More about Paul Berman, whose lofty interview about Gaza on the American Jewish Committee site, Z-word, is under my skin. Berman says:
the anti-Zionist left in America:
The Nation magazine, the Answer
movement, the professors who want to boycott Israel (now, that's an interesting
phenomenon!) – these kinds of tendencies are pretty marginal, in America.
On the one hand, Berman is right. The anti-Zionist left is surely marginal. I'd say we're 5 percent of the American Jewish community, for instance. We've got maybe 5 congressmen who are openly critical of Israel, a lot more who merely murmur.
What Berman (who is very backward-looking, engaged by Bernard Lewis) is missing here is the new attitudes in the progressive community that Gaza has only advanced. Opinion polls showed that Democrats opposed Israel's attack on Gaza by a healthy margin. And many Jews were disturbed by the slaughter. Berman is simply ignoring all the young Jewish bloggers who spoke out against Gaza, from Max Blumenthal to Ezra Klein to Dana Goldstein, not to mention Glenn Greenwald, David Bromwich, Steve Clemons, Andrew Sullivan, and Bill Moyers. We're talking about the Democratic progressive base (Sullivan notwithstanding).
Last night I saw Jack Ross at an event sponsored by Brooklyn for Peace, and he told me about an important meeting on Tuesday night at his synagogue, Kolot Chayeinu, a progressive shul in Brooklyn.
The congregation was having a soul-searching meeting in the wake of Gaza, led by Rabbi Ellen Lippmann. A lot of people talked about their Zionist upbringing and disillusionment, and their anger over the massacre. At the end of the meeting, Lippman asked people to stand up if they agreed with certain statements. One question Ross cited: "Do you believe that Israel should remain a Jewish state?" 2 of 20 people stood up.
Things are happening out there that Berman hasn't a clue about–for instance, a democracy movement in the age of Obama.
As a particularly annoying young man once said: The times, they are a' changing.
Hey Phil, check out this op-ed in, of all places, Jpost
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1235410719855&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull
But, absent a practical proposal to what to change to, we are blowing in the wind.
If I were at the shul I would argue that a single state that does not thoroughly respect civilism (like the US does, with an evenly divided electorate), a two-state solution IS the more just one.
Where a single state whether Zionist or Palestinian nationalist majority, would suppress.
And, the religious dream of return would be forever only metaphor, in denial of the four-level approach to Torah (literal, instructive, metaphorical, mystical).
In that world, the best that Judaism could be would be to morph to Ethical Culture, and ignore that there is a parent to child transmission of comprehensive epoch-long obligation to the planet.
In that world, the best that Judaism could be would be to morph to Ethical Culture, and ignore that there is a parent to child transmission of comprehensive epoch-long obligation to the planet.
Richard, what does this statement mean?
In that world, the best that Judaism could be would be to morph to Ethical Culture, and ignore that there is a parent to child transmission of comprehensive epoch-long obligation to the planet.
Shorter Richard Witty: Without Jewish Supremacy in Palestine, the world, and Judaism, will come to an end!
Now over at Greenwald's, I directed some of our Ziotrolls to this post. They all immediately informed me that Rabbi Ellen Lippmann was a Lesbian, and not really a Jew.
Why do Zionists always think there are too many Jews? Seems to me rather a unproductive attitude, given our numbers and birth rates.
If I were at the shul I would argue that a single state that does not thoroughly respect civilism (like the US does, with an evenly divided electorate),
The US electorate is evenly divided between Jews and non-Jews? Seems like there really ought to be more Jews in my neighborhood, in that case.
The Us, Richard, respects civilism because of our founding documents, not because Jews form an equal voting block. Israel or rather Palestine, could do the same thing if they wanted. Of course, once you give people rights, they can sue for redress. That's pretty scary, huh Richard? Much better to imagine we get our rights here in America because of our power.
Unfortunate…
US to boycott racism conference over Israel references
AP
United Nations: The United States has decided not to participate in a UN conference on racism in April unless the final document is changed to drop all references to Israel and its criticism of religion, a senior US official said on Friday.
The conference is a follow-up to the contentious 2001 conference in the South African city of Durban which was dominated by clashes over the Middle East and the legacy of slavery. The US and Israel walked out midway through that eight-day meeting over a draft resolution that singled out Israel for criticism and likened Zionism — the movement to establish and maintain a Jewish state — to racism.
