipping Talmudic fuckheads. You have lost all credibility with your constant attacks and rants againt Phil' thoughtful comments and insights. Rehashing tired cliches and personal attacks against Phil and other commentators is annoying. Please, go away!
Nice group of assholes you've collected here Phil.
You are the most regular contributor Witty!
To Phil's credit he has never censored any comments on his blog.
phil isn't into censorship, but his asshole commenters are.
Could be they are just tired of Witty's nonsense.
'but it is beyond the mandate of the organization to do so. '
Opposing an obviously illegal war was 'beyond the mandate' of a supposed;y progressive organisation… just what exactly is the point of them? It's mission is to grandstand about the shortcomings of Hamas, moan about the lack of a Palestinian partner for peace, pretend Lebanon wasn't really so bad, produce meaningless bromides about 'both sides' etc etc, but it cannot clear it's throat about a conscious decision to invade an enemy of Israel (not the US) on a pack of lies dreamed up primarily by Zionizts like themselves.
Another example of how Zionism ,like any ideology, perverts the thinking of adherents, forcing them intellectual and moral corners that no amount of chutzpah (or wealht and power and influence for that matter) can spring them from.
'The issue is therefore, why do not average Americans know nothing about the Nakba, the USS Liberty, Rachael Corrie?'
We know why, and have a fair idea how. Now we're just waiting for when.
'Caught in a cul-de-sac. Alienating his friends, his family, proposing nothing, demeaning everything, realizing no social change, no personal change.'
Anyone alienated by what Phil is doing has the problem, not him. It's the difference between moral courage on the one hand and either cowardice or ignorance or prejudice (or some brew of all 3) on the other. There's a little bit of Jeremiah in our Phil, thank God (or your deity of choice).
'Usually shaming and so on are used to encourage people to be more open-minded and generous, frequently to be less ethnocentric, but here Richard Witty provides an interesting counter-example of someone trying to shame Phil into being more of a bigot.'
Well spotted otto – and spot on.
anon puts it well:
"This statement assumes that Israel & USA interests are identical. Not hard to assume that when, e.g., the Israeli spy case just keeps off the media radar, when the attempt to make AIPAC a registered foreign agent was killed, and ditto the fate of the USS Liberty etc…"
The fact is that, to the best of my knowledge, AIPAC is THE ONLY foreign political action group that is affiliated with a foreign country (as the name says – AMERICA-ISRAEL PAC) which is not registered as a foreign agent. Often, when arguing AIPAC's special status – and unique power – in the US, defenders are wont to bring up analogies to other countries which also field lobbies in the US. True enough – many countries and blocks of countries have their own lobbies in America in an effort to influence -and sway – policies in directions favorable to their group. The difference is that they are all required – BY LAW – to register as foreign agents.
AIPAC – by being the sole exception to this rule – derives enormous benefits. Need I mention – as one little recent example – the shameful spectacle of our democratic nominees – Hillary and Obama – being forced (in the sense of knowing what's good for them) to give speeches to AIPAC in the midst of the primary? preferably about just how much LOVE Israel? have they done that for any other country? not that I can think of. Had AIPAC been recognized as a foreign agent, this would have constituted a blatant violation of the law. The only reason it's legal (if tenuously so, since it shouldn't be) is because AIPAC skates through this loophole of being treated as effectively as any other domestic lobby. On par with say, AARP.
And this is where the root of the problem lies. This is how AIPAC – aligned with the interests of israel's right wing junta – got away with blatantly, and quite visibly, advocating for the Iraq war. Now that the "war" turned out to be nothing short of a holocaust (for the Iraqis, that is) AIPAC – and the co-opted jewish "left" are running for cover as fast as the can.
It's just that some of us were here when it all played out – back in 2002 and 2003 – and we remember all too well the circulating e-mails, the talking heads on TV, the newspaper columns and even the israeli spokesmen and women who were in plain sight beating the war drums as hard as they could. We who were here – and maybe took notes – remember who said what and when.
And Phil does what good jews did from time immemorial – by putting it all on the record, he is not letting anyone forget.
"Phil Weiss shows the danger of single loyalty, or who knows what loyalty in fact.
Caught in a cul-de-sac. Alienating his friends, his family, proposing nothing, demeaning everything, realizing no social change, no personal change.
Posted by: Richard Witty | October 05, 2008 at 03:49 PM "
As they say in the movies…'you can't handle the truth'..can you witty.
