you also have a problem with your identity, and this is distorting
both your politics and your values. A small example is
your embarrassingly silly apology to non-Jews for wishing me a happy
new year.
dark comment on Jewish charitable giving. Should Jewish donors to great
institutions (like Harvard or Columbia, as you indicated) be disallowed
from making large gifts because this might advance the "Israel lobby"? Or should donors be compelled to keep on giving if they are unhappy with certain policies of the object of their largess?
allegedly being too powerful. Nothing could be more grotesque than the
greatest military power in the world, circa 1940, attacking a
defenseless and increasingly stateless minority on the basis of the
Czarist secret police forgery known as the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion." Most of American Jews
were so cowed by antisemitism in the US in the 1930s and '40s that they
did not raise hell on behalf of Jews being systematically slaughtered
in Europe. (The Jewish-owned NY Times notoriously buried news reports
of the Holocaust in its back pages and never editorialized on this huge story, except to argue against "privileges" for Jewish refugees.)
This shameful history is part of what motivated Jews to
uncharacteristically court power in the post-WW 2 era. It you want to
reduce Jewish concerns for their fellow Jews to "tribalism," you
should say the same about Arab and Muslim concerns for the
Palestinians, or African Americans regarding manifestations of racism.
rigid that you keep on attacking me and other progressive Zionists,
even as you praise the efforts of J Street, Daniel Levy and other
individuals and groups in our camp. Prof. Sternhell, the victim of the
right-wing terrorist attack on him, is in fact a progressive Zionist.
to reassure Jews that they are not antisemites and are not really
anti-Israel. In some ways, their critique of AIPAC is similar to our
own. As I've told you before, they are factually mistaken in conflating
the neocons with mainstream Jewish organizations, in reducing the
neocons to Zionist Jews, and in thinking that Israel's security was a
prime motivation for the Bush administration
to go to war in Iraq. As I've told you before, the Bush administration
tried to sell the war to American Jews with this argument but mostly
failed in this regard. Jews are more opposed to this war than
most non-Jews and they remain much more to the left and with the
Democratic party than most other sectors of the population. An old joke
that remains largely true is that Jews are prosperous like
Episcopalians, but vote like Puerto Ricans. Neocon propaganda and
racist scaremongering about Obama have had an impact on the Jewish
community, but it's still at least 60% Democratic.
and Atzman (even if they are of Jewish origin) is not a
liberal. Neither is anybody who argues in the reductionist and
intolerant terms that you use. If you were a liberal, you'd simply
acknowledge that we share much in our concerns but also disagree in
some ways. Our values are not identical — you don't care about other
Jews, as is your right, and I do as is my right. A liberal accepts that
people will differ in values and convictions without demonizing the
other.
Now Weiss again. First some of the easier issues. I have never said that Jewish donors should not give to Harvard. You keep missing the point. The point is simply that it is a fact of American establishment life that Jews are extremely important as givers to elite institutions and to political campaigns. Period. The Washington Post said some years ago, more than half the Democratic Party giving is Jewish. I bet it's more now. And a significant part of Republican giving too, if you look at Freedom's Watch, which seems to be the only game in town for them. Jewish success is a large fact of the American establishment. You can wave the Holocaust and the Protocols all you want at me. While I agree that this plays an important role in Jewish identity and assertiveness–never again-ism–it simply has nothing to do with my factual point. The Milton Himmelfarb line about Episcopalians/Puerto Ricans is cute but it is now 30 years old. The Jewish presence in American public life is more conservative than it's ever been. Though I agree that Obama will poll 70 percent. Your claim that Jews have only cultivated power since the Holocaust is inaccurate. Bleichroder under Bismarck. The court Jew. The Jews who used financial power to spring my ancestors from Russia. The cultivation of the British establishment to obtain the Balfour Declaration.
The reason I make the point about Jewish money is that Jews overwhelmingly are for the state of Israel, as you say. We worship at synagogues that have American and Israeli flags on the pulpit. I think this is regrettable. It's a change in Jewish identity that's occurred since 1960 and the onset of AIPAC and the Holocaust as a cultural phenomenon in American life and the 67 war and the 73 war. A lot of factors. Assimilation is also important. As Jewish identity became attenuated here, Israel loomed as the lodestone of Jewish identification. And now Israel is central to Jewish identity. Probably the 2nd most important definition of "being Jewish" for most Jewish organizations is: caring about Israel deeply. After Jewish family stuff.
