The lasting image I'll have of yesterday's conference on Jews against the war 6 years after the fact will be of Rabbi David Saperstein of the Union for Reform Judaism going on at length and almost angrily, citing Hebrew words about just-law theory, to explain why URJ basically supported the Iraq War in 2002. He will rationalize this till the end of time, using as many Hebrew words that I can't understand as he pleases. And I will always believe that there was a protect-Israel component in his thinking, and an ignore-the-wicked-occupation component.
And so now, 6 years later, they're agonized over their complicity in this disaster. Writes a friend, who attended two sessions I didn't:That whole event had a surreal quality -- hashing this stuff out 5-6 years after the fact. In one of
the big sessions downstairs the woman representing the national Reform
organization -- Rabbi Marla Feldman -- told the crowd in a
self-congratulatory tone that they had opted to take a public stand
against the war in .... 2007. Back in 2002 or 2003 they laid out
parameters (multi-lateralism, trying diplomacy first), she said, by
which they would NOT oppose the war. She seemed contented with this.
In the plenary with Arthur Waskow, there was a repeated assumption by the panel members that "anti-Israelism and anti-semitism" is pretty widespread on "the Left" and Jewish groups had to find ways to combat it or just swallow hard and look the other way at antiwar protests. The odd thing was that the assumption wasnt unpacked at all: when had they specifically encountered anti-semitism (and I don't doubt they have -- but how widespread is it, really?); and, more importantly, how the f*ck do they DEFINE "anti-Israelism." I think and hope that everyone at that conference does not define anti-Israelism the same way. But these statements were just allowed to stand at that panel. I ended up leaving early. The portion I saw leads me to believe that come the next crisis -- which will come, as Jeremy Ben-Ami said -- these big Jewish groups may well sit it out again over discomfort on the Israel issue.
In the plenary with Arthur Waskow, there was a repeated assumption by the panel members that "anti-Israelism and anti-semitism" is pretty widespread on "the Left" and Jewish groups had to find ways to combat it or just swallow hard and look the other way at antiwar protests. The odd thing was that the assumption wasnt unpacked at all: when had they specifically encountered anti-semitism (and I don't doubt they have -- but how widespread is it, really?); and, more importantly, how the f*ck do they DEFINE "anti-Israelism." I think and hope that everyone at that conference does not define anti-Israelism the same way. But these statements were just allowed to stand at that panel. I ended up leaving early. The portion I saw leads me to believe that come the next crisis -- which will come, as Jeremy Ben-Ami said -- these big Jewish groups may well sit it out again over discomfort on the Israel issue.
Organized Judaism understands it’s running an elaborate grift. Certitude and denial are both necessary components of the scam. Once it admits it is fallible, (in this case, wrong on the Iraq war) cracks develop in its moral authority. The collective body is not unlike George W. Bush in its stubbornness, haughtiness, sense of entitlement and delusions of righteousness. The liberals are even more self-righteous than the conservatives, and in that sense are that much more delusional.
"Liberals", Ed, is a code word for a number of things at the same time. For instance, "pro-choice" is supposed to be a "liberal" value, right? It just struck me that Joe Lieberman's antics are an illustration of a thesis I have held for a long time, namely, that the US Left got trapped in a strategic cul-de-sac over abortion in 1973. The only ideological glue that holds Holy Joe to the Dems is his much-vaunted "pro-choice" profile, and it is precisely this that allowed the Weekly Standard kool-aid gang to substitute Palin for Lieberman as McCain's V-P: they convinced McCain that Lieberman would lose him the bizarre and cranky GOP rural "base".
Good psyche analogy to Shrub, Ed. Now, how about that Chaney, the guy who
totally switched his position on going into Iraq?
******************************
AN EXCELLENT (SOMEWHAT ON TOPIC) ARTICLE BY DAVID MICHAEL GREEN:
What to Do When Your Party Sucks
by David Michael Green @ CommonDreams.org
Progressives are gonna have a lot of fun and satisfaction over the next two, four and eight years – although with each passing day and appointment, it doesn't appear as though much of it is going to come from Barack Obama.
