I was just at dinner bragging to my wife about my day and telling her about my "I'm not a post-Zionist, I'm an anti-Zionist," declaration. My wife said, "Be a post-Zionist! It means that old construct is worn out and we're sick of it." Just passing that along. Then I got this from Jack Ross:
I absolutely do not agree with that, nor can I even accept what you say Phil when you say that "Zionism was a response to the reality of Jewish exclusion from the West which is totally contrary to the reality of today".
Nevertheless I can appreciate that something positive was created by the culture of European Jews who settled in Palestine and that for some therefore they need to understand themselves in terms of how that creation can have a life in a world where Zionism is at best antiquated and at worst lethal to humanity.
All that being said, there is a reality of wishy-washy liberals who need to hide behind "post-Zionism" to avoid the harsh implications of anti-Zionism, though I suspect they are becoming less and less so with the unfolding reality of Gaza. If a few Jewish liberals who have never really dealt with the issue still need to pass through the phase of stubborn post-Zionism, as seems to be the case with Dana Goldstien, that's only natural.
In the end, I don't think the crimes of Zionism are proving to be that much of a shock to American Jews. The real outrage to American Jewish sensibilities is to oppose the religion of Jewish peoplehood, which is distinct from Zionism but fundamental to American Jewish identity both generally and with Zionism. That crisis is inevitable and it has indeed begun in earnest with Gaza.
Phil, it sounds to me like your crowd has a difficult time calling a spade a spade when it comes to zionism. calling yourselves post zionist is easier than anti zionist because its a softer form of rejection, it allows for a continuation of zionism. zionism is nothing but the old style nasty trotskyist world revolution communism……with the nasty police state et al the trimmings.
with the added ubermenshen dimension of the chosen people…chosen people uber alles.
get over it..we are all equal as human beings or were a bunch of elitist bastards one and all.
which which is which?
the world watches the jews to see how they treat the palestinians….dont thinks its otherwise.
the zionist are lost in their narrative….
though the israelis through their zionist suckups try to control the stories coming out of hell…..the smoke is burning the eyes of the onwatching world.
and the jews are judged by their complacency.
a people are being decimated….a nation is run-a-muck,
and through oppression and coercion the zionist can make the rest of the world kow-tow.
you seem to have an affinity for calling these breakthroughs….i hope youre right on this one.
and all under the cover of the european holocaust…..what a mantle to hide behind to commint these crimes, how despicable of the zionist….finkelstein is so right on the appelation of holocoustianity.
Phil if youre a post zionist, will you at least allow jews in other countries to have independence from the general population ie state subsidized jewish schools, separate neighborhoods, jewish districts, etc. Europe allows this. They sponsor jewish schools and most European jewish children attend them. Same thing in Latin America, Australia, South Africa and even Canada. Only in America are jews required to be part of the general society. Personally I think jews should reject western culture.
********************************************
Neo-Nazis For Israel?
by Max Blumenthal | January 10, 2009 –
While much of the neo-Nazi fringe remains opposed to the existence of Israel, the whites-only British National Party recently declared its full-throated support for Israel's attack on Gaza. The shelling of Gaza City by Israeli forces has brought joy to the heart of BNP head of legal affairs Lee Barnes: "This sort of 'disinfecting' process whereby Israel is required to sterilise areas of radical Islamist support … is what all nations have to do in order to eradicate Islamist cells who have managed to take over territory either within or on the edges of their borders," Barnes wrote on his blog on January 4. He continued, "Get used to the casualties — for without them any nation so infected with Islamism will surrender, rot away into liberal apathy and then dies as it is taken over."
ENTIRE ARTICLE – link to smirkingchimp.com
Anti-zionist, post zionist, whatever. At least have the intellectual honesty to call it what it is. Jews have to have at least one of two things. Some modicum, anything, of observance. And at least some sense that you don't want other Jews to get killed. Phil Weiss has neither of these attributes. I don't know what he is but it isn't Jewish, not anymore. if it ever was.
'Personally I think jews should reject western culture.' — Olive
That's wonderful, Olive. Will you please also reject our uncalled-for, corrupting three billion dollahs a year?