You said in your last post that Jews care about Israel out of
about half of my kin actually are Israelis. I am sure that essentially
the same connections and concerns motivate Americans of Arab,
Palestinian or Muslim background, but move most of them to opposite
opinions and loyalties in the Middle East. American Greeks, Armenians
and others are similarly linked to their spiritual and blood kin
overseas. In past centuries, Americans of English, Irish and German
ancestry differed in their sympathies and concerns for US foreign
policy. My point is that ethnic diversity and all this implies for
people to freely act to "lobby" or influence their government is as
American as apple pie.
I find your definition disconcerting. To begin with, I didn't like it when Irish Americans were supporting the IRA in Northern Ireland. So I don't think this is all hunky-dory. I think dual loyalty is a serious question. In the Israeli case it is magnified because unlike Northern Ireland, the Arab world hates the U.S. because of our support for a state that oppresses Arabs and crazy Arabs have learned how to fly airplanes. Period. We have to deal with this issue without demonizing the Arab world, as the neocons have. So your apple pie is really getting in the way here, of my cherry pie.
You dignify "natural ethnic and religious affinity and sense of kinship." Fine. It's a concept with dignity. A central issue in modern liberal life is: How large a factor should this be in one's political activities? I think it's central to you, as it is for the neoconservatives. I excuse you because you're working for an Israeli-associated group and on the political margins. I don't excuse the neocons, in their thinktanks and West Wing and Pentagon offices.
Here we arrive at the heart of my problem with your Jewish identity definition. The neoconservatives pushed the Iraq war–an overwhelming disaster for my country, the U.S.–in part out of concern for Israel's security. You choose not to believe this. The evidence is overwhelming, I'm reluctant to recite even a portion here again because I think you are blindered. Joe Klein has lately joined me and Walt and Mearsheimer in speaking bluntly of the "Jewish neocons" who believed in a "benign domino theory" that was to begin in Iraq and help Israel. It's craziness, ethnically-driven. John Judis of the New Republic has spoken of dual loyalty as a problem in the Jewish community. Seymour Hersh has said that "Jewish money" was driving the Iran hysteria that has, I hope, broken. Chris Matthews has virtually accused the neocons of acting on behalf of Israel. I can show you countless statements from neocons that conflate Israeli and U.S. interests, beginning with N. Podhoretz and I. Kristol in the 70s going Republican because they wanted a strong defense budget to support Israel. It ends with all the neocons citing suicide bomber attacks on Israel as a reason for us to go to war with Saddam. Just one little reason, but as Mike Kinsley used to say, if it's a factor, then it can be the determinative factor. It shouldn't have been a factor. Americans have wisely understood Sunni suicide bombing in Baghdad as a hateful symptom of a political problem–a dispute over power/resources/territory–and we have not disqualified Sunnis from Iraq's government as a consequence. But the suicide bombers in Israel are demonized by the neocons, and Palestinians denied self-determination for 60 years by their friends in Israel. When the motivation is the same as the Iraq bombers: disputed territory/resources.
I say neocons are central, because you continue to afford them cover on Iraq. You are right that most Jews opposed the Iraq war. But most Jewish congressmen, in California and NY anyway, supported it–the same guys who came into public life opposing the Vietnam War. The Union for Reform Judaism supported it, again citing suicide attacks in Israel. And most important, the neocons who were very powerful men, thank god not so much now, dreamed this thing up in some measure out of concern for Israel. But because you share that ethnic/religious affinity with them, and because you are worried about antisemitism, you can't take your blinders off. I am tired of this part of the conversation. You will make some other blindered statement, I'm sure. You have a Holocaust-era worry that people will blame the Jews and there will be a pogrom. I don't see it. And as an American journalist, my job is to anatomize the disaster of the Iraq war. And in fact I think people will be less inclined to blame Jews if the truth is laid out, and the varying flavors of Zionism are explained to people, and the Jabotinskyites ideas about how to deal with Arabs are fully explored.
