A week or so back I wrote that in my 50s I am past caring whether someone calls me a self-hating Jew, and a friend asked me to explain this attitude.
When you get to be in your 50s you are stuck with who you are. You think the way you do. The natural course of my thinking these days is to think all the time about the Jewish question in America, what Jewish power is doing to the the Jewish presence in western society and to American foreign policy. I like to think about this stuff. I’m not going to stop myself because of what anyone says about me. I have a, Let the chips fall where they may attitude. Some time ago, Lior Halperin, having mounted an exhibit of Palestinian children's art, told me, "I'm what people call a self-hating Jew," and I felt the liberation in that statement.
I’m aware that it’s an old charge and is wielded by nationalists who attempt to police Jewish life. In 1963 the very-often-smallminded Zionist Gershom Scholem accused Hannah Arendt of lacking love for the Jewish people, and she said that while she was of that people--and everyone is of a people in this big world, which I believe Arendt says elsewhere--she didn’t love peoples or nations, she loved her friends. A decade later Abba Eban accused Noam Chomsky and I.F. Stone of feeling guilty at the fact of Jewish survival. This was a smear. I don’t think either man felt that way. It was an underhanded tactic of the sort the Zionists have always used in politics, to get their way. They play rough. They bully and police those who question Jewish nationalism. Lately the JTA has accused Haaretz of the "blood libel" for writing about IDF atrocities.
I recognize that an element of the political combination that I am pursuing here involves people who might have been antisemites in another lifetime. I accept the truth of this. I’ve already spoken of Pat Buchanan. There are isolationists, American firsters, and some people who genuinely resent Jewish power in my camp or don’t know what Jews are and ascribe certain sinister powers to them.. I get that vibe in my emails and see it in the comments section. How do I feel about this and what do I do about it?
I don’t feel great about it. I grew up fearing the antisemites, and lived in a very Jewish world. When I got to college a good friend of mine got out a book of political cartoons and turned with delight to a page on which there were three panels. In the first, an Indian was surveying the land and then a colonist jumped out of the bushes and pushed him off the cliff. Then the colonist was surveying the land, and a Jew with sidelocks jumped out of the bushes and pushed him off the cliff.
I was freaked out. Today that guy is married to a very powerful Jewish woman in the media business. The world’s changed. Antisemitic attitudes have died out or become meaningless. Many former racists voted for Obama. When I was young I expressed racist views from time to time; don't any more. I remember how much I resented the powerful WASPs in college. Yes, some of that came out of my oedipal issues, but in his book on the neocons Jacob Heilbrunn says just what I always knew, that the neocon forefathers were enraged over their exclusion from prestige position. Some of the resentment I sense toward Jews today seems to me an outgrowth of a true fact, Jewish power, and of the failure of the media ever to discuss it. Myself I don’t care that Jews are a dominant segment of media, Hollywood, finance. Those worlds seem permeable and fluid, and there are castes in all societies. Though yes, I hear complaints of clubbiness.
Again I’d go back to the central issue of foreign policy. If you come to the conclusion that dual loyalty has corrupted our policymaking in the Middle East, and you’re a political writer who wants to be engaged in important issues, then you talk about it, come what may. I imagine this was Joe Klein’s reason for talking about the neocons’ dual loyalties in pushing a crazy theory about democracy as a domino theory in the Middle East. Myself this means condemning dual loyalty and the messianic vision of Zionism that has corrupted Judaism as powerfully as the Shabbetai Zevi movement corrupted Judaism in the 1600s, and carried it off a cliff.
I always say that a community has the right to define itself the way it wants to. If they want to put me forever outside the community for these ideas, I think I must respect their freedom. Do I hate my Jewishness? I think not. I think the essential quality of my engagement here is a questioning, an attraction to fairness, a pleasure with ideas, and a comfort in being outside a power structure, that I can trace in my Jewish heroes, like Kafka and Arendt and Mailer.
… and a comfort in being outside a power structure, that I can trace in my Jewish heroes, like Kafka and Arendt and Mailer.
And Spinoza? I consider you to be more like him, only you are more courageous (although one can forgive him for being 'cagey' since there had been an attempt on his life).
I'm 58 as of a week ago, and i wouldn't say i have stopped changing, or developing.
Noone is beyond the community for criticizing policies and attitudes.
Expressing contempt in public particularly, for Jews associating as Jews, and desiring to continue, is "them hating".
Its made those Jews that do seek to remain Jews in an important part of their current (and future) identity rationally fearful.
They/we weigh the question "what is intended?" So, when we see individuals criticizing Israeli policies, we dialog. I/we AGREE largely, and JOIN in action to attempt to correct.
