Jeff Blankfort just sent me this attack on anti-Zionists by a Zionist, Ami Isseroff, on a Zionist site. Seems like it was written earlier this year. Here's the weird bit, at the end:
If
the Arab Palestinian movement to destroy Israel succeeds, the Jews who
are leading it now will certainly be redundant and undesirable. What
use will Tali Fahima or Ilan Pappe or Jeff Halper be in an Arab
Palestinian state? If it fails, they will be blamed for its failure. A
specter is haunting over the anti-Zionist movement. It is the specter
of anti-Semitism. As day follows night, the social contradictions of
the Palestinian movement must lead to the exclusion, if not the
annihilation, of the anti-Zionist Jews. It is far better for them if it
happens sooner, rather than later.
As Blankfort says, Chilling. But it's interesting, because these people are so scared now. They've run out of bullets, except for the Jewish fear one. And they know that non-Zionists are winning the battle in the next generation. By the way these Jews are not part of the "Palestinian movement," they are part of a larger universalist movement, to turn down the dial on identity politics in the Middle East.
Related posts:
{ 16 comments }
It's fairly obvious. Jews by accident of birth, like Phil, Blankfort, and the rest. If they realize their dream of the destruction of Israel. And everything that that entails. And bring their self hatred to its highest form. What is their raison de etre then. Nothing. They are the useful idiots that lenin spoke of.
Zionism's useful idiots are the average Americans
Ami Isseroff (not to be confused with the Haaretz reporter Ami Issacharof) publishes MideastWeb, the very site that published one of Ralph Seliger's screeds. Are we surprised?
Ami is a very strange dude. He'll tell you he's a progressive and then rant against Peace Now. It's not that Ami is an outright fraud. He's just someone like Ralph whose views have somehow become twisted & distorted.
Ami has no consistent political viewpt. that I can discern though he's somewhere in the vague center-left with rightist tendencies (if that's not too much of a contradiction in terms). He loves to rant as you can see from this passage. He even accused me of libeling him & threatened a lawsuit. Never heard anything further about that.
IT's really a shame because Ami pioneered dealing w. the I-P conflict on the web. His site was one of the first. He 'coulda been somebody' if you remember your Marlon Brando lines.
The "hamlet of Seattle" is heard from again. Rich, I stand ready to pop for a plane ticket for Samir ( head crusher ) Kuntar to visit you and your boys. That's a blog post I would love to tead.
Blankfort completes the circle admirably. Zionism and Nazism emerged from a common cradle. Despite allegedly being polar opposites, they share much in common … not least being their calls for the 'annihilation' of ideological enemies.
Richard,
So what specifically do you disagree with Ralph's perspective?
Do you understand how he might have rationally come to that perspective, and still disagree?
If so, then the specific conclusions, would be identifiable.
I personally don't believe in any political approach that is sledgehammer (imprecise), or oriented to conformity of thinking.
A sledgehammer approach is by definition meant to coerce people to adopt a conclusion without decision.
We all form conclusions that have an element of either faith (as in religious belief in God it/him/her self, or scripture, or orthodoxy), or of social conformity.
It is honest to identify what those foundation stones are, explicitly, to discern what is clearly consistent, what is a guess, what is vanity (wanting to look good).
The best arguments are about what assumes, not the heat of drama. How do you know that? How do you add that up?
Phil has stated recently that he considers such intellectual discussion not his, that he as a journalist is more interested in horse races, in dramatic story, novel (ala Shakespeare – of which the moral dilemmas are part of the dramatic, rather than say Ibsen – of which the drama is part of the moral thesis).
SORRY … typed "Blankfort" when I meant "Isseroff.' I would edit the above post, but I can't.
RE: "We all form conclusions that have an element of either faith (as in religious belief in God it/him/her self, or scripture, or orthodoxy), or of social conformity."
Who is We? What is the basis of this statement?
Wow… that's some crazy stuff…
I think Left-wing Jews are just as annihilatorry as Right-wing ones, as Jewish Bolshevism shows. I believe that it is a culture of extremism mixed with a culture of disappointed or dejected idealism that has caused so many problems for Jews and their victims. I really don’t see how adopting coerced universalism, which I view as more code for Communism, is going to help matters; in fact, it might make matters worse.
I think the answer lies in the adoption of moderation that can short circuit the culture of extremism. For example, forcing Israel to adopt a Constitution and set its borders. Could the Constitution stipulate preferential treatment for Jews seeking immigration? I don’t see why not, so long as it stipulates equal treatment for citizens of all races once they have citizenship status.
I fear Left-wing anti-Zionist Jews are allowing the perfect to make an enemy of the good. I believe a few moderate steps such as those above would, so long as they had the girth of the Jewish community behind them, go a long way towards short-circuiting the downward spiral. Of course, Right-leaning Zionists would have to moderate their extreme ambitions for an expansionist Israel, and the ball is really in their court. Their own extremism is forcing anti-Zionist extremism.