I think you're living in the past on a lot of these questions. You think that antisemitism is a real factor in American life, and you think that Jews are still outsiders in American life. The first misconception is used to justify Israel's existence (when in fact the U.S. is safer for Jews than Israel is); and the second is used by Jews to blind themselves to the real responsibility that Jews now have as equal players in the Establishment, with a lot of cultural and political power.
As to my linking Martillo and Atzmon, both are Jewish, which gives me comfort generally. I have certain tribal instincts, especially in this area. For instance, I've given you a prominent spot on my blog lately because you talk like my mom. I don't study Martillo or Atzmon, but I find they have interesting ideas, and I graze those ideas as I graze other ones on the internet, rapidly–not doing a study of the speaker. You want to keep me from reading them, and this gets back to Jewish identity. For they are at least asking questions about Jewish identity with one eye on what is the central reality here: Israel is practicing apartheid in the West Bank. That's how Zionism has worked out. After all the theories and dreams, and after the miracles and the achievements, that's still the reality. (And yes I wonder whether you don't have relatives in the Occupied Territories.)
You have got to frame Jewish identity in a new way, not as allegiance to a state that practices apartheid with 2.3 million Arab. Requiring allegiance to such a Jewish state is a terrible thing to do to Jews who were successful in the diaspora in countless ways for centuries. As Michael Walzer said 2 years back at Yivo, Jewish law and governance has done an amazing job of sustaining the Jews for x,0000 years. But Jews haven't been that good at governing others. Walzer isn't coming to terms with the implications of that admission, and I don't think you are either. Israel is in crisis. It's beholden to radicals and racists on the West Bank. Its people are poisoning the goats of Arabs and shooting their children and stealing their land. It's a pattern. You haven't been able to rein them in for 60 years now. And they've put 630 checkpoints across Arab life… Disgraceful. Call me shrill all night long. Some day Americans will wake up to what's happening there and the screaming will begin.
Finally, a few words about my own identity. It's fluid. Like Obama's. I can't put myself forward as a model to Jewish children on how to be Jewish. Notwithstanding my great pride in the intellectual traditions that I grew up with, I feel too conflicted tribally about the fact of my intermarriage to put myself on any poster. Other than to say Jewish kids should have choices. You may be right that my headline the other day was glib and silly. I wrote it, oh well. I often refer to myself as assimilating on this site because so many of my choices are assimilationist objectively. But I'd remind you that my choices will seem less and less transgressive in the era of President Obama. And Zionism, rooted in ethnic and religious affinity, will seem more and more outdated.
So while I can't hold myself out as a model, I think you have to rethink your model. An identity based on the degree of ethnic affinity that you extol is problematic in the modern western world, especially when people have the power that we have. Obama again: You will notice that Obama has gotten less and less black over the years. His first book was a celebration of the ethnic affinity that you valorize. His concerns were with the black community. And god knows, he was an outsider. His wife when at Princeton was angry and anti-assimilationist. But as a powerful insider who hopes to lead America, he has expanded his own horizons and values and definition of community. If anyone thought for one second that he was shaping Kenyan policy in a way contrary to American interests, he'd be gone tomorrow.
Joe Lieberman never interrogated his own ethnic affinity as Obama has, when it comes to Middle East policy. Neither have the neocons, neither have you. Though I grant that you at least are straightforward and transparent about your agenda, now is the time, as the Jews say, to reflect.
Again, your headline misrepresents your thesis.
On identity discussion, your failure to model is the biggest sin.
Your life is your statement of what is right and wrong in the world, not your politics.
The best that a person can do as far as politics is concerned, is as a consideration of how to do good in the world. "Is this action adding to social welfare?"
"Are these words making the world more liveable, more of a welcoming home?"
The difference that I see between Ralph's thesis and yours, is that you only include the treatment of Palestinians as the measure of Jews' goodness in the world. And, that the measure of Jews' actions, Zionists actions, can only be measured on a negative scale.
That is Dershowitz' thesis. You prove his point by that either/or math.
Of course Jews are, on the whole, more liberal but context is everything.