Thanks in advance.
@JR: "In the end, I don't think the crimes of Zionism are proving to be that much of a shock to American Jews. The real outrage to American Jewish sensibilities is to oppose the religion of Jewish peoplehood, which is distinct from Zionism but fundamental to American Jewish identity both generally and with Zionism."
I don't believe American organized Jewry is honestly outraged over criticism of or opposition to Judaism, I believe it poses as if it is for political/material gain and theatrical effect. It is trying to create the illusion of sacredness, and protect its monopoly on righteous indignation. If it truly respected Judaism, it would never have allowed Zionists to hide behind Judaism as a matter of course and commit all manner of atrocities and financial exploits in the name of Jewry over the decades. It's akin to how contemporary mainstream left-liberals pretend to be outraged about American racism even as they support and underwrite institutional racism in Israel, where it is far worse than it ever was in the Jim Crow south. In both cases, there is almost zero principle involved; the posturing is all about access to power, money and influence.
Ed, Jack Ross wasn't speaking of a defensiveness over Judaism, but a defensiveness over "the religion of Jewish peoplehood." He was intentionally meaning to make that distinction.
I don't want to put words in his mouth, but I believe he was pointing out that the political movement of Zionism has some deep ideological roots (such as separatism and purity), and any pain American Jews are experiencing is the pain of having to question those pillars of their identity, not of relinguishing the hope of living in the Promised Land.
Leaning aside its various rhetorics, concretely speaking, zionism was an attempt to extend the strategy of white supremacist imperial settler colonialism which was then regarded as the normal course of 'western' capitalist expansion. However, there was no resource goal, such as gold, diamonds, or oil, to retain the interest of serious global investors.
SOG: " I don't know what he is but it isn't Jewish, not anymore. if it ever was."
So what if Phil is Jewish or not? What difference does it make? Why is being Jewish so important to you? Isn't being American enough? And if it's not good enough, may I submit you're in the wrong country?
So, does Jack not feel that Jews are a people?
I can see that the question of whether Jews are a state is a relevant question, but to state that Jews are not a people strikes me as entirely revisionist.
Jewish community, rather than Jewish individuality, IS the message of Torah.
The purpose of the Jewish community as stated in Torah is to serve as a priestly nation.
********************************************
FROM "THE INDEPENDENT" (U.K.) – Sunday, 11 January 2009
Reaction of Britain's jewish community
The crisis in Gaza has opened a rift in the UK's Jewish community. Many prominent Jews are torn between loyalty to Israel and wanting to voice public criticism of its government.
*Miriam Karlin, actress – "What Israel is doing at the moment is recruiting for Hamas in the same way the UK and the US went about recruiting for al-Qa'ida when we were bombing the hell out of Iraq."
*Alexei Sayle, comedian – "The poor Palestinians are killed and starved and brutalised, and then told that they're the bad guys."
*Lord Janner, Labour peer – "Israel cannot just sit there and have the rockets flown down to destroy its people. Israel had no alternative other than to fight back."
*Janet Suzman, actress – "I am hardly alone in being shocked at the collateral damage caused by bombing unverified targets."
*Stephen Frosh, Professor of Psychology at Birkbeck College, London – "The Palestinians in Gaza are being seen as inhuman, as if their destruction doesn't matter."
*Gillian Slovo, novelist – "The Israeli military has ensured there are going to be huge casualties."
*Joe Lobenstein, vice-president, Union of Orthodox Hebrew Congregations – "Israel has suffered from indiscriminate rocket-throwing… They cannot tolerate this and put their population in danger."
*Malcolm H Levitt, Fellow of the Royal Society – "No past persecutions of the Jewish people can justify this."
*Paul Sussman, author – "Israel… has become an increasingly dark, malevolent being, whose moral decline besmirches Jews everywhere."
*Abe Hayeem, Iraqi Jew – "This is a one-sided war, with Israel's underlying intention of regime change to destroy Palestinian civil society by ethnic cleansing."