Israel and Canada have already announced that they will boycott the upcoming World Conference Against Racism in Geneva from April 20-25, known as Durban II, but President Barack Obama's administration decided to assess the negotiations before making a decision on US participation.
Last week, the State Department sent two US representatives to Geneva, where the final document to be issued by conference participants at the end of the conference is being negotiated, the US officials said.
The representatives — Betty King, a former US ambassador to the UN Economic and Social Council, and Felice Gaer, the chair of the US Commission on International Religious Freedom — held 30 meetings with representatives of different countries and attended the negotiations, the US official said.
While the US presence was warmly welcomed, the US official said that in the negotiations, a bad document got worse.
The United States has decided that it will not participate in further negotiations on the outcome document and will not participate in the conference itself on the basis of the latest text, the US official said.
The Obama administration would reconsider its position if the document improves in a number of areas including dropping references to any specific country, references to defamation of religion which the US views as a free speech issue, and language on reparations for slavery. It also wants a shorter text and does not want the final document for Durban II to reaffirm the final document from the 2001 Durban conference.
But, absent a practical proposal to what to change to, we are blowing in the wind.
Hey, hows about making a start by Israel joining the civilised, law respecting world? Yes, I know, they couldn't do that, the Arabs will kill them all. Gosh, what a sucessful ideology Zionism turned out to be!
Much better to imagine we get our rights here in America because of our power.
This is pretty close to the heart of the issue, isn't it?
In that world, the best that Judaism could be would be to morph to Ethical Culture, and ignore that there is a parent to child transmission of comprehensive epoch-long obligation to the planet.
Richard, what does this statement mean?
Posted by: Dan Kelly
Maybe he is trying to tell us he one too many glasses of Manichaevetz tonight.
Richard Witty: "Where a single state whether Zionist or Palestinian nationalist majority, would suppress."
I've noticed from time to time that you have an interesting grammatical habit of using transitive verbs like "suppress" and then leaving off the verb's object. When I come across a sentence like the above, I have to read it three times to discover what you're getting at. Surely you're just not trying to save the few milli-joules it would take to type out an additional 20 characters–"suppress the minority," "suppress the other side," "suppress the other culture."
I've seen you mention that you work as an accountant. Is this how accountants talk? Sometimes I just can't make sense of your posts. Are you obscure on purpose, as when you write "parent to child transmission of comprehensive epoch-long obligation to the planet."
Other people, I see from other posts, have noticed this too. If you will forgive my bluntness, what is it you are trying to say?
If you don't understand, a respectful and rational response is to ask further what mean, RATHER than put words into my mouth.
"Ethical Culture" is/was a semi-religious movement, very prominent in New York, among Jewish leftists in the time of Phil's parents' young adult life. It included non-Jews but originated so much in the ethical elements of Jewish religion that many of the old left (whom I met as a WESPAC activist – Westchester Peoples Action Coalition), that you could have called it a new "reform Judaism".
If Phil has any real contact with the older generations of his region, he would know what I'm talking about.
Phil's repetition of invoking particular individuals' names strikes me as a "political-correct TRIAL", of permanent judgement of others.
It strikes me as a Finkelsteinian effort to denounce, a hanging judge.
And, THAT strikes me itself as a fascistic mode of learning. Rather than regard EVERY person as biased (having perspective) and therefore having to analyze and confirm what of their presentation to regard as true (to what extent) and relevant (to what extent), Phil suggests by his demonization that "they can't be trusted".
Its a manner of forming halacha (consented law), but without an audit trail of written rabbinic authority.
MANY undertake such dogmatic demonization/judgement. The left, the church, halacha, sharia, fascist movements, nationalist movements, communist movements.
And, it conflicts with respect of persons, of intellectual process of actual inquiry.
Its adolescent.
Hey Phil,
You wrote that Dennis Ross's lowly portfolio proves that Obama is handling the zionist lobby… if Obama's boycott of Durban 2 proves anything, it's that he's being handled (quite effectively too) by the zionist lobby.
From here until the end of Obama's term, there will be too many "I told you so"s. I told you so. What even Bush did not allow the Israelis to do, Obama will allow Israelis to do. You just wait and see.
"important meeting on Tuesday night at his synagogue, Kolot Chayeinu, a progressive shul in Brooklyn."
Very important. I guess it's all over for Zionism. Rabbi Ellen Lippmann has spoken. Rabbi Ellen Lippmann? You just can't make this stuff up.