When we see individuals condemning wholesale without clarifying investigation or acknowledgement of complexity (rather than over-simplification), we sense that what is intended is some combination of self-gratuity ("I told you so"), internal confusion, or overt hatred.
When I saw Norman Finkelstein a couple days ago, he struck me as clearly in the over-simplification camp. His arguments were important but thin, and mis-represented, when they would have been effective if they had merely been represented.
For example, he sited the International Court of Justice recommendations to regard the Israel Wall as illegal under international, as IN FACT an authoritative determination. Its not. Its analagous to a grand jury, which is a recommendation to indict, NOT the determination of an actual court.
Even in siting the ICJ recommendation he asserted that there was consensus of the court that they regarded ALL of the settlements as illegal. Maybe THEY did. But, if they did, then that "court's" recommendation conflicted with law that governs title. At least 1/6 of the settlements are located on land that was Jewish owned prior to 1948, but was ETHNICALLY CLEANSED by Jordan in 1948.
In siting the Geneva Convention that land cannot be acquired by war, then the Jordanian ethnic cleansing should come into his comments. Its unnerving that he would consider himself (and others would consider him) as authoritative and omit that.
Or, his reference to Ghandhi's famous statement (that most of us know from the movie), "what is required of you now is to leave, we will sort out our problems", speaking to the British delegation attempting to enact a partition scheme.
Its dramatic and evoked quite a lot of applause, but the implication is that it is parallel. Its not. For all the accusations of Israel as a colonial enterprise, that might have been the case in the 20's (when there were 200,000 Jews there). But it is NOT true now. The truth now is that 8 million Jews live in Israel and 1/2 million live in the West Bank. The British had a couple hundred thousand administrators that regarded the land as NOT their home.
He dumbs down history.
You do urge assimilation Phil, beyond just saying "accept me". You do ridicule those that choose to continue their self-definition as Jews.
No, Witty. You dumb down his arguments.
STRAW MAN
His point is relevant. Israel uses the threat of terrorism as a pretext for expansion of settlements and wall-building and blah blah blah. The continued Occupation.
That's his point. That the British invented all sorts of EXCUSES to stay or occupy.
And don't talk about law or justice. You don't know a goddamn thing about either.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVyYhGTjyVE
There is the segment in question, that Witty spoke of.
Also, I hope your statement about being in your fifties and unwilling to consider fundamental ideas that are beyond "what you are", is not general.
Then, the only option that you have relative to those Jews our age and slightly older that are the ones in power that you criticize, is to hope that they die off quickly.
I don't think it is true that individuals in their fifties stop learning.
I think the opposite is true. For many that have children, their fifties, when their kids are out of the house, is the first time that they don't have the continual obligation of supporting them financially, and the drudgery of career that that entails. MANY at that point review their lives and find new themes, new experiences, and new commitments.
Further, in people's fifties, mortality is obvious. Many of us have already experienced some not trivial physical illness, some ups and downs in career, etc. If we don't take that information as important, then we are in the practise of denial.
The religious commitment INCLUDES the recognition of impermanence of our individual life, and some reflection on what is continuing, and what is permanent, and what is transcendant.
Choosing a particular commitment from that recognition, say a Jewish life (shabbat, kosher, prayer, ethics, charity), is a rational conclusion, even if its a revision from prior.
There is significance to self-reflection.
The important thing of having experience at life, is that any revisions in one's 50's integrates new priorities into one's life, rather than superimposes. If you (or I) are motivated by compassion for "other" (whomever that is), then the form of clarification will have to reconcile with that (or remain in a tension).
Please don't play the rusty door defense. It reduces the importance of your points.
You experience some assault when someone calls you "self-hating". I experience some assault when someone calls me "racist".
Witty says No one is beyond the community for criticizing policies and attitudes.
I agree, and conversely, no community is beyond criticism for its more powerful (because collective and very rich in obvious plutocratic times, and also relying on Goy objectivity, even if that itself is partially internalization of vicarious collective guilt), rather than microscopic individual, policies and attitudes, especially when the collective has harnessed the lone super power on the earth to its POV & goals.
While "expressing contempt in public particularly, for Jews associating as Jews, and desiring to continue, is "them hating", it may equally be the Jewish version of "don't hang out your dirty laundry in public."
Either the laundry reeks, or not. Not a biggie, but if your neighbors have to pay in treasure and blood for your monthly laundry bill, don't they have a right to check out the results?
You say, and I don't doubt it, that the scenario has made those Jews that do seek to remain Jews in an important part of their current (and future) identity rationally fearful, but don't gentiles have an equal rational propensity to be realistically fearful? Or is this a one way psychic narrative? 9/11 has nothing to do with blowback? All Americans are just paranoid because they wonder what their lobby-bought
reps are doing?