SOURCE – link to independent.co.uk
If Zionism "has no place in the modern world", stated by a rabbi, then he/she must have articulated a higher good, a replacement for that commitment, that would describe what he/she meant.
To simply state "Zionism has no place in the modern world" is a moral negligence, if it stopped there.
That Jack Ross remains identified as Jewish is confusing, if he doesn't clarify what he means by that identity.
I wish that he would post himself here.
In speaking of honesty, that would create an opportunity to clarify.
@ D.
Okay. I think I see the distinction Ross is trying to make — between “the religion of Jewish peoplehood” (those that I generalize above as “organized Jewry”) and religious Jews who earnestly pursue the study and practice of Jewish morals and ethics.
But here’s my problem, even with the latter. The Postville Jews, for example (ie ‘Postville, a Clash of Cultures in Heartland American') were/are earnestly religious Jews who kept kosher in all ways, and took their religion extremely seriously. And they were complete jerks with regard to the local gentile townies, treated them with open contempt and scorn, and regularly tried to exploit and cheat them. They also ignored local ordinances and zoning laws, and generally behaved as if the only rules that applied to them were whichever rules they chose to follow. And often they chose to follow none, particularly with regard to labor laws in their kosher meat packing plant.
I don’t blame Ross for trying to find some redemptive religious Jewish people and values, and attempting to distinguish them from Jewish supremacists jerks and Jewish peoplehood frauds and their values, but to me the record is pretty clear that Judaism generally seems to encourage elitist and supremacist thinking in an inordinate number of its adherents/self-identifiers. And sometimes even to a murderous extent, as we’ve seen in Palestine and elsewhere.
I guess I would like to see the non-supremacist Jews play hard ball with the supremacist Jews, and not pull so many punches. Maybe that’s what Weiss, Ross and a few others are starting to do.
Faster, please.
http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/rabbi_quotes/vayoelmoshe1.cfm#persecution
The actions committed by the Zionists provoked hatred and persecution against Jews living in Arab Lands
The majority of Jews from Arab countries who have come to the Zionist state had resided in peace and tranquility, lacking nothing, until the establishment of the heretical regime, that is, the Zionist state, which has been the original cause of hatred and persecution in their native countries. The Zionists themselves made this all possible with various tricks and ruses in order to increase the persecution so that the Jews living in Arab lands would have to move to the Holy Land utterly penniless. Then the Zionists bragged about this that they were the “saviors” of these Jews although it had been the Zionists themselves who were the initial cause of all this upheaval.
Section 111
On the contrary, the Zionists worked to make sure that the doors of many nations were closed to Jewish refugees
The Zionists constantly boast that the only place of refuge on earth for Jews is their state. However, anyone with a brain in his head can see that it has been because of the Zionists that the doors of other countries were shut to the Jews. This is because the Zionists always exert every effort to prevent Jews from going anywhere else other than to their own state. Any person who takes even the slightest action of offering Jews the possibility of finding refuge in any other country to fulfill the statement of our Sages in the Talmud (Tractate Pesachim, p. 87) that “G-d did an act of charity to disperse the Jews among the nations” faces savage attacks of all kinds from the Zionists, who hurl all types of insults, slander and curses, claiming that such a person is a self-hating Jew who hates the Holy Land.
Moreover, Zionist officials and ministers fan out all over the world, attending banquets with world officials to convince them to refuse to allow their nation to serve as lands of refuge for Jews, and on the contrary, implore them to coercively redirect these Jews to the Zionist state in violation of the Oath prohibiting mass immigration to the Holy Land as explained by the Talmudic sages. The Zionists coerce most of those Jews who have arrived in the Zionist State into heresy and apostasy, and the children of these Jews are defiled in dreadful ways. These “immigrants” continue to suffer poverty and enormous destitution. All the Zionists care about is that they should have a strong state with a huge pool of available soldiers for their army and other coercive organizations and activities.
Zionist, post-Zionist, anti-Zionist. The problem is there is no single definition of Zionism accepted by all self-declared Zionists, not to mention all Jews–and apparently there never has been:
http://www.jewishmag.com/117mag/zionism/zionism.htm
If there were no state of Israel, what would be the criteria defining
American Jewry?