More on that last bit another time. Meanwhile, the good stuff will be coming from the other team, for once. Now harmlessly out of power, their antics will have little impact in the real world. But, if schadenfreude is your game, you're gonna enjoy this.
The Republican Party had the absolute sh** kicked out of it. And that was back in 2006. Then it was drowned, set on fire, hung, drawn and quartered, and hit by a freight train in 2008…..
ENTIRE ARTICLE –
link to commondreams.org
I have a problem with the title of this post. "destory Iraqi society", what part of Iraqi society did the US destroy? Lives(whether people are dead or alive) isn't a characteristic of a society. How the government is run is a characteristic of society. Yes, the status quo in Iraq was destroyed, are you a conservative now?
Also, I know some Jewish friends that went to anti-Iraq war rallies. And the general feeling in Jewish Democrat circles was against the war. The Jews didn't vote for Bush in 2000 and 2004.
This is more of Christian war than a Jewish American one. Didn't Bush use the word "Crusade" during one of his speeches?
What would the appropriate move for the Jewish Left be? The Left in general did rallies which Jews took a part of. I think Phil has a distorted view that organized Jewry in America can control the Bush administration. Iraq isn't a Jewish issue. It's an American one. That's why there wasn't anything specifically Jewish in the anti-Iraq war movement.
As Darfur happened, it was the Jews who took the most part in it? Why won't Phil talk about how the non-Jewish Left did nothing. There was a HUGE Darfur rally in Washington about 3 years ago. 80,000 people I think. My friends that went said that a third were Jewish. Jews from all over the East Coast. There were so many Jewish organizations involved.
Michael W., the reason why the war was thought of as Jewish was that so many Jews supported it, even though though the Jewish-American masses, like people in general, opposed it. Also, the tone adopted above seems all too self-righteous. One knows that Jews have been too often criticized; still, one would like some acknowledgement that Jews are capable of cruelty, brutality, and evil.
That much said, one agrees with your plaint about the "destruction" of Iraqi society. America certainly had a hand in it, but so did the insurgency. It also may have been in an unusually bad state to begin with, what with the Sunni Arabs oppressing the other groups in Iraq.
"the reason why the war was thought of as Jewish was that so many Jews supported it, even though though the Jewish-American masses, like people in general, opposed it."
Do you know how ridiculous that sounds?
This is just a double standard that Jews had to face since the dawn of time, taking responsibility of choices Jewish individuals make.
"some acknowledgement" —- I hate the Israeli settlers just as much as the next guy. I know an American neo-con who hates the settlers too, which really debunks Phil argument on neocons supporting Israeli settlers.
What part of Iraqi society did the US destroy?
Millions of lives, billions in lost GDP, thousands of constructions (many historical), thousands of ancient artifacts, centuries of peaceful relations amongst the different sects and tribes, and of course, the only one the U.S. media reported on–the big fat Saddam personality cult and autocracy that had defined the country for decades. Which had been long bolstered by… the U.S. superpower.
Yes, the status quo in Iraq was destroyed, are you a conservative now?
Exactly how was "the status quo in Iraq" within the U.S.'s or Judonia's jurisdiction by the way?
What would the appropriate move for the Jewish Left be?
I dunno, more blind, ultra-nationalist ethnocentrism?
Didn't Bush use the word "Crusade" during one of his speeches?
Yeah, and he also went to Jerusalem and said how beautiful it was that it was undivided. (They told W. the Apartheid Barrier was "The Berlin Wall" and he just paused for a sec, and nodded, knowingly. True story.)
As Darfur happened, it was the Jews who took the most part in it?
No, but if by "the Jews" you mean "Zionists," well, they took part by dishonestly trying to spin it as an Arab-on-Black genocide. They even got poor old Colin Powell (Obama wasn't available yet I guess) to use the G word!
Why won't Phil talk about how the non-Jewish Left did nothing?
Uhh, fuck you–I got arrested and billy-clubbed and left the country to be able to stop paying taxes to it.
