My friend Mohammad in Vancouver, who is from Iran, told me he was wearing his Star of David when he went to Norman Finkelstein's talk last night and asked Finkelstein some hard questions. I asked Mo why he wears the Star, and what he asked Norman. --Phil Weiss.
I bought my star of David necklace last May on Essex Street just north of Canal in New York's lower east side at an old Jewish jewelry shop that had a sidewalk sale on a sunny Sunday. [Mo, I used to live a few blocks away, with my grandmother.] The salesperson was not friendly at first. She thought of me as some sort of a nosy non shopper, but my admiration for the antique star that was tucked nicely in an antique box, and my skills in competitive bargaining made her like me at the end. She sold the already reduced item with the sale tag of 10.00 for one dollar to me. I asked her to put it on me, and I have not taken it off since then.
The idea behind wearing the star was to examine how New Yorkers will react to me wearing the star. Most people in the Upper West Side's Zabar's, where I like to start my days in Manhattan assumed I am a Sephardic or a Mizrahi, or a Farsi Jew. Sometime I would play along and make up some stories about being one. Sometime I told them the truth: that I have Sephardic heritage.
Opposite to my old anti-Islamic days, when I also wore a Star of David, wearing the star this time has an entirely different function for me. It allows me to speak with a more confident and focused voice about Israel, Zionism and Jewish issues. My Canadian art friends just love it around my neck. My guess is that it functions as an anti anti-semitism insurance on my otherwise critical ideas. This of course doesn't work all the time, because I also have been accused by Zionists that I am wearing the star to hide my deeply held anti-Semitism.
However, last night at the Finkelstein lecture at the University of British Columbia, I experienced a new phenomenon, mostly from Arab and Palestinian young women in the line up and the room. It was a dual expression of resentment and attraction. One beautiful woman dressed in Islamic Hijab kept staring at me and even though I was wearing an I HEART GAZA button, she was much more interested in staring at the star. At first she was suspicious. I assumed she was mixing me up with one of those progressive Zionists who oppose occupation, but always condemn "Palestinian terrorism" in the same sentence. But when the lecture got going and she saw my hard clapping and my tears for Norman's emotional description of Israel's crimes, she got more interested. Half way through the talk she was smiling and flirting with me.
But it was my questions and objections to Norman Finkelstein that finally made her to walk to me and say hi and thank me for my points. Her opening line was "so after all, I guess you're not just covering every angle, in case...".
It's
not easy to be the first person who raises a question at a talk where
close to 1000 people have packed two full lecture halls. But I managed
to be the first who grabbed the microphone and spoke after Finkelstein.
First I contradicted him by disagreeing with his main point that
Israel won the war, since the objective of the war was restoring
Israel's deterrence among Muslims, Arabs and Palestinians. I said that
Israel's performance can only be judged against IDF's stated objectives
before or during the war which were:
1- destroying Hamas
2- Stopping the rockets
3- Destroying all the tunnels that Hamas uses to bring food medicine fuel and arms into the territory.
And since Israel failed to accomplish any of these three objectives, despite the immense human suffering and destruction of civil life in Gaza, we can safely assume that Israel lost this war. I said that if destroying ordinary lives could restore Israel's deterrence, the Lebanon invasion had already achieved that and there would be no need for another was in that style.
I also criticized the North American academia for failing to come together, like the British Academia, and petitioning Israel. I complained that "you can't ask us to organize when the leading intellectuals and academia in North America like Noam Chomsky, Jeffrey Sinclair, Alexander Cockburn, Ralph Nader, Howard Zinn, Naomi Klein and Judith Butler failed to organize and agree on a single collective statement that then can be helpful to the pro peace and justice groups in organizing the ordinary good people of the west."
I also wanted to add that in every occasion, these people are willing to come together quickly to condemn the Iranian Government for the abuses of human rights in Iran, but they never collectively speak against Israel. Yet since my focus right now is Palestine, I refrained from bringing this last point up.