If American and Israeli interests are the same (as all USA politicians say, except a few strays long kicked to the curb
through through starvation by the USA MSM, e.g., Kucinich, Paul),
then the American notion of democracy must be the same as Israel's,
right?
Nobody makes the claim in the USA that the muslim nations
are democracies. They are simply strategic partners to a greater or lesser extent–and treated as such. That's even true of the Western nations. No blank checks issued there, or there.
The USA fought two wars against the Germans overseas–at a time when ethnic Germans composed a very large part of the USA's population, as well as a very significant part of the elite power structure. In fact, that ethnic group still composes the single largest ethnic group of Americans today, though many are mutts.
SOG raises the equally ill-defined issue: What/who is a Jew? Ed illustrates SOGs stated criteria ("Jews have to have at least one of two things. Some modicum, anything, of observance. And at least some sense that you don't want other Jews to get killed.") with a real
life example in the heartland of the USA: The Postville Jews. Does SOG mean to imply that a real jew doesn't want other jews to get killed no matter what they do or don't do, and no matter how such action or inaction affects non-jews?
Witty comments: "but to state that Jews are not a people strikes me as entirely revisionist.
Jewish community, rather than Jewish individuality, IS the message of Torah."
Does this comment echo SOG's? It seems similar to "All for one, one for all." If so, is there not an implied parallel with, for example, the NAZI POV that it is unrealistic and a weakness to
view any jew as an individual in essence? Similarly, Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Nation? A nationalist socialist movement of peoplehood? Are the American Boy Scouts the same as the Hitler Youth; the Israeli boy's group with so many similarities?
Duscany's comment is not rhetorical; it is asking people such as
SOG and Olive a good question: Why don't you move to Israel?
And why should the USA or the Western cultural nations keep
writing blank checks to Israel, either cash or diplomatic?
Its not about "all for one, one for all".
Its a question of how Ross defines Zionism, anti-Zionism, post-Zionism, etc.
Jews are a people. That is self-evident by our self-identification that currently includes Israel, but would remain if Israel was different.
The only relevant question about Zionism then is "do the Jewish people need a distinct state?"
I don't think that Phil nor Ross have discussed that question candidly, nor sufficiently to conclude one way or another.
The most that anyone could hold on that question is that factors that led to the formation of the state have changed.
Does that answer the question itself, regardless of Phil's or Ross's anxiety about being associated with defense of something that they don't regard as important, or US connection to that.
If OTHERS regard it as important, then that is convincing enough to me to consider the question of change as NOT a trivial intellectual exercise, as real lives get effected by periods of political revolution.
I find it personally interesting that Phil "came out".
I knew some individuals that "came out" as lesbians in the late 70's for political opposition to patriarchy, only to marry successfully upon finding a male spouse that they genuinely loved.
There you are, Mr. Weiss: when, and only when, you will find genuine love, you will finally marry successfully to your tribe.
You will not cross dress with assimilation and that shiksa of what you currently call wife and to this USA country that you, silly, currently pledge allegiance to…
Read this excellent post entitled "Must Jews Support Israel."
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/mankoff/2009/01/must-jews-support-the-state-of.php
Wrong point Eva.
The point was about Phil coming out as "anti"-Zionist, not whom he chose to marry.
'I knew some individuals that "came out" as lesbians in the late 70's … only to marry successfully upon finding a male spouse that they genuinely loved.'
Does she still love you … or has she 'gone feral' with her girlfriends?
That's an interesting analogy, Richard. My spiritual development as a Christian has been similar. I rejected my early training when I realized that the value system was a hypocritical load of crap. I grew older and became able to analyze the Word for myself, and realized that what I had been rejecting was other people's hypocritical, patriarchal, and self-serving interpretations, not the teachings themselves, when viewed properly within a context defined by when, where, and by whom they were written.