And you? Did you protest the Iraq war because the U.S. military should've been intervening in Darfur instead?
Why not Iran?
There was a HUGE Darfur rally in Washington about 3 years ago.
Sure, sure, that rings a bell. HUGE.
80,000 people
Cough!
I was marching with millions and millions around the world for months.
My friends that went said that a third were Jewish. Jews from all over the East Coast. There were so many Jewish organizations involved.
ROTFLMAO! Impressive!!!
Michal W
Of course many Jews supported the Darfur independence movement — it is Israeli policy to divide Moslem nations. Most of the rational left stayed away from that issue for the simple reason it is a civil war between African tribes competing for limited resources and the the US is really powerless to do any good there. In addition, doing good is not what the US does when it gets involved in other people's wars — it is just another opportunity to expand American imperial influence.
@MM,
"centuries of peaceful relations amongst the different sects and tribes"
That's the dumbest thing I've read on this blog.
And the rest in that list is either not a characteristic of society or not caused by the US.
"Exactly how was "the status quo in Iraq" within the U.S.'s or Judonia's jurisdiction by the way?"
What the hell are you talking about?
"I dunno, more blind, ultra-nationalist ethnocentrism?"
What the f are you talking about?
"No, but if by "the Jews" you mean "Zionists," well, they took part by dishonestly trying to spin it as an Arab-on-Black genocide. They even got poor old Colin Powell (Obama wasn't available yet I guess) to use the G word!"
So you don't care about Darfur? Hypocritical Lefty(I'm a Lefty as well so I know).
"left the country to be able to stop paying taxes to it."
Oh, a real patriot we have here. You don't leave the country just because you don't like the foreign policy. You try to change it with in the country.
"I was marching with millions and millions around the world for months."
Millions in one rally?
"Of course many Jews supported the Darfur independence movement — it is Israeli policy to divide Moslem nations"
Source?
"Most of the rational left stayed away from that issue for the simple reason it is a civil war between African tribes competing for limited resources and the the US is really powerless to do any good there."
All most all wars are about resources. Why should you care about Palestinian suffering? That's practically a civil war about land. If Darfur is the same you should care about that too.
" In addition, doing good is not what the US does when it gets involved in other people's wars — it is just another opportunity to expand American imperial influence."
Are you an isolationist? A modern economy can't function with out a military/navy to protect trade. So I guess you are against trade too.
MichaelW: "Yes, the status quo in Iraq was destroyed, are you a conservative now?"
The true destructive nature of the Zionist-indoctrinated mind shows itself. The only entity that Jewish Zionism wants to conserve is itself; everything else must be smashed and destroyed. That's why a majority of organized Jewry supported the Iraq war, whether it admitted it or not.
Creative Destruction: that's how Jewish Bolsheviks operated, that's how Jewish Zionists operate, that's how Jewish Neocons operate. You’ve got to break eggs to make an omelet, right Mikey?
—–
When politically correct, indoctrinated socialists, left-liberals and Neolibs ask critics of Jewish Zionism “Why do you hate the Jews?" the correct response is: "Why do you hate the foreign policies of George W. Bush and the Neocons? For the same reasons, I criticize Jewish Zionism."
—–
MichaelW: 'This is more of Christian war than a Jewish American one. Didn't Bush use the word "Crusade" during one of his speeches?'
Bush is a Christian Zionist charlatan, like John Hagee. He's about as authentically Christian as Foxman and Dershowitz are authentically Jewish, which is to say, authentic only to the extent that one pre-supposes all of their conceptions of religion are as an ethno-cultural scam. I don’t think any of them have a God-fearing bone in their bodies. They all have the minds of atheistic ethno-socialist materialists with a haze of Talmudic realpolitik vis-à-vis how their in-group should treat the “other.”
How big is the Swiss military/navy? They seem to trade pretty well,
have clean streets & a high standard of ethics and living–they have not participated in a war in 200 years & are the home of the Geneva laws and Red Cross… The early Zionists like that place so much they held a whole string of their earliest conventions there.
