In the "Get a Life" category, two recent attacks on good Samantha Power: The Jewish Telegraphic Agency calls Samantha Power a "strident Israel critic." The Zionist Organization of America calls Samantha Power "deeply anti-Israel."
The JTA piece is about Brit Tzedek meeting the Zionist Organization of America; JTA suggests that these are the two poles of Jewish opinion. A coverup. It's on a related ground that I find I'm a little irritated by the Times piece on Burg today with its Israel dateline. The stirrings of Jewish anti- and non-Zionism in the US are never covered in the Times, except negatively. I don't believe they've ever covered the biggest news of the last year, the Cohen/Kelman study showing young American Jews getting off the Israel bus. Earlier this year Ralph Seliger said that I am representative of the great diversity in Jewish opinion re Israel. Well if we are representative, then how come we're not represented?
Adam Horowitz responds:
Love of Israel is the ticket you need to get in the door, either in DC or the Times. Notice this point is also made in the Burg piece, his insistence that he is saying this from a place of love: "He wrote from love, he said, and if the issues he raised were troubling, if they caused a stir, that was very much his aim."
What representative would that be. The intermarried. Christmas loving, "nakba" loving Jewish anti-semitic element. The kind of guy who trumpets an accident of birth to dump on his own people and curry favor with the anti-semitic lunatic fringe who inhabits his blog. would that be the element.
what's the point of a jew getting up in the morning if not to find and squeal like a stuck gay pig, "anti semitism".
i like this from liberal white boy:
"In your avarice and acts of greed though, you have taught many who have actively sought to dispossess us, the Palestinians, of our land, rights, and dignity, the meaning of theft, dispossession and treachery.
Thanks to you, money used to promote your peoples own unique brand of racism, fund settlements and further land theft and to promote sympathy for the oppressive Apartheid state will not be there."
I've said this before: what on earth is there to "love" about Israel if you aren't a jewish chauvinist?
"what's the point of a jew getting up in the morning if not to find and squeal like a stuck gay pig, "anti semitism"."
Some people who spend their time searching for anti-semitism get labeled "professional Jews."
So, what does that make Phil?
Burg wrote, inter alia, "What is a Jewish democratic state? What does it mean that Jews define themselves by genetics 60 years after genetics were used against them?â
He expects Israel to more fully implement their reversed copy of Hitler's Nuremberg Laws.
SOG wouldn't stand for that, since we know from his comments about Phil that he doesn't give accidents of birth much credence
in defining who is a Jew.
So, SOG, logically you must be on Burg's side, eh?
Brit Tzedek is not a serious organization. Opposing Israel on the basis of "Jewish values" is not a serious stance. The illusion that many of us had that this would be turned around if Jews led the way should be laid to rest. Anti-Zionist Jews will just have to condescend and join a broader antiwar social justice movement, and risk being labeled fellow travelers. Israel represents what Jewish values actually are at this point. So much the worst for Jewish values.
Do you mean you can't have it both ways, that is being fully humanist and being fully Jewish?
Was Christ just preaching to fellow Jews? If so, then Saul (St. Paul) must have been the first Humanist, no?
You can't be a humanist and a nationalist. It's nothing to do with Judaism afaik.
People like SoG are nationalists. Hence the us v.s them mentality.
Again, money/propaganda = win. It's so simple *and* easy to understand and subsequently, tragic for the people who deserve justice.
I remember Meir Kahane getting railed by the Knesset (as if being an outright racist wasn't enough for him to be ostracised) when he openly declared that Zionism and democracy were not synonymous. It's conviently left out of Kahane fanatic-SHIT-listing uber-Zionists like Gideon.
Phil, if I didn't 'love Israel,' in a certain concrete sense, I wouldn't have signed the shministim letter.
Saul was humanist only if you consider going outside the community to sell the goyim on the One True God, who happened to be jewish fellow nailed by the Romans. just an extension of the effort by his compatriots to undermine the Roman Empire, perhaps the only true Humanist empire ever
Rowan Berkeley posted: Phil, if I didn't 'love Israel,' in a certain concrete sense, I wouldn't have signed the shministim letter.
ME: Nor would I have made a modest monetary contribution to them (in addition to signing).
When I get acutely angry (reading SOG, viewing the 'log up the ass video', etc.), I feel like fighting AGAINST a two-state solution (i.e. working to see that Israel "vanishes from the pages of time")! Fortunately, that kind of anger for me is overwhelmingly acute rather than chronic (I hope).