My understanding of Judaism, admittedly very shallow, includes the notion that one reason (or consequence) for the emphasis on study of the Torah is to keep its interpretation(s) relevant to contemporary conditions of life. Every religion has social and cultural components, perhaps Judaism more so as a consequence of persistent marginalization. I suggest that the current tumult in the Jewish community is a crisis over contradictions within a recent cultural component, Zionism, that is not a core part of the belief system. It may be that some Jews who are seen by others as rejecting Judaism are merely rejecting the interpretations of identity and belief system as taught by Zionists, and not necessarily its spiritual foundations. I see it as a variation of "one can disagree with the analysis, but the data are impeccable", a phrase I believe can be attributed to Dr.'s Mearsheimer and Walt.
The only element of Zionism that is contreversial within the practising Jewish community itself (really all flavors), is whether the Jewish nation should have an actual state.
There is no rejection of the idea that Jews are a people, and remain distinct, even as we have very close personal and other relationships with non-Jews, comprising strong multiple elements of identity.
As I've said before, Jews can still be Jews without a state, but we cannot be Jews without self-identified Jewish community.
That Phil is not strongly personally attracted to all of the trappings of Jewish community including the strong relevance of Zionism, does NOT make it unimportant for very many.
So, to insist that that relevance stop for whatever good or bad reason, is off the point.
Phil describing himself as anti-Zionist sounds like his effort of clarification that he actually opposes the "idea" of Zionism, and some of the facts of it.
I personally don't know if the acceptance of Jews as peers in the west is permanent. I do know that patriotic German, Polish, Hungarian and other Jews also assumed that their peer status was permanent, and it did not turn out to be, and turned in a very short time frame.
That the degree of suppression occurred in the 20th century (not that long ago) indicates to me that the cause was underlying and imprinted and NOT conditioned on specific conflicts.
Can a genocide be stimulated only by a single or finite group of resolvable conflicts?
I guess people are willing to go to all-out war for insignificant things.
Just for your reference, the questions of assimilation in general is a much larger question within Jewish community than Zionism. Except for a few radical Jewish communities, the norm of Zionism is consented, or at least tolerated.
To shift from toleration to intolerance, non-Zionist, a-Zionist, to ANTI-Zionist, is a big shift.
I don't think Phil takes his outing as seriously as he should.
Witty: Its not about "all for one, one for all".
Me: How so? Please answer within the confines of my question.
Witty: Its a question of how Ross defines Zionism, anti-Zionism, post-Zionism, etc.
Me: Not entirely. Look again at my comment. It's also a question of how you define those terms. How do you? Please answer my original question.
Witty: Jews are a people. That is self-evident by our self-identification that currently includes Israel, but would remain if Israel was different.
Me: American politicos also talk in terms of a people, i.e., the
often heralded "American people" they say subscribe to whatever they say in public. What do you mean by "a people" and "peoplehood"? The usual mass take on the meaning of "the American people" means those citizens who believe in the paramount value of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"–for about a half century this also includes practical equal opportunity for all. Too, Americans believe that all men are created equal, which means every individual deserves respect
as a human being always, and true Americas work constantly to
assure such, and towards equal practical opportunity in terms of
living a decent life devoid of life usually associated with serfs or slaves. Is that what Israel promises and delivers on? We wouldn't want to spend our treasure and young lives for anything different.
Witty: The only relevant question about Zionism then is "do the Jewish people need a distinct state?"
Me: How does your logic lead you to that as the only relevant question? Please clarify. Thanks in advance. Why wouldn't an equally relevant question be: Why should the American people
write blank checks to the oxymoronic "democratic Jewish state"?
Or to the "Jewish democratic state"? The USA has a constitution, and the to it, the First Amendment, no? Does Israel, its special buddy?
Witty: I don't think that Phil nor Ross have discussed that question (Do the Jewish people need a distinct state) candidly, nor sufficiently to conclude one way or another.
Me: Then why don't you help them and the readers of this blog out–do they? How, and why so? Be candid, as you tell others.
Witty: The most that anyone could hold on that question (Do the Jewish people need a distinct state) is that factors that led to the formation of the state have changed.