Finkelstein was dismissive of my point. I felt that his come back was somewhat weak. He said most social sciences academics and intellectuals were not very smart and were stupid. He added that he respected the real scientific community much more. I left the microphone without arguing further.
I would give him an A- for the fact that he really made things clear for ordinary people. The tape of this speech could be the most amazing course material for those new to the conflict. Also his insistence that Israel now is a Satanic state put people in in shock. It made me and a lot of people realize about how radicalized he has become in articulating his points since the last round of killings.
Thank you Mohammad. It is people like you that are doing the most for humanity, not the Finkelstein's and the Chomsky's. I don't mean to dismiss the value that they bring to the table (although I still believe that Chomsky has hurt the "movement" more than helped it over the years, by refusing to admit the obvious "tail wags the dog" scenario that Israel and the U.S. are in, and instead insisting that Israel is a "U.S. client state").
Anyway, what I mean is that academics such as these are often hopelessly caught up in their own intelligentsia, and frankly they can be downright dismissive of everyday laypeople who they don't consider to be on the same intellectual plane as themselves. I've witnessed it with Chomksy, who goes out of his way to point this negative characteristic out in others (this is one of the things that is so appealing about Chomsky to young leftists and idealists), but is entirely unable to see and come to terms with it in himself.
This is why, I think, the bulk of the work of educating people to the horrors of Zionism will be accomplished by everyday people, not academics. There is strength in numbers, as they say, and in order to reach the most people the message must be simple, and most importantly, it must be universal, and told without a hint of arrogance. This is beyond the grasp of most academics. They have their place, and again, I don't mean to diminish all the hard work that they do, but in the end, it's folks such as yourself who will make the real difference, simply because you're more "real" than Finkelstein et al. If you weren't there, that young lady may have left having heard a brilliant speech, but with not much else to go on. The connection that she made with you, and vice versa, may well be more important than a thousand lectures Finkelstein, Chomsky, and the like could give.
the national socialist at work in america….
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385×262985
when will reporters in america turn their spineless themselves around and stand up for the constitution of the u.s.
is this lecture being uploaded? i havent seen norman's latest stuff on youtube or anything. just interviews but not his speaking engagements
Mohammad's posts may be interesting somewhere else (perhaps in a different kind of blog), but I find myself less and less interested in the overly long, overly egotistical ramblings-on he has to offer here.
Less is more, even in a blog.
Hopefully Anonymous used Finkelstein as an example of someone proving how ignorant intellectuals are here:
link to hopeanon.typepad.com
/>
link to hopeanon.typepad.com
Muhammed,
Its sad that you have such a dismissive attitude towards liberal Jews.
If you were wearing a star of David as a costume to gain you some privileges, then there is an element of fraud in it.
The term liberal Jew or liberal Zionist indicates an appreciation of multiple perspectives.
Peace or justice in any real meaning of the term, is only possible by reconciliation with those that are part of the other community. Reconciliation with those that politically oppose what you oppose, is a form of talking to yourself.
Peace or justice in any real meaning of the term, is only possible by reconciliation with those that are part of the other community. Reconciliation with those that politically oppose what you oppose, is a form of talking to yourself.
Talking to yourself is what you do best, Richard. All the advice you offer to others you seem incapable of taking yourself. This is the disease of Zionism.
As for different strains of Zionism, don't fall for it. I remember what a nutritionist once told me in regards to the different forms sugar takes. In the end, she said, SUGAR IS SUGAR IS SUGAR. In the smae way, ZIONISM IS ZIONISM IS ZIONISM.
trust witty to take this meaningless trivia seriously.
phil, have you got to grips with the fact that witty is obviously paid to infest this blog with his garbage?
Dear Richard:
would you want reconciliation with Nazis in 1932? 1933? 1934? 1935? 1936? 1937? 1938? 1939? 1940? 1941? 1942? 1943?
When would you say 'no peace and reconciliation' with those advocating an increasingly more aggressive, more violent, and more supremacist? Richards holds on to some nostalgic notion of Zionism from 1920-1950. That Zionism is now completely replaced by something else. I am not saying that there aren't people who don;t want the good old Zionism to come back, but ideologies usually go one way and from there they head to the garbage bin of history.