If one thinks back to 2002, the second intifada was in full bloom and Israel was being swamped with suicide bombers. Nearly every week someone was blowing themselves up trying to take as many Israeli Jews with them as possible. Soft targests like malls, shops, weddings, and such were targets of choice and the deaths suffered far surpassed the 9/11 American per capita toll. When Bush talked about the sourge of terrorism most American Jews thought of their Israeli fellows as well as 9/11 victims. Most non-Jews, being generally less aware of things outside their own country, thought of 9/11. It was quite easy for Bush to play to both audiences, knowing full well how each would hear his words. Not that this is an excuse, but it was the situation extant. Violence produces violence. It's understandable why opposition to the war wasn't full throated in the Jewish community.
Richard: segregation was in the 60s the measure of the south. that's how blots work. and why people get rid of them. today the apartheid in the west bank is the measure of israel. How does it treat these people; how does it treat minorities? If you dont think this is a serious question for Jewish identity generally…. And note that the answer is not to destroy people or destroy a state. george wallace survived desegregation. the answer is to smite the offense hip and thigh.
another thing, richard:
I dont fail to model. I am proud of my values. but I dont presume to offer myself as a model to a community whose laws i have broken and which seems to disapprove of me. i dont approve of those laws, i dont approve of their ethnocentrism, but hey, it's their call
Just a note on an historical detail:
Phil wrote "You are right that most Jews opposed the Iraq war."
Of course this was offered out of a sense of politeness and generosity, but it is still false and in the long run it won't do any good to keep repeating it. It's always best to face up to the truth no matter how unpleasant it may be.
If your memory of what every single Jewish voice in the media was saying during 2002 has gone blank, then refresh your memory with the American Jewish Committee's 2002 survey, conducted from December 16, 2002 to January 5, 2003:
4. Do you approve or disapprove of the United States taking military action against Iraq to try and remove Saddam Hussein from power?
Approve 59
Disapprove 36
Not sure 5
In general, different polls cannot be compared. But 59% is well above most results for the rest of the population during that same period.
And across the waters, the people of Israel were alone among the nations of the world in unanimously rooting for war. (Almost 80% of Israelis favored a U.S. campaign against Iraq in February, 2003, according to Haaretz.) This at the same time that the rest of the world was out conducting the largest anti-war demonstrations in the history of the planet.
Back here in the U.S., remember that every single mainstream church had taken very public positions in opposition to the oncoming war. Catholics, Anglicans, Methodists, Episcopalians, Lutherans. Every major church issued statements except for two: the Southern Baptists and all the Jewish denominations (including the Reform Union).
So can we finally put this tired canard to rest? There was indeed something anomalous about Jewish attitudes to the war campaign, and we should probably talk about it.
In any event, what really matters is not what the Jewish street was thinking, but what Jewish voices in positions of power were saying. Our media in the US happens to be peculiarly blessed with a great number of Jewish voices, and its very difficult to think of any — from Friedman to Krauthammer — who was not pushing for war.
D writes:
"In any event, what really matters is not what the Jewish street was thinking, but what Jewish voices in positions of power were saying."
Good point. The neocons do have an economic support base in that the think-tanks and media that they preach from,receive funding from people like:Haim Saban,Adelson,et al.
All of whom support a form of militant zionism. The same group has ties to Jewish community structures like large synagouges in NYC,and its hard to imagine Rabbis calling for support of AIPAC and attacking Iran,without the tacit approval of those who are their prime doners. Still, pressure from the Jewish street might make a big difference in curtailing the war mongering..
Phil, your post was brilliant…
Please keep up your fine work..
"If you dont think this is a serious question for Jewish identity generally"
I do think it is a serious question, which is why I publicly state "Palestinians are human beings, deserving the prospect of social welfare and self-governance".
It is by NO MEANS the only measure of Israel or Jews. And, the litmus test approach to comments made by people like Ralph Seliger, Dan Fleshler, others, that they are not outraged enough, represents a FAILURE to address those questions seriously, rather than an example of it.
The MANY points made to you by MANY people, of the degree that you savage good people and good efforts, and of the degree that you enable (in the addictive psychological sense) some genuinely repugnant analyses and approaches, are also serious comments of Jewish identity.
It is NOT ridiculous to conduct discussions of Jewish identity privately. It is in fact ridiculous to insist that discussions of Jewish identity occur in a public forum dominated by those with a bias to criticize +.
Thats if your concern is Jewish identity.
Phil,
In person, I've found you to be an open, inquiring, individual, respectful of diverse approach (including respectful of sincere Jewish approach).