ME: True, it's not 1948. It's also not 1933. or 1042. Agree? Phil and the commenters on his blog have often pointed that out, sometimes in great detail. What changed factors do you see as relevant to whether or not the Jewish people heed a distinct state?
Witty: Does that answer the question itself, regardless of Phil's or Ross's anxiety about being associated with defense of something that they don't regard as important, or US connection to that.
Me: Please go back and answer each of my questions instead of
ruminating out loud in your abstractions. Who knows, we might also solve whether or not the Gypsies or Kurds, for example, need their own distinct state. A related question is, even if they do, why should Americans pay for it with their treasure and blood?
Witty: If OTHERS regard it as important, then that is convincing enough to me to consider the question of change as NOT a trivial intellectual exercise, as real lives get effected by periods of political revolution.
ME: Duh. Who are these others? I am one of them, so you have me–Do the Jewish people need a distinct state? I say, everybody has needs. The purpose of the USA government, for example, is to satisfy those needs first which apply across the board, the whole spectrum of USA population. This seems to be Obama's official stance too, in regards change. What does the existence or maintenance of Israel have to do with an agenda placing first priority on the needs of the widest swatch of the USA population?
Witty: I find it personally interesting that Phil "came out".
I knew some individuals that "came out" as lesbians in the late 70's for political opposition to patriarchy, only to marry successfully upon finding a male spouse that they genuinely loved."
Me: I find it personally interesting that anyone who reviews your
past comments about the M & W book can see you've slowly
conceded that they had a point. At first History is written by those in power, then slowly, as classified info comes out, and the emotions of the moment die, new tiers of information are revealed, and new narratives ensue. What is genuine in the moment, no matter how objectively deluded, is as genuine as what is felt later. This doesn't mean you can analogize Phil, the shicksa lover, to a lesbian who later wakes up and finds the truth
in a male dick, in anti-assimilation.
For once, why don't you answer questions put to you in this comment section of Phil's blog? You can start with mine, above, which you did not answer.
I find it personally interesting that Phil "came out".
Yes, highly interesting comment! You finally elicited the "truth". For quite some time now you demanded that Phil define his position, chooses from a series of categories. Congratulations! Are you wiser now?
Isn't there a space for new categories to arise. A specific Phil Weiss position, let's say: Assimilationist-Zionists or Jews?
Couldn't that be part of a larger discourse on Western society and the Orient? On its treatment of the Other? Or Western society and democracy?
Jack Ross: Given the long and complex history and debate within the Jewish religion, why don't you allow Jack Ross to define shortly the specifics of his positions in one of the given categories today?
Identity: That Jack Ross remains identified as Jewish is confusing, if he doesn't clarify what he means by that identity.
Maybe you should define the necessities that allow somebody to define himself as Jewish (post Holocaust?). A peculiar idea, given the really simple requirement: A Jewish mother. Am I missing something? Or which of his statements according to what specific Jewish law would make him a non-Jew?
******************************************
Phil's wife: You didn't comment on her choice. Why? Since it is respectable? Is she allowed to choose at all? Do Jewish partners need to define their position or only if they convert? Does one have to define one's position and why?
Should Yonothan Shapira only address Zionists, Jews or can he address the general public if it concerns Israel?
"The only relevant question about Zionism then is "do the Jewish people need a distinct state?""
In that case let me help you out.
No.
They don't NEED a state, they are making out quite fine in everyplace they live more or less. Ironically, Israel is the most dangerous place for a jew to live.
And from this gentile. the world can definitely do without Israel(in it's present state.)
In fact it's a moral and practical imperative that the world stop the Israel of today; and if that means disbanding the state – so be it.
But it can't go on, that's for damn sure.
In modern times, hasn't the Jewish supremacist interpretation of Judaism prevailed?
To my mind, the mistake that earnest philo-Semites make in their thinking (be they Jewish philo-Semites or gentile philo-Semites) is that the primary impetus behind modern organized Jewry is the pursuit of morality and moral refinement, as opposed to the pursuit of money. The study, the traditions, the elaborate rituals, the myth maintenance, the exclusivity…all are designed primarily to encourage cohesiveness not on behalf of the pursuit of a higher morality, but rather on behalf of the pursuit of money (or in the case of Israel, money and lands).