This is not particular to Zionism. Americanism itself is moving in the same direction and I doubt a new age messiah called Obama can reverse the trend for the American ideology.
Richards holds on to some nostalgic notion of Zionism from 1920-1950
Yes, much like Chomsky, Richard wants to differentiate. I think Paul Eisen summed it up best:
"It was secular Labour Zionists who created the Zionist ideology and the pre-state Jewish-only society. It was secular Zionists – good, humanistic, left-wing kibbutzniks – who directed and carried out the ethnic cleansing of 750,000 Palestinians, and the destruction of their towns and villages. It was secular Zionists who established the present state with all its discriminatory practices; and it was a largely secular Labour government that held the Palestinian citizens of Israel under military government in their own land for eighteen years. Finally, it was a secular, Labour government which conquered the West Bank and Gaza, and first built the settlements, and embarked on the Oslo peace process, coolly designed to deceive the Palestinians into surrendering their rights."
Zionism is Zionism is Zionism.
Jewish Power
Its NECESSARY to differentiate.
As its necessary to differentiate among the various perspectives within Hamas, so that there is a possibility of some resolution to the conflict, rather than ONLY escalation.
I though more of you in your earlier posts than to hear your use of the term "nazi" as parallel.
You seem confused about your commitments Muhammed. On the hand you speak about restraint from exageration of rhetoric, then immediately employ exagerated rhetoric.
I have NEVER referred to Hamas as "nazi". If you heard that then you heard what others inferred from their paranoia, not what I said.
If you are commenting on the effects of ideology in the real world, its also useful to self-reflect.
If ideology alone plays out, then I agree with your description of a form of "entropy" (the physical tendency of matter and energy to dissipate, to fall apart). But, reality includes human and humane involvement if allowed to.
You have to choose from among the political options. And, if you do, then please actually advocate for the option that you are CHOOSING, rather than a veiled "anti" approach.
The political options in the region include:
1. Expansionist Zionism, Israel as the whole land from sea to river.
2. Two state solution emphasizing two cosmopolitan states with minorities respected as peers.
3. Single democratic cosmopolitan state
4. Single national Palestinian state, Palestine from sea to river
Which do you prefer? Which can you live with? Which can ADVOCATE for that is adoptable by other methods than warring in FACT?
Thanks, Mohammed, wonderful report. Especially it's personal framing. Aren't the most interesting people the ones that can give up prejudices when the reality does not quite fit?
Concerning Norman Finkelstein. Since I have basically a "portrait dispossion" I am most interested in what I call to myself: his hardened core. He should realize that he has been pushed into this outsider status. That he could be much more effective, would he criticize from a basic respect; and ironically he is more than able to do so. Instead, as I discovered once, he uses his harsh criticism almost as some kind of signal to the people open to his perspective. But doesn't really say what led him to this point of view, if you do not ask him privately.
LeaNder: He said what led him to his POV. You just can't hear it–you are the New Nazi. A fake Asheknazi. Jews hate you. No excuse, you have more than a free radio from the late 1930's government of your land. Wake up!
I certainly am interested in negotiation and peace only with an Israel that has been disarmed more or less like Germany. I think Europe and USA should guarantee Israe's security in exchange for disarming the Zionist state. I don't trust Israel as a genuine partner for lasting peace, because of the dangerous potentials within the israeli society. Israel has to do a lot before people like me would accept its peaceful gestures. One thing would be to give up its atomic arsenal. Israel should not be allowed to have the army it does as part of a peace deal. We cannot be stupid enough to agree to a disarmed Palestinian state and a militarily strong Israel right next to it.
Also Israel has to ban all the political groups who still are asking for a greater israel. Instead of trying to ban the arab parties, those ultra nationalist parties need to be banned. there is no guarantee that these parties wont come to power in the future and ruin everything that was agreed upon earlier by moderate Zionists.