Michael W is so steeped in the Zionist Interventionist mythology and conventional wisdom that he can't even tell the smell of his own bullshit.
I believe Dr. Shlomo Sand nailed it when he explained the disparate fields of History and "Jewish Studies."
MM, I am pleased you are back. And I agree with much of what you say. But could we please leave "Jewish studies" out of politics?
Let's see what happens when "When and How the Jewish People Was Invented?" is tested more thoroughly in the hard world of known data.
mw wrote "All most all wars are about resources. Why should you care about Palestinian suffering? That's practically a civil war about land. If Darfur is the same you should care about that too."
I may care about Palestinian suffering but I do believe it is an issue that the US should not expend its resources trying to solve. And that includes the US fighting Arabs on Israel's behalf as well.
mw also wrote: "A modern economy can't function with out a military/navy to protect trade."
Do tell what US trade is at stake in Darfur. Camel and goat futures? Cell phones for the people? The anti-malarial drug market? I really do not see any US national interests here. We can aid charities that try to help alleviate the people's suffering, but there is no reason to take sides militarily.
MW asked about my mentioning the Save Darfur campaing as being an extension of Israeli policy.
Here is one cite:link to philipweiss.org
/>
This is all very interesting. Jewish-Americans opposed the Iraq war in the same proportions as the general population, about 1/3. Jewish institutions supported it almost unanimously, including obviously URJ. None of this makes the war a Jewish war. It is a neocon war with neoliberal consent that was dutifully supported by Israel in the hopes that it would lead to an attack on Iran. The anti-semitism card was played against the antiwar movement, obviously, to keep Jews away from it. In our local movement in Champaign-Urbana, I was the only affiliated Jew involved, out of hundreds of affiliated Jews. Not an accident, but a political culture, well-enforced as much internally as externally. Jews have learned to be scared at the thought of associating with movements open to Palestinian suffering. One way or the other, it worked.
Darfur is a sham that indeed does have to do with U.S. interests vis a vis China in Sudan, but the Jewish support was transparently self-serving as a distraction from Israel, and in general the Darfur "movement" was a distraction from U.S. depredations in the Middle East. It couldn't have been more transparent from the start, and I was fully expecting to look it up and find it a Zionist astroturf operation. Of course it is.
@Ed,
"The only entity that Jewish Zionism wants to conserve is itself"
The only entity that "Americanism" wants to conserve is itself. The only entity that the American patriots wanted to conserve was themselves. Got to shake a few red coats before you can get anything done.
"conceptions of religion are as an ethno-cultural scam."
You know, for someone who criticizes "blood" and "ethnicity" so much, you sure talk about it a lot. Nobody talks about "blood" and "ethnicity" as much as Ed, and the Nazis of course.
@observer,
The Swiss are in the middle of Europe. Not bum fuck Middle East.
@syvanen:
darfur child refugee: hello syv, will you please speak up for my cause?
syv: I'm sorry child. I can't do that. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. You see, I don't want to help you because those that hate you, also hate the Zionists (read Jews). I don't care what my allies do as long as they fight the Zionists.
My my, MW is still obsessed with the plight of a Darfur child. That civil war has resulted in about 100,000 civilian deaths since 2003. Just to the south there has been over one million deaths in that civil war. Shouldn't we try to stop that? The US is not responsible for either Darfur or Congo, but we are definetly responsible for over a million civilain deaths in Iraq. Perhaps we should stop that carnage. But of course, MW cannot bring that up because that was a war the the US carried out on Israel's behalf. Also it should be noted that MW does not explain how free trade would be promoted if we went to war against Sudan as he seemed to imply above.
As Michael referred, I also demonstrated against the war and wrote to politicians in opposition.
And was harrassed as being un-American for that.
So, to be harrassed by the right for un-American opposition to the war, and to be harrassed by the left and right-left for insufficient opposition to the war, is a bit Kafkaesque.
Michael W, right, the bum fuck Middle East–so, you agree after all
with American-Israeli imperialism? No isolationism for You! What happened to live and let live? The test of virtue is power. So long as others do the grunt work for you.