In fact, can't most of organized Jewry's problems in modern times ultimately be traced back to this greed-motivated Jewish supremacist interpretation of Judaism, including the Holocaust, which followed from greed motivated Jewish Bolsheviks attempting to use Communism as the engine of their avarice, as the Jewish Neocons have used Capitalism as the engine of theirs?
Sure there are earnest, well-intentioned Jews, just are there are earnest, well-intentioned Democrats and Republicans. But the impetus behind both organized Jewry and organized Party politics as expressed by the two-party regime in America today is not good works, but greed.
Unlike SOG, 99% of Jews would agree that a jew is a jew if he came out of the vagina of a jewish mother. It's that simple. Converts to Judiasm must stand on one foot and recite tons of pages from holy script & basically swear their first allegiance to any jew anywhere located. This is a classic of internal jewish jokes. Goys, wake up and smell the gefilte fish! It's not your father's Oldsmobile, nor your Christian concept of brotherhood, nor your Western cum USA concept of democracy. Fool me once, fool me twice…
SOG goes one step further than even most tenacious Zionist Jews who call anti-Zionist Jews "self-hating Jews," and actually denies that Weiss is even a Jew at all because of his anti-Zionism. This may be the next wave of exclusivity.
LOL, and organized Jewry complains that humanity is "anti-semitic" and that it has few allies. Little wonder. I wonder how many of today's "anti-semites" are actually expelled Jews and their descendants.
Jack Ross's worldview and Phil's are the subject of the post.
His wife has previously asked that she not be drawn into the discussion here. I'll respect that, even if Phil breaches.
Witty: The only relevant question about Zionism then is "do the Jewish people need a distinct state?""
stevieb: In that case let me help you out. No.
LeaNder: You recognize the basic ritual? Now that he has elicited Phil's outing, he moves on to the next step. Onward to the next outing: Does Phil support Israel's right to exist? Of course he does, it has never been his central question. It's part of the straightjacket ritual. But let's wait and see. ;)
Maybe I should write a screenplay called suspicion. People play these games all the time. The problem is the rhetorics can trigger an angry acknowledgment of the other side's initial assumption, easily recognizable as empty if you see a conflict as what it is: a complex matter.
Richard is orthodox(on the Israel issue), Phil is an individualist who demands to get out of the mental straightjacket. This essential conflict can't be healed by any series of confessions Phil will make. Suspicion is voracious for ever new evidence, since the satisfaction vanishes swiftly. Obviously, since you always push towards things you know before anyway.
Let me specify in this context:
Isn't there a space for new categories to arise. A specific Phil Weiss position, let's say: Assimilationist-Zionists or Jews?
Couldn't that be part of a larger discourse on Western society and the Orient? On its treatment of the Other? Or Western society and democracy?
Does this really necessarily need to mean "culturecide"? I have met Jews that consider this pretty much the same as the Holocaust. And I respect it. Cultures, and people indeed disappear or assimilate. I am aware religiously speaking there is a Covenant. I essentially mean new interpretations of a togetherness with the Other, which you support. So I may not really understand your conflict with Phil.
I don't think you are correct here, if I read it correctly:
Does that answer the question itself, regardless of Phil's or Ross's anxiety about being associated with defense of something that they don't regard as important, or US connection to that.
I think for neither Phil nor Jack it is a question of being "afraid of their own skin" and leaving the Israelis alone in the rain. That's a Holocaust shadow.
The stupidest question in the world..'do you support Israel's right to exist"?
I don't know..do we support Englands right exist or support Brazil's right to exist?
I guess so…unless they become total flaming nais and international outlaws and a plague on the earth.
And btw zionism is a cult….plain and simple. As anyone can see from reading the idiotic remarks of the uber zionist on here.
It should be plain by now that they exist only to draw people into a conversation about "The Jews" so they can talk about themselves and their "identity". Does anyone except the jews really give a damn about the jews identity? Not even the evangelical nutcases are this self centric.