They/we weigh the question "what is intended?" So, when we see individuals criticizing Israeli policies, we dialog. I/we AGREE largely, and JOIN in action to attempt to correct. And so, can't critics of USA foreign policy and domestic policy dialog? And can't they agree largely, and JOIN in action to attempt to correct?
While you, Witty, see individuals condemning wholesale without clarifying investigation or acknowledgement of complexity (rather than over-simplification), you and your POV kin sense that what is intended is some combination of self-gratuity ("I told you so"), internal confusion, or overt hatred, why don't you see some other individuals might see you are the pot calling the kettle black?
And when, though you don't, consider what has been the prevailing official opinion within the context
of our lobbing plutocracy, absent any objective campaign funding policy, do you not absolutely lean on that condition to keep the ball rolling for you and yours, and at the expense of others? Phil is up against the tide, you are the tide–can't you at least admit this simple practical truth? You always ignore it, as if you and Phil are equal kids, and so let's have it out–but the truth you never acknowledge is that while Phil has had his one arm tied behind his back, while you have not. Tell us this is not so so, so we know you are a complete hypocrite morally. Any American growing up in the last half century know all the cards have been in your hands, not Phil's. So, watch out.
You say you saw Norman Finkelstein a couple days ago, he struck you as clearly in the over-simplification camp. His arguments were important but thin, and mis-represented, when they would have been effective if they had merely been represented. How do you think your arguments appear to
objective viewers on this blog? And you have no credentials like Finkelstein–you've made no sacrifices like he has, just to speak, Finklestein, who's own parents suffered from the Shoah, while you have done nothing but live comfortably, security assured by goys? You have to live vicarious suffering from your wife's past family, just to speak… Again all the while protected by goys.
You say Finklestein sited the International Court of Justice recommendations to regard the Israel Wall as illegal under international, as IN FACT an authoritative determination. Its not. Its analagous to a grand jury, which is a recommendation to indict, NOT the determination of an actual court, but all you suggest as an alternative is the Israeli high court–get real.
Your statement that at least 1/6th of the settlements are on Jewish titled land is from where? And even if this was so (maybe the Turks' records, held close until now, will enlighten us, now that they have been pushed over the edge by Israeli actions in Gaza), are you now saying Palestinians should get title to the rest of the land in question? All 5/6ths of it? How About the rest of the land originally comprising Brit Mandate?
You say, Witty that In siting the Geneva Convention that land cannot be acquired by war, then the Jordanian ethnic cleansing should come into his comments. Its unnerving that he would consider himself (and others would consider him) as authoritative and omit that. OK. But, let's face it, it's not Jordan that we, as Americans support endlessly with no strings attached, but Israel. Why not try being an American Firster? Secondly, let's look closer at Jordan–they get nothing from the USA without strings attached.
You, Witty, reference Ghandhi's famous statement (that most of us know from the movie), "what is required of you now is to leave, we will sort out our problems", speaking to the British delegation attempting to enact a partition scheme. Do you mean to say that the USA should let Israel sort out its problems alone. Fine. But why should Americans meanwhile pay for that? I conclude you think Americans should foot the bill, blank check style, while Israel does its calculated whims. Ghandhi
did not expect such a one-sided deal. Why should you?
You are right, the scenarios are not parallel. You are right to say that the % of respective populations have changed, but you confuse this fact by saying colonialism is no longer relevant. Yes, 8 million Jews now live in Israel and 1/2 million live in the West Bank, while the British had a couple hundred thousand administrators that regarded the land as NOT their home. So what? You dumb down history by confusing a limited international mandate with the Zionist uber lebensraum mandate.
I hope you are a better accountant than advocate.
RE: "You do urge assimilation Phil, beyond just saying "accept me". You do ridicule those that choose to continue their self-definition as Jews."–Witty
No. Phil merely raises the question, what does it mean in practical historical terms for the others when you self-define yourself as a part of a very reserved collective in contrast to the less reserved Other?
He raises this question in the context of American foreign policy in the most volatile geographic area in the world.
Why can't you understand that, Witty?
An idealogue is always past caring what anybody else thinks.
How else is Phil going to justify endorsements from stormfront, David Duke etc….not to mention a blog teeming with anti-semitic recluse losers?
Citizen,
We can talk in more detail about my impressions of Finkelstein if you like.
I recommend that you adopt the same skepticism of my comments, to his. You'd likely find out that he has important things that could say, that he utterly squanders in very careless generalization and exageration.