Generally though, I try to avoid reading SOG (not myself being masochistic) for fear that she/he and his/her ilk will turn me into an anti-Semite (like my Father, who ironically reminds me of SOG)! But then, what makes SOG Jewish? How do we know that she/he is not an Aryan Nazi posing as a Jew so as to foment anti-Semitism? It is quite the conundrum! (Also, how do we know that SOG is not involuntarily confined to a mental institution or perhaps a prison?)
FROM MY POST ABOVE: "like my Father, who ironically reminds me of SOG"
Oops! I think perhaps "Father" should have read "father". Dear me (effeminacy intentional), I hope that my Freudian slip (spoken with a lisp) is not showing! How dreadful (effeminacy intentional) that would be! (LOL)
"The evening began for me in a very warm way. Big Bill Pearlman,who frequently comments on this blog, introduced himself. He was gracious and sweet…"
JLD, the "gracious and sweet" Bill Pearlman is our very own Sword of Gideonthe point-five witted commentator.
I don't mean to sound dogmatic. If being a good Jew means being a decent human being for some, fine. But in that case, being a good Jew doesn't mean loving Israel. It means promoting justice for all the people in Israel, the occupied territories, and anywhere else that one might have influence, depending on which government one is accountable for.
My dad knew Burg. They were in the same company. He had a lot of contact with him. Burg still keeps in contact with one of my dad's friends in Chicago.
The difference between Burg and Phil, and it is a big difference, is that Burg criticizes Israel and the Israeli Jewish community with love. Phil just criticizes the Jewish community and its supposed powers. It's like he doesn't want a Jewish community to exist. To Phil, a Jew should only go to synagogue … well … I'm not sure when Phil would go to synagogue. To Phil, a Jew should seek out other Jews to … well … maybe he thinks they shouldn't. To Phil, a Jew should give money to Jewish causes when … hmmm … I'm not sure he even knows what a Jewish cause is. I'm sure Ed will tell you a Jewish cause is anti-Christianity but Judaism is much older than Christianity so I don't see how that can be.
Anyway, what's the deal with people criticizing the "chosen" thing. None of you guys know what it even means. I asked Ed to explain what he thinks it means but he just went on about how Judaism is a selfish religion which is kinda funny since my synagogue houses a Christian congregation ever since their church burned down.
I just want to get rid of jews like Berman in our congress. Other than that, I don't give a damn, pro or con, about jews, their gentics,religon or anything else. The jews will always be studying their navels and talking about themselves. Let them do it among theselves…the only thing we Americans sould be concerned about is stopping the zionist from further damaging the US.
Particulary the ones in congress that fly back and forth to Israel..with information from the respective US congressional committtes they chair or sit on.
Some day when the dust settles if it ever does, Americans are gonna read about this time of "The Jews" in ISR'merica and what they did to the US and be astounded.
No point in trying the AIPAC spies when we have 25 jews in the dem party who make no bones about their working for Israel.
Last update – 03:33 21/12/2008
U.S. congressman: Give talks with Iran no more than 3 months
By Barak Ravid, Haaretz Correspondent
Tags: iran nuclear, israel news
The Obama administration should devote no more than about three months to dialogue with Iran, the chairman of the United States' House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee, Howard Berman, has told Haaretz.
Berman says that if negotiations fail, the United States will have to "buy in for a crippling level of sanctions."
A California Democrat, Berman came to Israel last week to meet with government leaders and take part in discussions at Tel Aviv's National Institute for Security Studies, which focused on U.S.-Israel relations after the political transitions in both countries.
Advertisement
Berman says President-elect Barack Obama's policy of dialogue with Iran should be conducted quickly to prevent the Islamic Republic from attaining a nuclear capability.
"If the goal is to keep them from being a nuclear-weapons-capable state you cannot let dialogue become a trap that goes on and on and allows them to enrich and expand their centrifuges and who knows what they are doing with weaponization that is easier to conceal," Berman said. "You cannot talk about a longer dialogue than eight to 12 weeks."
Berman said "pulling together key parties" to support sanctions involving bilateral trade and refined oil products would work on Tehran because "it is sensitive to public opinion." He added: "It is a lot different than what we are doing now¬ certain people can't fly, and minor sanctions on certain kinds of nuclear-related technologies."
Berman says the Bush administration's major mistake was that it did not unite the international community against Iran, and that dialogue with Iran will be another chance to do so.