I have never seen or heard of any other religious or ethnic group that literally "worships" themselves. They are their own God. Totally insane.
"… As anyone can see from reading the idiotic remarks of the uber zionist on here."
Actually, you can't draw any conclusions from reading one person's remarks.
Otherwise, think of the conclusions about anti-Zionists that could be drawn from your own comments.
Its often the case that when asked, "what do you propose?", that proposals are similar, even nearly identical.
NOONE knows how to get Hamas to cease threatening Israelis, nor how to make it possible for Palestinians to have a decent future prospect.
We largely agree on what "they" should accept.
From my perspective, the actions that make either a two-state or a single-state possible are the formation of working relationships between Israelis and Palestinians on non-political areas of mutual concerns.
So long as political angers are urged to be primary, even common needs (public health, environment, water conservation) are delayed or politicized.
But, wars (military or PR) are not won when politics are secondary.
'I'll respect that, even if Phil breaches.' — R. Witty
You know, Richard, 'breach' is a transitive verb requiring an object, unless you're talkin' about a whale. 'Phil breaches' sounds like a bladder accident or something. Yuck.
On language.
Phil is historically willing to insult his parents' perspectives, moreso than to merely disagree.
The metaphor of the exposure of the "naked emperor" requires it.
I conclude differently, that the emperors each have some clothes.
I saw George Stephanopolis' show just now. Thomas Friedman was the most liberal on the show. Newt Gingrich stated that the chance that Israel will accept a Palestinian state armed with rockets (that they intend to use) that can shut down its international airport at any hour of the day are zero.
I think he is right, and that the current use of those rockets IS THE STOPPER.
There is no chance that international human rights pressure will change Israel's attitude on that.
BOTH Israel and Hamas rejected the UN cease fire proposal.
those rockets IS THE STOPPER.
Israel: Conjuring up 'The Stopper,' for 60 years now.
The metaphor of the exposure of the "naked emperor" requires it.
I conclude differently, that the emperors each have some clothes.
I think he is right, and that the current use of those rockets IS THE STOPPER.
– Richard Witty
————
OMG, Richard, you're cracking up. I think you're turning Japanese, I really think so.
Despair not, ye inchoate and incoherent.
hELP IS AVAIRABLE.
IOF Spokeswoman Cpl. Leibovitch just announced, "All your base are belong to us!"
Witty: "Phil is historically willing to insult his parents' perspectives, moreso than to merely disagree.
The metaphor of the exposure of the "naked emperor" requires it."
No, Witty. No metaphor requires it, though it is believed due to racist
vision. Newt is just a goy who does chores for the rabid jews who
insist on vacation during Saturdays. He knows which side his bread is buttered on, just as the Kapos once did. It's not a case of accepting Pal rockets, merely of accepting Jewish racial genocide.
i GIVE nice shirt to you lesbian wife.
Jim,
You are funny, but don't address the real points.
I don't think it will be success to compel Palestinians to 10 or 20 or 40 more years of suppression.
Another path should be encouraged.
I know George Will, Newt Gingrich, Peggy Noonan are conservatives (neo or other) and Tom Friedman is a middler, but I think they spoke the truth that Hamas has likely pushed the prospect of a self-governing Palestine back a decade or so, regardless of Obama's intentions.
(PS. It wasn't the Israel Lobby that made that occur.)
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1054494.html
IN PICTURES / Tens of thousands attend pro-Israel rallies in Europe, N.Y.
If you don't understand what I'm saying, Jim, ASK?
I'll clarify. I mean to communicate.
'Tom Friedman is a middler.'
You mean like Bette Midler?
I can interpret what you mean through the fog of fractured syntax and strange neologisms. But it seems to be the product of … not even a non-native English speaker … more like an intelligence of non-terrestrial origin, from a distant gas-giant planet where slithy toves gyre and gimble in the wabe, and mome raths outgrabe.
That is, I think I disagree.
So ask.
I will ASK. Richard, what makes you think that American goys, animal souled that they are, will continue supporting you and your ilk at their great expense?