You should get on your knees and kiss Phil's ass. If not for the braver Jews unafraid to tell some uncomfortable truths about the Isralei cult in the US and about Israel and call a spade a spade, we gentiles might think all jews are as psycho as you are.
And that's what you are afraid of aren't you?…if your delusions about yourself as a jew are blown you have no identity do you?
Witty: "You're driving your jouralistic career off a cliff."
You may consider Phil stupid for not abandoning his principled stance on Palestine in order to make more money. But the rest of us respect him for it.
In truth, I suspect you don't care at all about Phil's career. What really bugs you is the subversive effectiveness of his airing tribal laundry before the goyim.
Duscany,
Phil is a family friend, an individual that I hoped to revive a personal friendship with, which really hasn't happened.
We've insulted each other too much here.
Most of the substantive arguments that we have would be resolvable at F2F.
Phil has taken the public position now (that he can't easily recant) of calling his liberal friends and family, complicit in "nazi-like" oppression.
Unlike the "shame" cultures that he flirts with, he blames liberals, rather than taking personal responsibility of "maybe I haven't done enough", "maybe the way I'm doing this requires some attention".
He's complained that the world hasn't offered him a permanent, confidently paying role focusing on the Walt/Mearsheimer thesis and implications.
I personally think that that is an unrealistic prospect. The issue itself as stated does not need what he is currently offering.
Maybe two articles is needed in the world, and there are many other journalists (younger ones) that are better prepared to jump off their own cliffs.
Other material is needed in the world. And, if this is his portfolio, with this audience, he's cornered.
The level of self-righteous bullshit peddled by the commenters here is outstanding.
Glenn Condell's ancestors did such a magnificent job of killing off the majority of the native population of his country that he is an expert on the evilness of the Israelis. Even if one were to agree with Glenn's position on Israelis they would still find him and many of the other people who post here to be a bunch hypocrtical asswipes.
Phil Weiss is an adult and he can take a little criticism from Richard Witty. Trust me, he has gotten much worse.
From Clarion: A Protocols of the Elders of Islam?, Guest post by Eli Clifton
The beast's heart. The pan-Islamist threat, so far only a danger scenario for Europistan, now threatening to conquer US soil.
On September 21st the synopsis read:
“The Third Jihad focuses on an FBI-discovered secret document—the manifesto of the American Muslim Brotherhood. It describes the ‘grand jihad’ goal of destroying Western civilization from within by infiltrating and dominating North America.
The film reveals the agenda of the radical Muslim leaders in America and provides viewers with an impressively crafted look at the immediate dangers posed.”
Ah, secret, recently uncovered documents. A “goal of destroying Western civilization from within.” A grand conspiracy organized by a globally networked religious minority. Sound familiar yet? Could be because it’s echoing one of the most influential and persistent conspiracy theories of all time. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.On September 21st the synopsis read:
"Phil Weiss is an adult and he can take a little criticism from Richard Witty."
Witty is trying to guilt trip Phil into criticizing neither Israel nor the Jews. And whenever that doesn't work, Witty tells him that this kind of talk will hurt his career. Phil knows that already. He wants to do it anyway. He's a righteous Jew.
Phil hopes to make a career of this.
Informing him that he's driven into a dead end, is useful.
Its not a dead end to criticize policies, to support the rule of law, to encourage peaceful Palestinian dissent and particularly informing the American and Jewish public.
It is a dead end to savage the groups that are doing that. It definitely is a dead end to acknowledge that he hasn't studied the history. The form of the Walt/Mearsheimer thesis that concludes that people should be censored, is a dead end.
The guilty reflection on the number of Jewish names on a donor list to Harvard, or on economics faculty, is a dead end.
But supporting the colonization of the holy land ain't a dead end, it's direct access to the gravy train.
I mean, Richard Witty scored a couple of free tickets to Tel Aviv for his sons just for being a sycophantic rube.
Witty's right, being zionist pays off.
"Saddam deserved it for paying for suicide bombers."
Although it doesn't affect the thrust of your argument, we should probably clear up this issue, as you've made the same misleading statement before.
What Saddam Hussein did (together with many others in the Arab world) was to send funds to familes whose homes had been demolished by Israel. Israel's policy during the first years of the Intifada was to bulldoze the homes of families and relatives of suicide bombers, as a way of deterring others.
Eventually this policy of collective punishment drew such international condemnation (although not from the United States) that the Israelis ended it in 2005. By then more than 270 homes had been destroyed as punishment.
(ICAHD is a good source for more on this issue.)