Today's an important day, I can feel it. Our side is winning; I've gotten a number of signals about this already today.
Something politically-huge is happening: the split between the conservative American Jewish leadership and the once-liberal "Jewish street" is finally taking place. Gaza was the first blow, now Avigdor Lieberman's ascension is the next one. The National has got it right: Lieberman is causing concerns that the special relationship will come to an end. Even Morton Klein of ZOA thinks it might be a bad idea if Lieberman is given ministerial responsibility because that could shatter the Israel lobby in the U.S.
Which is just what Josh Tenenbaum and Dennis Gaitsgory evidence in their important petition drive: American Jews say No to Lieberman! And yes to the idea of democracy in Israel.
MJ Rosenberg has been predicting this schism for a while. And lately he predicted that a Netanyahu government would give Obama room to put pressure on Israel, because so much of American Jewry would not want to give a blank check to Netanyahu.
That now seems to be happening. The Dan Fleshler crowd, the progressive Zionists, are so appalled by what Israeli society is revealing about itself that they are turning at last to the leftwing for support. There are a great number of American Jews, many of them Zionists, who feel a need to say No to apartheid; and I believe they will join forces with others, including Arabs, gentiles, and anti-Zionist Jews, to counteract the maximalist Josh Ballabons of the world.
So this is a huge moment for the people who want peace and justice who are on this site. We are going to be heard at last. The question, What do Palestinians want? will be asked at last in the age of Obama. We should get ready for our closeup–and practice reason, not passion.
I feel this in a very personal way. I've been alienated from the discourse for a while. Haven't been able to make money off my primary intellectual concern: Middle East foreign policy and American Jewish identity. That's changing. This website is slowly monetizing, albeit a dribble right now, and I've been getting a lot of welcoming signals from all over in the last few days.
The personal issue for me is about Alienation. I feel as if the crap in the comments section of this site, which drove off all but the strongest, was my shadow. I let it be there because I felt so alienated from/censored by the mainstream that I wasn't going to start driving off heterodox voices on my site. But that's changed. It's not just my site; we have social/political responsibility, and we're going to clean that up.
One of the big signals that we're winning was "Slumdog." On top of Obama, Slumdog's domination of the Oscar stage was a huge sign that when Jeff Ballabon, a powerful, rightwing American Jew, writes that Palestinians aren't "ready" to represent themselves politically, and when rightwing American-Israeli Jew Caroline Glick says that Palestinians "cannot be trusted with sovereignty," they are expressing racist ideas and hurling themselves into the dustbin of history. Let them go there. Last night at the global Oscars, Slumdog composer AR Rahman said we all get to choose love or hate. Let's go with the love.
Related posts:
- Clinton says Palestinian injustice is feeding ‘alienation and extremism’ across region
- If you think I can’t stitch ‘Slumdog’ into my hopeful narrative of Israel/Palestine, you’re wrong
- A dozen or more signs that the Israel lobby has been exposed to kryptonite
- Jewish Freedom Fighters Were at John Brown’s Side!
- ‘J Street’ drives its wedge: Lieberman & Lieberman
{ 14 comments }
Great post, Phil. Congratulations on the Mondomentum. Can anyone translate Rahman's statement in non-English, which he ended by saying "God is great?"
I think you're right Phil, and you can take some small credit for it. Two comments:
1. I wouldn't get too happy with Slumdog yet, because great movie that it is, the Israeli-India alliance is ascendant and in the interests of the Zionists.
2. I said it in another thread, but I really think that you need to actually participate in the threads that spring from your own posts. When I've posted I-P diaries at DKos I found that the only way to keep the discussion somewhat elevated was to affirmatively do it myself in the thread. The "hit and run" post just lends itself to devolving into the kind of useless vitriol that we so often see. I know it's time consuming, but I think it'll be worthwhile if you seek to "monetize" this blog, because good discussions in the comments are the essence of the kind of Web 2.0 "stickiness" that most lends itself to monetization. Not to mention that elevated dialogue also happens to be the only way out of the abyss that is the Israeli-Palestinian debate.