Israel or rather Palestine, could do the same thing if they wanted. Of course, once you give people rights, they can sue for redress. That's pretty scary, huh Richard?
That seems to be the crux of the issue, to me. Israel does not want to pay reparations for its war crimes. Israel needs to maintain a "state of emergency" through military conflict to avoid the limitations and responsibilities it would incur as a normal state.
Witty represents the last dying gasps of the PEP Jewish conscience–his rhetoric is obtuse because placing the conflict in simple terms is very unflattering for his pet nationalist project. (Never forget that Zionists paid for a whopping SIX PERCENT of the land they've taken.)
"(Never forget that Zionists paid for a whopping SIX PERCENT of the land they've taken.)"
Therefore the Arabs owned 94%? Wrong.
"According to statistics from the Survey of Palestine, which was published in 1946 by British Mandate authorities, and later republished by the PLO-affiliated Institute for Palestine Studies, Jews owned 8.6 percent of the land and Arabs owned 28.6 percent. But the Arab total included Bedouin grazing land (8.4 percent) and waste land (13.4 percent), neither of which was legally ownable according to the prevailing Turkish and British land laws. Not counting Bedouin grazing land and waste land, Arab owned land totaled only 6.8 percent. But, even if one counts land in these categories as Arab owned, the majority of land in Palestine in 1948 was state land, which did not belong to Palestinian private owners. Because there was never a sovereign Palestinian Arab state, this state land cannot be said to have ever have been “Palestinian owned.”
6%
It's a common delusion among Zionists, Julian: If I pay for 6% of something, a car, or a house, and nothing more, I probably get to keep it forever and ever…
AbfL: "What even Bush did not allow the Israelis to do, Obama will allow Israelis to do."
I think President Obama is taking two tracks on the Israeli issue. The first is to clean our own house by rolling back the damage neocons have done to our institutions, especially intelligence analysis, to ensure that exremist Zionists don't bamboozle us into any more unnecessary conflicts. This is obviously underway, e.g. General Jones and Ambassador Freeman. The second is to shift our foreign policy to serve American interests. I think this will necessitate demurring to Israel-firsters for some time.
A worldwide increase in extremism from a meltdown of the global economy is a potentially greater threat to American national security than blowback from Israeli petulance, and would be far, far more difficult to remedy in the long run. Worldwide destitution will erode public institutions and create more extremists everywhere, and fixing poverty, much less destitution, is a lot more difficult than cutting Israel off the dole. President Obama probably cannot afford to spend significant political capital confronting the Lobby in an immediate effort to stop Israeli colonization. The Lobby could make a lot of trouble for him by hamstringing his efforts to revive the economy. My guess is that he will try to do just enough to maintain the hope of retaining a shred of credibility with Arabs while he deals with the global economic situation (an impossible task with Israel vastly accelerating colonization), and then shift his attention to fixing our broken Middle East foreign policy when it has stabilized, i.e. reduce or eliminate blowback onto the United States by bringing justice to the Palestinians, whether in one state or two, or by cutting the Israelis off. By the time he could get around to it the American domestic political landscape is likely to look a lot loss friendly to colonial gun Zionists. I think patience is in order. The Lobby wasn't built in a day, nor will it be defeated in a day. I imagine it is very frustrating for Israel's victims who want immediate redress for wrongs, but America is changing.
Preemptive response to naysayers: Does the thought of the Lobby 'hamstringing efforts to revive our economy' smack of unlikely treason, too outrageous to even consider possible? How is it different from the treason they are already committing?
Kolot Chayeinu is in Park Slope and it's not reflective of mainstream Jewish community at all. It's comprised of gays & anybody else who prefers alternative lifestyles (not that there's anything wrong with that).
A Jewish state is open to interpretation anyway…not the narrow definition that anti-semites ascribe to it.
BTW–this country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles (aka Christian)–that's where get our values from. It's the social glue that holds us together.
I'm not religious (atheist in fact) but I definitely understand that when you lose those principles, things start to fall apart.
Therefore, defining Israel as a Jewish state based on Jewish principles, as well as a haven for Jews the world over (which is nobody else's damn business)–is important for its survival.
That is why Israel and critical thinkers in the Jewish community can't be bothered by all the anti-semitic teeth gnashing. It's just one more attempt to undermine the Jewish identity and control it.