Russia he said, was key in this respect. He criticized the Bush administration for "not prioritizing Iran" among the issues the United States has with Russia. "The Russians fully well know how important that is for us, and at the same time watch us pushing policies that they deeply resent ¬ in the content of the deployment of the (missile defense) system without the collaboration with them that they felt entitled to get. I think when you look at all issues together, the potential of nuclear cooperation with Russia is big."
Berman suggested that modifying the missile defense system's terms of deployment could increase cooperation with Russia. "I don't know, but I think there is a chance to get a level of cooperation. It's hard for me to believe they want to see Iran get nuclear weapons," Berman said.
He added that one proposal on the table was to allow the Russians to place monitors at missile bases to show them that the system was not directed against them, but against Iran"
Phil is criticizing Jews who contribute towards the continued settlement building and other factors of prolonging the occupation.
Again, your hive-mind is so transparent. If we replaced "Jew" with "German" this would be viewed far differently.
The Holocaust industry in full effect. Jews have to be seen sympathetically to the extent where no obviously morally repugnant behavior is condemned.
Pigs.
Michael W: The difference between Burg and Phil, and it is a big difference, is that Burg criticizes Israel and the Israeli Jewish community with love. Phil just criticizes the Jewish community and its supposed powers. It's like he doesn't want a Jewish community to exist.
anon: Both Burg and Phil are appealing to the higher angels in
the Torah, as distinguished from Might Makes Right power politics coupled with talmudic tribalism. The difference between
Burg and Phil, and its a big difference, is that Burg criticizes Israel
with love, as a patriotic Israeli citizen. Phil criticizes the Jewish
community in the USA as they are more than a full partner in
the USA's elite governing class, that is, Phil criticizes same as a
patriotic USA citizen, with great love and appreciation.
Michael W: To Phil, a Jew should only go to synagogue … well … I'm not sure when Phil would go to synagogue. To Phil, a Jew should seek out other Jews to … well … maybe he thinks they shouldn't. To Phil, a Jew should give money to Jewish causes when … hmmm … I'm not sure he even knows what a Jewish cause is.
anon: This is irrelevant drivel. Phil is a secular Jew. He is part of
a long tradition within the Jewish community. You don't have to be a fundi to be a good Jew or good Christian. Deeds trump
creeds, and I the litmus test is not if you go to temple or church
on any regular basis, if if not all.
Michael W: I'm sure Ed will tell you a Jewish cause is anti-Christianity but Judaism is much older than Christianity so I don't see how that can be.
anon: Christianity cannot be characterized as tribal in any sense.
Michael W: Anyway, what's the deal with people criticizing the "chosen" thing. None of you guys know what it even means. I asked Ed to explain what he thinks it means but he just went on about how Judaism is a selfish religion which is kinda funny since my synagogue houses a Christian congregation ever since their church burned down.
Federal and state funds are often involved in Jewish charities. Good PR too, a small price to pay. As to the "chosen thing", some defenders claim being chosen means being chosen to live by all,
G-D's laws, not just those few Noahide laws some Jews believe were demanded of the Gentiles. Other defenders focus on being chosen as a burden, a greater duty demanded of Jews by G-D
to "repair the world." Himmler also demanded his chosen SS troops accept the burden not demanded of regular fellows. Or, I'm sure Mother Theresa had her own concept of being chosen, etc. Ed's hobby horse, the Bolshevik blood bath fits in here too. It's always good to compare any mission statement and/or conceit with
the facts on the ground laid down by its followers. Madoff anyone? Obviously opinions differ, boom and bust. History is written by the winners, then revised, as slowly other layers of
past facts are revealed. Everyone finds comfort, both in good times and bad, with the conceit they are chosen. Christ himself
couldn't have done without it.
Burg's book as published in English leaves out some of Burg's more scathing text on his subject, which Israeli's can read in full.
RE: U.S. congressman: Give talks with Iran no more than 3 months .
This is a set up by disloyal congressmen to soak the masses
by contriving public opinion. What Berman has commenced to produce is the fig leaf and veneer of "we tried diplomacy, now we have no choice: bomb Iran."
Heck we gave Iran THREE MONTHS to come around on this simple no more nukes issue; we warned them in advance! Showed them the clock is ticking! We wound the clock up, and sat it right down
there on the table! The coalition of the willing must now do its
duty. Don't worry, the Iranian people will celebrate with us, the world will be a better place. Get the bunker bombs ready–bonus
is this will jump start our failing economy–it's the real new deal!
RE: U.S. congressman: Give talks with Iran no more than 3 months
So the fig leaf of diplomacy, set to fall off in 3 months. The molding
of public opinion has commenced by traitors in our House.