In this public discourse on the few fixated topics, I've found you to construct an ideology (a model) of disrespect and selective ignoring of conflicting values.
For example, although we agree that the Israeli government enabled settlement project historically and presently is very often intrusive and conflicts with law, you fail to comment on the historical prohibition against peaceable settlement by Jews in Palestine.
Most of the settlement blocs that are on the Palestinian side of the green line, had their precedents in purchased land by the Yishuv. In 1948, their title was forcefully expropriated.
It does not justify expansion, but to state that you are an opponent of ethnic cleansing, and in any way suggest that settlers should not be allowed to peaceably settle (in contrast to what you saw in Hebron) is racist, an ethnically based exclusion.
Its the danger of public discourse. Its seen.
And, liberals face the gamut of criticism. Our views are not good enough for any litmus-testers. Our conclusions of decency for all, offend everyone. Not critical enough (of occupation, or of terror).
But, that is THE model to live by.
Assertively "LIVE, and LET live."
Also, on President Obama.
He is most likely to model Ralph's suggestions, of strong defense for Israel and decency for Palestinians simultaneously.
Olmert's current perspective. A liberal centrist.
NOT the perspective of Finkelstein, Pappe, Chomsky.
Maybe close to the non-prejudicial "realist" portions of Walt/Mearsheimer's theses. But, not close to their more selectively dismissive portions of their theses.
"that's how blots work. and why people get rid of them."
Israel should lead in willingness to transform, but in order to actually transform, it would have to be closely and authentically followed by the Islamic world also addressing their blots, of any apology for terror on civilians.
I thought you didn't like stereotypes, "blots".
On dual loyalty.
We live in a world in which ALL people are participants of multiple associations, some combinations of which are more important to them than others.
I conclude that urging ANY single identity orientation is a dumbing down of modern humanness.
I can see some issues about conflict of interest as relevant, associated with FEW specific administrative roles.
But, thats extremely limited, and specific. The generalization of "JEWISH" dual loyalty (which you have floated) as illustrated by the thesis that Jews or Zionists should not organize and collectively express, is sickening to me.
That strong Phil.
I like the comments of J Street, that Likud is not the only position of Jews, that collectively we have internally very differing perspectives.
BUT, the times when you state that dissent is really pandering in fact, you look more judgemental than inquiring.
Thanks a lot, D.. This much repeated statement admittedly has left me puzzled lately.
I have asked myself mainly, why my impressions/memories from the run-up to the Iraq war to the reelection of Bush– enthusiastically supported by legions of "media neocons"; and herds of attack crowds, anti-Arab foot soldiers–were so very, very different in this context. Including some academic strategic paraphernalia, e.g. the attempt to parallel anti-Americanism and antisemitism. Yes, at one point one almost automatically asked oneself: "are you Jewish?", paralleled by: "are these signs of antisemitism?"
Admittedly the huge approval rate in Israel has always been on the back of my mind. But would the Jerusalem-Post-political-orientation except the validity of the poll?
We would need a bigger statistical basis here.
But yes, that was very much as it felt then.
An Israeli in London Gilad Atzmon writes: His argument is that the credit crunch is a zionist thing.
Clearly, and this must be said, Jews are not necessarily Zionists. They can also be humanists, universalists, ordinary human beings, plumbers, musicians, shopkeepers and even shoplifters. However, the Zionists amongst the Jews are very easy to trace. They always operate politically as Jews. They run Jewish lobbies, think tanks and pressure groups. For that matter, Jewish American Committee (JAC), AIPAC, Jews For Peace and Anti Zionist Jews are all different forms of Jewish tribal national politics. They are all different forms of racially orientated tribal pressure groups and for that matter they are all rabid Zionists who are set to serve what they regard as Jewish tribal interests.
Short version: morris108.wordpress.com/2008/10/02/gilad-this-zionist-credit-crunch-is-a-glimpse-into-political-zionisms-sinister-agenda/
Full version: palestinethinktank.com/2008/09/30/gilad-atzmon-credit-crunch-or-rather-zio-punch/
I'm not sure that Zionism has done much more than showcase the Jewish identity and put it in action.