David what you said is a good idea, but the problem is Phil posts 6 to 8 articles per day, linked to at least 20 other arti.cles/videos.
So I am guessing that between reading those and actually writing the arti,cles there would be no time for him to actually read all the comments and answer them.
I much prefer he keeps writing posts at this rate instead of one post per day and lots of comments, since a lot of the comments come from people who do not actually read the posts and their links, but just spurt the same propaganda that they are taught since they are kids over and over again.
sorry about the weird punctuations in the previous, just got back from the gym and my hand are still shaking.
Can someone please explain the Slumdog/anti-Israel connection to me?
I haven't seen the movie yet–and before I start raining on your parade, I'd like to better understand the context.
Thank you.
BTW–when mediation between Israelis and Palestinians finally happens…it won't be from the far right or the far left (the latter of which I consider you a part).
It will come from fair minded moderates who are compassionate to both sides.
If you play any role at all it is as warning to fair minded people that radicals have controlled this thing for far too long. And that you– a radical reaction to a radical situation, are the final straw.
:-)
@Suzanne
Since "the middle" (sometimes thought of as 'moderates') is defined by where the ends are, I for one am glad that there is a greater diversity of opinion than when I would see a panel on my local public affairs channel (Los Angeles) and it would have 'moderate' Zionist, a right-wing Zionist, and a militant Zionist for 'balance'.
True, Suzanne. Phil is radical in the sense that he does not buy AIPAC talking points. By this simple objection, based on Phil's moral and ethical integrity combined with his knowledge of world history, and his will to carry truth forward at his own and his wife's monetary expense, he is important to those
who seek truth, and accordingly, rail against the hasbara slugs living off good human bodies. What a lovely couple, in line with the best America has to offer in these times.
@Phil
Monetizing the site is unsurprising. There is usually money in it for those willing to speak out against "their own" people.
BTW. It will be interesting to see if, as I suspect, the only people to be banned for "violating the posting rules" will be those who have opinions that are different from yours.
That said, feel free to ban SoG if he doesn't knock off the racist comments. He (or she) is an embarrassment.
BTW, your side is obviously not winning, since Israel still exists and shows no signs of ceasing to exist.
Thom, maybe I'm wrong about Phil, but I don't think he wants to put an end to Israel, unless by "Israel" you mean a racist state, in which case you would be correct. Sadly this Israel continues to exist.
Hey Thom, Pons has it right–wake up.
It is interesting that Thom thinks "our side" isn't "winning" because Israel still exists. As other posters have correctly responded, we're interested in seeing Israel clean up its act, become democratic and fair-minded towards ALL its citizens, respect its neighbors, and admit and apologize for its past, as most other colonialist states have eventually done.
If accomplishing these basic humanistic truisms would, in some people's minds, translate to "Israel ceasing to exist", then so be it.
@Dan Kelly
By "clean up its act" you mean let the Palestinians take over. At which point a genocide would ensue against the Jews and Israel would cease to exist. Q.E.D.
Much like what Hamas members means when they say they are "willing to accept a state on the 1967 borders". Then add "with the right of return", which means, Israel ends, the Jews who can't escape die, oh and Hamas gets a few hundred nukes. Of course, I have never heard of a Hamas member who said that they were willing to make peace in exchange for a state. They just offer to spend ten years building up their forces before trying to exterminate the Jews again, like in 1948, 1967,…
BTW, the Palestinians aren't citizens. The Israeli Arabs who are citizens have all the rights of the Israeli Jews.
So Thom reveals his vicarious traumatic stress disorder. He's a paranoid nut case. And, BTW, anyone who believes Israeli Arabs have all the right of the Israeli Jews, google the subject. There's a difference between de jure and de facto rights, of course. I will just mention one de jure right applicable only to
jews, born in Israel or anywhere at all: the official law of return.
Poor delusional citizen of shitland. Non-Jewish Arab citizens of Israel have the exact same rights as Jewish citizens of Israel. The "right of return" is a right that Jews, who are not citizens, enjoy.
Comments on this entry are closed.