A couple more thoughts on why liberal diaspora Jewish Zionists haven't pressured Israel to adopt a constitution: In addition to ensuring rights for non-Jews (which they don't really want Israelis to have to enforce), they also don't want to be exposed as hypocrites for pushing universalism in the diaspora, because any Israeli constitution would most certainly enshrine some kind of preferential treatment for Jews.
If the Magna Carta and the US Constitution are manifestations of Christian thought, any Jewish Israeli constitution would be viewed as a manifestation of Jewish thought, and most certainly come up short in terms of universal rights for citizens, and could be pointed to by opponents of Jews pushing coerced universalism in the diaspora as proof of their double standards.
This is pure selfishness, because it means they value their ability to make self-righteous, hollow lectures about universalist abstractions in the diaspora above attaining basic human rights for Palestinians, and minorities in Israel.
Zionism's hobbling of their ability to convincing lecture gentiles about the desirability of coerced universalism may also be one of the motivating factors behind extreme Jewish anti-Zionists, as well.
SORRY … typed "Blankfort" when I meant "Isseroff.' I would edit the above post, but I can't.
An edit feature for comments would be absolutely ingenious. We should tell typepad.
******************************************
Sword, that was the first time everything after the "Hamlet of Seattle" ridicule really choked me up. What is it about Richard, that makes you ideologues so really mad? A glance in the abyss reminding me, that all disfranchisement starts with ridicule and may end with murder.
I find the racial argument interesting. The Hebrews (who borrowed their religion heavily from the various civilizations they encountered) were lead by a priestly-nationalistic caste that declared that the Hebrews were the "Chosen People," implying a type of supremacy that far outstripped their meager status as backward goat herders on the borders of various advanced cultures. (Perhaps this is indicative of an highly-inbred inferiority complex.)
The Eastern European Jews are only fractionally "Hebrew," as evidenced by their mostly-Caucasian features, including their greater intelligence. Still, their elites have, for over a thousand years, proclaimed them the supreme race of men, and the only worthy of life itself. Their elites spent the better part of that time frame in a perpetual state of fanatical envy of the European cultures they lived among, alternatingly organizing their followers to economically prey upon (and, occasionally massacre) the European peasants and trying to overthrow the European elites. Their efforts inevitably earned them economic restrictions, followed by violent peasant uprisings, and expulsion; still to this day, their American descendants continue to proclaim their ethnic supremacy and arrogate American domestic and foreign policy in ways detrimental to the majority of Americans. Their organizations demand racial purity and separation from society; to them, the only proper role for Jews is as a (hostile) ruling elite over the "untouchable" American and Palestinian people. Jews who wish to even partially assimilate are tarred as "self-hating" enablers of "anti-Semitism."
Are they a race? They're of many races, and I suspect the Sephardic and African Jews don't consider themselves racially superior to all other races, at least not the way the Ashkenazim do. Are they an ethnic group? They're ethnically very diverse, and far less ethnically pure than the Palestinians upon whose corpses they built the Zionist regime. According to Jewish reformers living in Israel, the Ashkenazi elite economically exploit the other Jews there. The Jewish communist elite that committed genocide against the Russians, and that ordered the rape of Germany following the war were driven by ethnic hatred.
However, the European Jewish elites that collaborated with Hitler over a creation of a Zionist state did so knowing they were killing the masses of the lower-class Jews, and Jewish elites in Russia and Israel today continue to engage in human trafficking and slavery, with some of the victims being ethnically Jewish.
Are they a religion? Jewish organizations are always berating the fact that most ethnic Jews are not Judaists. Many of the most bloodthirsty of Stalin's willing executioners considered themselves ethnically Jewish, but were anti-religious.
The LCD is that they're an ethnic group, but with three generations of fractional, secular Jews in America mating with whites (you know, people who have assimilated?), the most prominent Jews in the US under, say, 40, look more like Gwenneth Paltrow than Barbra Streisand, and they arguably only "practice" Judaism to the extent that it benefits their careers in Jew-dominated industries (e.g., the media, the movies, entertainment).
Anyway, they need to stop masking their ethnocentrism with false claims of "anti-Semitism" and integrate with the rest of society.
Vikash, acute summary–thank you.
Don't forget to that part of the Christian Magna Carta dealing with usury. It's important in the context of the current USA economic catastrophe.
Jews are a people, not a race.
That assimilated Jews don't identify as much as self-identifying Jews is definitional.
Vikash,
Be careful about what and how you express your misapprehensions of Jewish culture, identity, etc. I assume that there is a reason that you adopted the name Vikash. If you did it for spiritual reasons, then ethics (including the tone and content of your speech, summarized in the ethic of Satya) is important.
The term "chosen people" also describes the self-identification of Lakota and Cherokee. It is a common unifier of a people. It is primarily inward oriented, NOT a comparison with other peoples (even as some Jews interpret it as such).
An appreciation, "God chose us to establish an intimate relationship with".
Common to anyone that has ever been in and felt in love. Its the flip-side (the complement, not the oppossite) of thankfulness.
Its not a bad sentiment. It contrasts to "God rejected us" or "God is indifferent to us" or "noone loves us".
Comments on this entry are closed.