D: compare this Los Angeles Times poll (online poll? solid empirical basis?):
Most Unconvinced on Iraq War
…The poll also found that support for a possible war appears to be weakening, with 58% saying they support a ground attack on Iraq. In an August Times poll, 64% said they would support a ground attack. Last January, after President Bush first denounced Saddam Hussein in his State of the Union address, the Times and other polls found support for military action greater than 70%.
Both polls are from Dec. 2002 (12th and 17th)
That makes the difference between war supporting Americans and Jewish Americans with 1 percent almost meaningless.
But of course this wouldn't support the much repeated meme of a much weaker support of the war by American Jews.
I'd really love to see a more precise study in this context.
"Most of American Jews were so cowed by antisemitism in the US in the 1930s and '40s that they did not raise hell on behalf of Jews being systematically slaughtered in Europe."
Most Americans are not aware that in March, 1933, long before Hitler became the undisputed leader of Germany and began restricting the rights of German Jews, the American Jewish Congress announced a massive protest at Madison Square Garden and called for an American boycott of German goods by "world jewry."
"I like the comments of J Street, that Likud is not the only position of Jews, that collectively we have internally very differing perspectives. BUT, the times when you state that dissent is really pandering in fact, you look more judgemental than inquiring."
In 1933 Germany NAZI was not the only position of Germans; collectively they had internally very differing perspectives. As it turned out, dissent morphed into pandering as power collected in the new elite partnering with the old elite and Germany became ever more fascist.
I love the zionist thought police. First they have managed to cleanse the commercial corporate media of any non-zionist perspectives, now they're here on the internet admonishing journalists NOT to read certain people.
Do zionists ever occasionally wonder how the non-zionist world sees them?
Or do they fall back on their persecution complex and Holocaust narratives to save themselves from doing any reflection?
I think Phil's dialog with Seliger answers the question pretty well.
The problem with J Street is similar to the problem with Obama: Zionism itself cannot be discussed openly. And it must be, to effect a change in the status quo in both the U.S. and in colonized Palestine/the greater Middle East.
I think Haygood once hit on exactly why this is the case: the U.S. mounted the largest military mobilization in history in WWII, and has yet to demobilize. WWII has become the creation myth of the American empire as the world's police force. The Holocaust is the primary evidence of the evil in the world that the U.S. must vanquish.
Thus real history is like antiseptic to zionists.
D.
Your poll is grossly misleading.
What specifically was that poll? When was it conducted, to whom?
Otherwise, your "summary" is an example of misrepresentation.
My understanding is that the vast majority of Jews opposed the war in Iraq, in spite of promoted prospects for Israeli security, BECAUSE it was a unilateral invasion.
Good people were sold on the lies of the Bush/Cheney/POWELL presentation.
Kerry for example later apologized for his vote for the war authorization, on the basis of false testimony before Congress. McCain hasn't.
What specifically was that poll? When was it conducted, to whom?
As he writes, it is by the American Jewish committee
Publications
2002 Annual Survey of American Jewish Opinion
Introduction
The data reported here are from the 2002 Annual Survey of American Jewish Opinion, sponsored by the American Jewish Committee, detailing the views of American Jews about a broad range of subjects. Among the topics covered in the present survey are the war against terrorism and Iraq, the Israel-Arab peace process, the attachment of American Jews to Israel, political and social issues in the United States, Jewish perceptions of anti-Semitism, Jewish opinion about various countries, and Jewish identity concerns. Some of the questions appearing in the survey are new; others are drawn from previous American Jewish Committee surveys, including the Annual Surveys of American Jewish Opinion carried out in 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001.
The 2002 survey was conducted for the American Jewish Committee by Market Facts, Inc., a leading survey-research organization. Respondents were interviewed by telephone during December 16, 2002 – January 5, 2003; no interviewing took place on the Sabbath. The sample consisted of 1,008 self-identified Jewish respondents selected from the Market Facts consumer mail panel. The respondents are demographically representative of the United States adult Jewish population on a variety of measures. The margin of error for the sample as a whole is plus or minus 3 percentage points.
Next >>
Date: 12/23/2002
Initially, the invasion of Iraq was hugely popular in the US. Jews were no more supportive of the invasion than other segments of the population. But as time has gone on, the natural instincts of most Jews toward the liberal left has made them proportionately more opposed to the war than most other Americans.