@MW: "Nobody talks about "blood" and "ethnicity" as much as Ed, and the Nazis of course."
—-
Correction — the Nazis and the Jewish Zionists. And since the latter also assign "choseness" and supremacy according to bloodlines, (and unlike the Nazis, are part of an ideological mass movement with tentacles all over the world), their critics.
@Ed,
You don't even know what "chosen" means so stop the BS.
Israel's policy such as the Law of Return was to write a right from a wrong. It is the world that turned it that way. Israel will always be the "Jew among the nations" because of the role the world put the Jews at. Your mind is so entrenched in this role given to the Jews that you are projecting your own ideas of supremacy to the Jews because you are uncomfortable with crediting those ideas to your self.
M.W. seems entirely ignorant of the intentional targeting of Iraqi and Palestinian scientists and in fact the entire intellectual strata of both societies. Just another Zionist goal obtained through domination of US policy making. It is undeniable that the sanctions and invasion have been pushed by primarily Jewish organisatons. Yes, they are Jewish directed crimes whether or not "most Jews" took part. M.W. appears to be an avid supporter of interventionism though.
@MW: 'Israel will always be the "Jew among the nations" because of the role the world put the Jews at.'
Yeah, its always the goys fault. Jewish Bolsheviks? Never heard of 'em. Jewish Neocons? Weren't a bunch of 'em also Catholic and Christian Zionists? Jewish Zionists? Engaged in purely defensive measures only. Innocent as lambs. "Choseness" and the bigotry in the Talmud? Jew man's burden. You just wouldn't understand.
Ed,
you still haven't used the "chosen" concept correctly so till you do, all you say has zero credibility.
MW, your religion isn’t interested in the benefit of all humanity. It’s not interested in making the world a better place, despite its "tikkun olam" subterfuge. It’s interested in it’s own self-interest, its own tribe's well being — just like pure Capitalism and pure Communism are only intersted in their own self-interest.
Now, you might maintain that that’s the best way to run a society. But I disagree. The success of Western (Christian) civilization, is proof that the Christian ethos is the best way to run a civilization: demands of morality, and the marketplace, leavened by human compassion.
I understand that this is inconvenient to the selfish (Judeo) ethic. But inconvenience to selfishness is the least of humanity’s, and history’s, concerns. Don't try to present yourself as something you're not. Retreat into you're Zionist hole if need be, but don't pretend you give a damn about anyone or anything but yourselves.
I am chosen, as is my whole family. Oh no, we are not the platonic elite, some sort of old WASP conceit come down from ancient history. We only want to make the world a better place for all humans. It is such a burden, you wouldn't know how hard we work every day to make the world a better place for every human being on it. We are merely a people of philosopher kings, bringing wisdom for all. We are not chosen in any sense of having higher to offer, of having been blessed by our birth with superior genes, but only in the sense that we have taken on the oxen harness for all of mankind.
Nobody is more keen than we of who's ox is being gored.
Trust us, we are solid gold.
@ Ed,
So anything Jewish that is good is just a smoke screen? Are you even hearing what you are saying?
All the ethos of Christianity you are talking about comes from Judaism. Get used to it. What do you think the book of Jonah is about?
I don't think Judaism the best way to run a society. Pluralism is a virtue. Pluralism "demands of morality, and the marketplace, leavened by human compassion."
"Don't try to present yourself as something you're not."
That's racist.
Are you saying that I, a person that volunteers at "Our Daily Bread", a catholic soup kitchen, is a selfish Joo? The first day I came to this soup kitchen was on "Mitzvah Day". What do you have to say about that Ed?
I say that in every ism there is some element of true believers, out to make world a better place for everyone. But the history shows that
their good works , e.g., in the soup kitchen for starving souls, is merely a front. Certainly, that's the take most Israelis and American Jews have on HAMAS & HESBOLLah. It's a real problem in perception
as witness ACORN, and what has followed since. Merely the whole
future of the USA.