You're fighting a losing battle.
Judeo-Christian principles were guiding western civilization just fine before Israel was created.
Implying that people's christian principles will not survive if Israel will not survive as Jewish state is not really credible as an argument. Social glue of America is unlikely to unravel over the political process taking place inside Israel.
You totally missed my point Eva.
I'm talking about Israel. Not America. I'm simply stating that Israel needs its Judaic foundational prinicples just as the US needs its Christian foundational principles.
Anti-semites have a double standard.
Judeo-Christian values are overrated. And their supposed importance that Suzanne stresses (only due to the Judeo- part) is hilarious and desperate. Infantile even. Are you writing for a high school paper Suzanne? 'Behind Enemy Lines, perils of the blogosphere – Antisemite Central~!'
No. I think Gandhi, when asked about Western Democracy responded by saying that "it's a good idea."
Kurt Vonnegut was more specific:
"I have wanted to give Iraq a lesson in democracy — because we’re experienced with it, you know. And, in democracy, after a hundred years, you have to let your slaves go. And, after a hundred and fifty years, you have to let your women vote. And, at the beginning of democracy, is that quite a bit of genocide and ethnic cleansing is quite okay. And that’s what’s going on now." (The Daily Show, 2005)
Now never mind that Suzanne ascribes the success of this country to these 'Judeo-Christian' values. Well what are those exactly? What were the justifications for enslaving blacks? I do recall some Southern slave-owners saying it was ok because they were the 'Children of Ham' (from a Norman Finkelstein lecture).
I can't even begin to ascribe all the various complexities of our 'success' and our culture to 'Judeo-Christian' anything.
It's one of those retarded generalizations that pigs like Suzanne regularly employ to change the subject but annoying enough that you have to respond partially.
You wrote that Dennis Ross's lowly portfolio proves that Obama is handling the zionist lobby… if Obama's boycott of Durban 2 proves anything, it's that he's being handled (quite effectively too) by the zionist lobby.
you ignore that there seems to be an issue that the US wants to get out of the paper: reparations for slavery. How many generations later would that be for the US? Or what exactly are its aims? No, I don't consider it an issue that should be ignored.
The argument that a worse paper got worser is the most interesting to me. I appreciate that the US negotiated …
Would the media be allowed to take a look at the development? Are we netizens allowed to. Yes!
Seems to me that LD, our resident antisemitic pig, has come up with anter generalization. How annoying.
Paradoxically, I don't like it to see Richard Witty under attack from all sides. Apparently I never hesitate to challenge him when he (without knowing) presses my red buttons, but hardly ever tell him when I completely–or probably mainly–partially agree with him on certain issues.
Considering his style. I would ask people to pay more attention. Richard can be very articulate and coherent on issues that are less difficult for him to deal with. The incoherence you all notice, shows he is verbally entering the gray area or gets closer to his red button zone.
There is truly a parallel to so-called Xian founding principles and Judiac founding principles. The concept of Manifest Destiny allowed a people to take what belonged to another wholesale and feel justified by 'god' in doing it.
Leander: "The incoherence you all notice, shows he is verbally entering the gray area or gets closer to his red button zone."
I think you're right. The more sensitive the issue the more vague he gets.
"you ignore that there seems to be an issue that the US wants to get out of the paper: reparations for slavery. How many generations later would that be for the US? Or what exactly are its aims? No, I don't consider it an issue that should be ignored."
What utter bullshit. There is nothing in the Durban working paper (as it currently stands) demanding "reparations" for slavery, unless of course your racist, fascist self thinks that demanding equality and an end to stereotyping and discrimination is akin to asking for "reparations." And yes, the U.S. and all European countries involved in slavery ought to pay reparations, and if they are to pay for all the work the slaves have done and all that they have built, that would mean they would have to pay til kingdom come. And truth be said, I have no objections to that. There is always money to go around, and instead of going to arming a racist colonialist state and its war machinery that makes war on and enslaves indigenous peoples in the Middle East, it can repair the damages of slavery and ensure that racist fucks like you will have to pay for every cent that you have reaped over the generations thanks to slavery. Don't forget to pay the interest too.
Your attempt to whitewash the zionist lobby and attribute the U.S. withdrawal from Durban 2 to something that has nothing to do with the decision, is cute, and might work on simple and uninformed and racist minds, but not on me.