I still defend my question. I never said israel is Nazi Germany, though i think Israel has demonstrated its capability to sink that low. I posed a question regarding the World War 2 situation. Imagine if Hitler extended his hand to the German Jewish community and the Diaspora, would anyone trust him after all the killings? The question still remain unanswered.
I just got a letter in the mail from AIPAC, randomly asking me for money…they must have gotten my name because I subscribe to things like the Yiddish Forward. Included was one of those little "American flag-Israel flag" pins that are supposed to show you are a good American Jew. I won't be sending any $$$. But the pin is just lovely, and as a good American Jew I plan to wear mine from now on when I go to community events where I passionately condemn Israel's behavior in Gaza, and as I join my fellow American Jews in demanding peace and justice.
Given that Palestinian society in the West Bank and Gaza was disarmed from 1967-1987, and cumulative total casualties were on the order of a few hundred, and that the re-arming in '93 led to thousands of deaths, we can assume that a crucial failure was the transition from a dynamic of Israeli police power over occupied land to the current condition of undeclared interstate war.
Israel has strategic concerns that require the retention of a large army and the unproven nuclear deterrent force. However, at least currently, the IDF operates as a police force on the fringes of Palestinian-administered areas of the West Bank. The best model for the transition from a military to a policing model is Sinai, where both sides substituted distance for disarmament, placing heavier forces outside the area to be policed.
Palestinians have made no effort to rein in their crazies, in fact, Hamas is currently the government, and is armed and doing its best to harm Israelis. Nor has any Palestinian group, including the marginal ones like the PFLP, ever voluntarily given up the capacity to strike at will in Jerusalem. There is NO non-violent Palestinian party outside Israel except the blanket opposition group led by Mustafa Barghouti, and he polls about 2.5% of the vote.
So this "You first", "No, you first" game isn't going to work. Unlike the Tanzim, the IDF is remarkably resistant to subversion by participants in unauthorized violence, and has been since the bombings of the West Bank mayors in the mid-80s. Hamas has been elected and is supposedly flirting with moderation, I see no reason why the National Union can't remain a participant within the Israeli system. Or will right-wing Jews inevitably dispose of Palestine as they say they will, while armed Islamists can be trusted to moderate once in power?
Eurosabra still speaks with the language of pre Lebanon and pre Gaza wars. The discussion is about Israel pulling permanently from the occupied territories and Jerusalem and guaranteeing that it won;t ever again act like it did.
We don't care for Israel's strategic concerns. right now, Israel is a Satanic failed state. All current Israeli leaders should be submitted to an international war crimes court. Zionism needs a new start with new faces. Zionism needs to be trimmed and tamed. No one will believe any promise coming from the mouth of war criminals in charge of Israel.
Hamas Doing its best to harm Israelis is pure Israeli propaganda. It is statements like this that are more damaging to a practical peace than any other statement. Dear Eurosabra, gone are those days that the good people of the world would still buy baseless allegations like this. Do we all agree that Eurosabra could be one of those Israeli serial bloggers?
The world is critical of Israeli overreaction, but sympathetic with Israeli need, especially regarding Hamas.
Muhammed,
Your current views will keep the Palestinians at war (with Israel and with each other), and DELAY any improvement.
I get that there is much to distrust, but you have still NOT articulated your goal.
Nor, have you elaborated then on the appropriate humane means to meet that goal.
Do you understand the reason that Zionists are Zionists? Is there any concern of merit in that, that you respect, even if you differ?
Another prospect for Palestinians is to lie low and gradually federate with Israel. Consider the European Union that experienced internal brutal wars between sworn enemies, and gradually determined that economically they were better off removing boundaries, then have removed most political barriers while retaining national identity and sovereignty.
It didn't happen by warring. It happened by joining, cooperating.