"Jews were no more supportive of the invasion than other segments of the population."
Saying this doesn't make it so. Even saying it a thousand times.
That is surprising to me.
What is the corresponding percentages across ethnic lines?
As I said, many good people voted for the war resolution, that have since recanted, and largely based on falsified information presented by individuals that they presumed were truthful, including people like Colin Powell.
I'm sure that many Jews felt a target of 911, especially with some of the malicious idiotic speculations that it was a false-flag operation.
Also, following Saddam's shelling of Israeli cities, even though Israel was not a direct party to the conflict, struck many Jews as off the charts, and justified otherwise wrong math.
What specifically was that poll? When was it conducted, to whom?
From the site:
The 2002 survey was conducted for the American Jewish Committee by Market Facts, Inc., a leading survey-research organization. Respondents were interviewed by telephone during December 16, 2002 – January 5, 2003; no interviewing took place on the Sabbath. The sample consisted of 1,008 self-identified Jewish respondents selected from the Market Facts consumer mail panel. The respondents are demographically representative of the United States adult Jewish population on a variety of measures. The margin of error for the sample as a whole is plus or minus 3 percentage points.
My understanding is that the vast majority of Jews opposed the war in Iraq, in spite of promoted prospects for Israeli security, BECAUSE it was a unilateral invasion.
"Understanding" and "reality" are two different things. 80% of the Israeli population supported the war and, according to the American Jewish Committee, 59% of American Jews supported the invasion.
Correction, Mr. Seliger. You are wrong about this.
I am looking at photographs right now that give a lie to what you write, Mr. Seliger, this endless victimization claim, this annoying Hungarian violin screech about the put-upon Jews who did nothing because they were “so cowed by antisemitism,” because you, Mr. Seliger, fail to read history or bother to entertain one single goddam idea of history that doesn't comport with your idea of how things happened. [Usually accompanied by further yells of anti-semitism or holocaust denier, or some such, at people like me for bringing these facts up. Jesus, it’s getting old.]
FACT Hitler and Goebbels burn The Reichstag, February 27, 1933 so that Hitler will win election March 5, 1993. He was an interim chancellor appointed the previous November. German public convinced the fire was the start of a Jewish-back Communist uprising.
FACT Hitler wins a majority, March 5, 1933.
FACT American Jewish Congress convenes March 12, 1933 to plan worldwide boycott against German goods and demonstrations.
FACT “[Tens of] Thousands turned out for the Jewish War Veterans' March 23, 1933, anti-Nazi parade, inaugurating the boycott against Hitler” (Photograph courtesy of the Jewish War Veterans of the U.S.A.)
FACT “Judea Declares War on Germany” March 24, 1933. The Daily Express (London) announced that Jews worldwide had already launched their boycott against Germany and described a forthcoming "holy war". The Express urged Jews everywhere to boycott German goods and demonstrate against German economic interests.
FACT “Rabbi M.S. Margolies steps to the microphone to chant a prayer for God’s intervention during the March 27, 1933 Madison Square Garden massive protest rally of 40,000 people. The chant was broadcasted around the world.” (Photograph courtesy of the National Archives.)
FACT Hitler gives a speech March 28, 1933 ordering a boycott against Jewish stores and goods in direct response to the declaration of war on Germany by the worldwide Jewish leadership.
FACT Thousands demonstrate in at Battery Park, May 10, 1933 in a protest against the Third Reich. Rabbi Stephen Wise addresses crowd. (Photograph courtesy of the American Jewish Congress)
FACT July 20, 1933 London giant protest and boycott parade: West End, 50,000 people
Want to see the photographs? Read the 1984 first edition of The Transfer Agreement by Edwin Black.
The German people, having suffered through WWI and the hyper-inflation of their money, were starved by the boycott of German goods worldwide. German anger against the Jewish-created boycott and Jews mounts.
Rabbi Wise convinced FDR to not allow German Jews to emigrate to the USA. They have to go to Palestine, the Zionist goal. USA turns away fleeing Jews. (See The Transfer Agreement, 1984)
Good people were sold on the lies of the Bush/Cheney/POWELL presentation.
Much that led to the presentation (remember Hans Blix?) was absolutely questionable. That's why the world's eyes zoomed in on the "evidence" presented. Thus it was shown–really fast–to be copied from an older student paper down to the punctuation errors.