That said, I have no doubt that the so-called "black man in the white house" is the white man's poster boy and will not go against the white man's imperial and colonial interests. But that does not mean that the U.S withdrew from Durban 2 because there was anything in the working paper that referred to the need to pay reparations to descendents of slaves.
"Judeo-Christian values are overrated"
What's the alternative Sharia Law?
I've been to several Muslim countries and the one thing they have in common is they are repressive hell holes.
@ Suzanne
"I'm talking about Israel. Not America. I'm simply stating that Israel needs its Judaic foundational prinicples just as the US needs its Christian foundational principles.
Anti-semites have a double standard."
Quite. They are NOT the same. Further, the founding fathers were guided by Christian-Deist principles in combination with Enlightenment principles. Judaic principles, as Suzanne notes, are different. Many, many commenters on the blog have delineated how so over the last two years. As Suzanne also notes,
anti-semites have a different standard–as do Judaic standards; the underlying core principle/premise assumes a double standard.
Collin, thank you for your thoughtful comment acknowledging Obama's challenge and articulating the
hope he can handle it over time.
LanceTruster, yes the concept of Manifest Destiny was bolstered by people quoting the old testament's saga of the Hebrews (Israelites) and the rights and duties given to them by their god. A practical reason for this was that even illiterates knew bible stories, and the same for functional illiterates, of which we have so many, down to this day. The comments detailing how long it took for the USA to afford ever
closer equal opportunity to all its citizens are also well taken. Yet The founding fathers' Constitutional documents and their Amendments, combined with the therein unstated examples set by the story of Christ form the cornerstone for the whole USA enterprise as it has unfolded.
As a member of the Board of Trustees of Kolot Chayeinu/Voices of Our Lives Congregation which helped to plan the 2/24 community gathering about Israel and Gaza which is referred to in the posts "The Rabbi said 'All those stand up who believe Israel should remain a Jewish state," I want to be sure to set the record straight. The conversation itself was one of 2 community-wide gatherings we at Kolot Chayeinu held in February in response to the deep concerns and wide range of opinions and perspectives our community has about Israel and had expressed about the conflict with Gaza in particular. The convening was planned by a group of Board and staff leaders at Kolot and I, along with two other Kolot leaders, one from the Board and one from our membership, facilitated the discussions, NOT our rabbi. In fact it was ME who asked—along with many other questions like "I love Israel" "I believe the solution to the conflict between Israel and Palestine is a lasting, peaceful two-state solution" and "I believe American Jews have a right to speak out about policies of the Israeli government that we don’t agree with"—the question "I believe Israel should always be a Jewish state." Participants were asked to stand up or sit down in response to dozens of questions (including some about personal and family history "I have family that lives in Israel" "I have personally experienced anti-Semitism") to indicate whether right then, in that moment, the questions represented their experience, beliefs, opinions. The exercise itself was meant to help us as a community draw out and note the wide range of experiences and perspectives we shared and was, by all accounts of those at the gathering—because we had significant conversation following this exercise, which itself was part of a 2-hour discussion touching on many issues about what it means to be in a sacred, synagogue community and have differences and diversity among our membership—a thoughtful, meaningful tool and happened in a context where participants felt respected, heard by the others there and able to speak openly about their views and feelings. Taken as wildly out of context as it is posted here on mondoweiss and mis-attributed to be the words of our wonderful rabbi, who is a longtime and well-respected leader of Rabbis for Human Rights-North America, the statement we asked Kolot Chayeinu members to respond to which actually helped us talk openly with each other about our deep passions about Israel sounds instead like it was used as a litmus test. It was not. As our mission and values statement (link to kolotchayeinu.org
makes very clear: "We believe that Jews have an obligation to grapple with the many issues and emotions connected to our historic attachment to Israel and the current political situation in Israel and Palestine. While we join Jews everywhere in facing Jerusalem while we pray, we have no consensus on political solutions nor their philosophical underpinnings."
Thank you Cynthia.
Phil needs to start issuing apologies. This is the 3rd or 4th time this month he's been accused of spreading misinformation and quoting out of context…BY THE PEOPLE who he claims to be quoting.
An apology is in order!!
Thank you, Ms. Greenberg.
Phil was reporting on Jack Ross' account of the meeting. It sounds like the only error was in misidentifying the person who was asking the questions.
I am glad to have more context, but I didn't get the impression that anyone was imposing a litmus test.