The Lebanon and Gaza wars were minor, theater-level affairs about local escalation dominance. Israel as a "Satanic failed state" would have brought Sarajevo-levels of killing to Gaza. Compared to the Congo, Rwanda, Darfur, and the Balkans, the Israel-Palestine dispute is a border dispute between interdependent neighbors. Millions of people cross ethno-geographic boundaries daily in Israel in pursuit of their normal lives, in Haifa, Akka, Jaffa. The Gaza/Israel border is a proto-state border, and it is crossed by soldiers and weaponry, in both directions, using violence as state (and proto-state) policy.
You can start re-making the face of Zionism when Sari Nusseibeh and Mustafa Barghouti run the PA, and Palestinian Islamism is represented by the likes of Ra'ed Salah. If each side were to push its most conciliatory politicians forward, people whose parties PREFER non-violent solutions as a matter of policy, it would be a good point of departure. I consider it NOTEWORTHY that no one here knows of the minor pro-peace parties on the Palestinian side…or the interesting history of the Israeli Islamic Movement, just anti-Israel and pro-Hamas claptrap.
Obviously you want Hamas to rule all Israel as part of an Islamic Palestine. And that is a non-starter for Israeli Jews.
It seems more and more than Eurosabra is part of the disinformation campaign waged by Israel in progressive blogs.Dear Mohamed. Don't waste your time on arguing with him. We have don't this before and have gotten nowhere. Keep writing your insightful pieces. It could also be that Eurosabra is the same person as Richard. His more genocidal alter ego. They definitely speak from the same place…
LeaNder: He said what led him to his POV. You just can't hear it–you are the New Nazi. A fake Asheknazi. Jews hate you. No excuse, you have more than a free radio from the late 1930's government of your land. Wake up!
LOL! Unfortunately I am allergic to wake-up-cries. I am afraid "citizen" has left no deep impressions so far. I'll try to pay more attention from now on.
You should inform "the Lobby" and Israel that the "New Nazis" are the same old, so they can stop studying the "Arab mind" for a new antisemitism.
I certainly am interested in negotiation and peace only with an Israel that has been disarmed more or less like Germany. I think Europe and USA should guarantee Israel's security in exchange for disarming the Zionist state.
Germany had extensive troops on its ground in the few years it was disarmed.
Germany's disarming was a rather short affair lasting only ten years, already in the early 50's Adenauer started secret negotiations for a new German army.
The main obstacle for at least a European guarantee would be Israel's non-compliance with International Law.
Yes I agree LeaNder.
The same metaphor could apply to the organizations that employ terror as their chosen means, and incorporated into their charters, to 180 degree different results.
States regard shelling of civilians from Gaza, and earlier from Lebanon to be war crimes, initiating war crimes, and favor the disarmament of non-states.
Democratic states.
The same metaphor could apply to the organizations that employ terror as their chosen means, and incorporated into their charters, to 180 degree different results.
Richard, I am aware that this is Israel's main point. As it relies heavily of the Islamic terrorism as a future military target for all Western powers, instead of a target for e.g. intelligence and legal forces. As that position demands a complete denial of many factors: a) the Palestinians are not an independent adversary, but a highly dependent and oppressed people, b) the occupational dimension, which leaves us with an ambiguity between terrorism and resistance, c) a changing scene in Europe with moves from confrontation to cooperation, away from nationalism.
We had terrorism here in Germany, remember, but didn't really use targeted assassinations.
Unfortunately, as I told you before, I think Germany (the Nazis and their foreign cooperators) are also responsible for the Palestinians plight.
If you were wearing a star of David as a costume to gain you some privileges, then there is an element of fraud in it.
This made me smile. I visualized many, many people doing what Mohammad did. It would be really difficult for you to distinguish the good from the evil ones. Wouldn't it?
1- destroying Hamas
Never a stated objective.
2- Stopping the rockets
Time will tell.
3- Destroying all the tunnels that Hamas uses to bring food medicine fuel and arms into the territory.
Destroying "all" of them was also never a stated objective, a lot of them were destroyed.
well, if your questioning their morals and trying to pin hypocracy on them, we must not forget that you wore the star of david even though you are not jewish. i have a related issue on my blog
link to antifeminisim.blogspot.com