It took the world only two days to find that out.
Excellent Phil. This is why I visit. Very well written with good comments.
On the term "model".
Phil,
"I can't put myself forward as a model to Jewish children on how to be Jewish. Notwithstanding my great pride in the intellectual traditions that I grew up with, I feel too conflicted tribally about the fact of my intermarriage to put myself on any poster. "
My use of the term "your failure to model is the sin", is not that you are not Jewish enough, but that you don't think of yourself in terms of model, "if others were like me".
You are just you. Not also a model.
A model of a Jew that incorporated benevolent politics in their model, would not feel shame that is invoked seemingly habitually, but would invoke the authentic MIX of love and friction.
If you feel affinity with the community, then the language that they/we use to describe our boundary should be nothing, a line in the sand.
Those Jews for whom Zionism is important should not then bother you. The litmus test would not be an issue.
You do express a view, that implies that every Jew should feel and express like you, even as you don't model the dilemmas in doing so.
One of the messages of stories like the Abraham and Isaac sacrifice story, is of dilemma, and willingly living with it.
I just wish that you weren't so insulting to Zionists that seek to be good human beings and Zionists at the same time, which I don't see as a necessary contradiction.
Two elements of the Iraq invasion, or two elements that involve Iraq and Israel and the invasion, or two elements of Babylon.
I used to wonder why those rastas were always on and on about Babylon.
Well any history of the Jews as a people, even the most concise history, will have to talk about captivity and slavery, not just in Egypt, but yeah, inna Babylon.
This goes some way toward explaining the wrecking and looting of the museums in Iraq immediately post-invasion, which many commentators found mysterious and odd.
Revenge.
The second element, one nobody seems to think even merits a mention, is the fact that Saddam Hussein sent missiles into Israel during Gulf War 1. Lots of them relatively speaking.
Scuds. Everybody was talking about them Scuds back in 1991.
Now nobody is.
BBC "On This Day" 18.Jan.91:
"1991: Iraqi Scud missiles hit Israel
Iraq has attacked two Israeli cities with Scud missiles, prompting fears that Israel may be drawn into the Gulf War.
Israel's largest city, Tel Aviv, and Haifa, its main seaport, were hit in the attacks, which began at 0300 local time (0100 GMT), when most residents were asleep."
-
These two elements, ancient and modern, make a simple thing slightly more complicated, but not much more complicated than your average CSI:Miami episode.
Not only was the US conned into waging a proxy war in Iraq in order to defend the illegal and edacious boundaries of Israel and the aggressive policies of its ruthless government, we were conned into exacting revenge, for a vindictive people who have been historically blinded by their own suffering, blinded even to the suffering of others caused by themselves.
The Canaanites were a group of Semites living south of the Aramaens (also Semites, living in what is now Syria) in what became known as Palestine. In the time of Akhnaton of Egypt, a number of the Canaanite governors sought military aid of Egypt against the invading Hebrews and Philistines.
The Philistines took over a few the sea towns.
Little by little the Hebrews conquered and settled the rest of the land of Canaan; the absorbed most of the Canaanites
Richard, do you think the Zionist's image can be removed from the horrors it inflicts on Palestinians, Lebanese and Syrians, to one that leans towards more of your humanist Zionist outlook? Could Zionism be relegated to a theology in a purely secular state or will it corrupt the state ultimately? Phil was stressed that it has been sixty years of a Zionist state and its transgressions are not making a good case for the liberal section of Zionism. Can your base curb the radicalist interpretation of Zionism for the people not to equate it with past brutal regimes such as the Afrikaaners, the French in Algeria, the Northern Ireland conflict and even the Third Reich? Is this too odious an analogy? Because I'm sure each of those had a believer in the dominant regime but believed in a more "human" way of dealing with things, to reach an agreement cordially, or for a minimalism to keep their concoction of a state that did injustice as well as to give self-determination to those who they oppressed. Is it worth saving? Could the alternative be so offensive?
I have to admit it folks. Nazi antisemitism and the Holocaust were all the Jews' fault.
Lately, we've also been responsible for forcing Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld to invade Iraq — against their will! And yes, we killed Jesus, too.