At one lecture he said something that I admired, that I've heard Chomsky say often. That is "don't believe me, find out for yourself".
Indicating that the truth is enough. It doesn't need to be embellished or framed.
That is what I suggest. That you and others find out. The truth is NOT simplistic, neither in what occurred, what is occurring, nor what is feasible.
Finkelstein presents it AS simplistic, and in doing so, deludes his listeners.
Suzanne, a scumbag troll like you is in no position to accuse others of being 'losers'.
Phil explains himself in detail. He explains his thoughts on his Jewishness in detail.
Just because an antisemite like Duke happens to agree with some of what Phil may say, does not mean Phil is an antisemite.
However, you Suzanne, are a fascist piece of trash. No different from the radical German nationalists a lifetime ago.
In fact, you're worse because you (I'm assuming you're Jewish) have all this history to teach you the psychology associated with radical nationalism and instead of avoiding it you revel in it.
And shut the fuck up Witty.
I like how you reference one of Finkelstein's statements, encouraging people to seek the truth themselves.
Then you straw man his logic and characterize all of his admirers as deluded.
You came to that conclusion because he has a groundswell of support.
Typical of a dishonest bourgeois piece of shit like yourself.
The Jewish Establishment hates the guy and he's dogged everywhere he goes.
Your criticism of him is petty. Petty because regardless of the skepticism that we should all employ – the thrust of his argument is damning to the Zionist narrative.
No one needs to agree with every single point he makes to agree with the whole of his argument.
In all of my years on the internet, I've never actually witnessed anti-semitism (irrational hatred of Jews). I don't think it exists, and I don't believe that Jews think it exists. Philip Weiss is the first sincere Jewish guy I've come across who thinks that anti-semitism is real.
I've just assumed that that Jews use victimhood as a political tactic, and that accusations of our irrational hatred was just an insulting way of saying that non-Jews are irrational.
I would like to know.
Does anyone here actually give a damn about how Jews "self define" a la witty?
As long as their "self defining" doesn't involve starting wars, killing women and children, stealing land or sucking money out of hardworking US taxpayers for a foreign jewish state?
I certainly don't.
90% of the people on this site wouldn't even be here talking about the Jews/zionist or Israel if it wasn't for their political activities in our government that are damaging this country and their genocidal land stealing and killing rampages in Palestine weren't outraging the civilized world. Otherwise Jews are a non topic and of no particular interest to non jews.
You know the more I look at the comments of the zionist on here when discussing Israel the more I see it's actually all about them personally…the ones with identity issues, personal mental and emotional issues, personal anger and agression issues like in the comments of the Susie's – SOG's, feelings of inferiority compensated for by belittling others and about how tough they (Israel) are/is.
They don't really give a shit about Israel,they are just disturbed people who are jewish so they grabbed onto the "Israel cause" as a outlet and expression for their own personal problems and issues.
Here's another question.
How many people here ever even had a conversation about, or thought about 'Jews' prior to the restart of I-P violence that got some media coverage for awhile after Sharon marched up the hill and then the 2001 World War on Terriers?
Anyone?
I can't remember ever having a conversation about "the Jews" in my fifty some years prior to the 911 ME focus that also brought Israel and the jews and their lobby and political activities into focus.
In all of my years on the internet, I've never actually witnessed anti-semitism (irrational hatred of Jews). I don't think it exists, and I don't believe that Jews think it exists. Philip Weiss is the first sincere Jewish guy I've come across who thinks that anti-semitism is real. I've just assumed that that Jews use victimhood as a political tactic, and that accusations of our irrational hatred was just an insulting way of saying that non-Jews are irrational. Posted by: Mountaingoat | March 28, 2009 at 11:35 PM
Well, I have seen tons of it; I just don't regard it as a threat — more often, it is encouraged, by both zionist and Leftist provocateurs, so that they have a straw man to agitate about.
@
"I think the opposite is true. For many that have children, their fifties, when their kids are out of the house, is the first time that they don't have the continual obligation of supporting them financially, and the drudgery of career that that entails. MANY at that point review their lives and find new themes, new experiences, and new commitments.
Further, in people's fifties, mortality is obvious. Many of us have already experienced some not trivial physical illness, some ups and downs in career, etc. If we don't take that information as important, then we are in the practise of denial.
The religious commitment INCLUDES the recognition of impermanence of our individual life, and some reflection on what is continuing, and what is permanent, and what is transcendant.
Posted by: Richard Witty | March 28, 2009 at 04:11 PM
This is why you can't talk honestly and factually about Israel witty…because it's not about Israel.it's about you.
It' about "finding yourself" and dealing with your mortality after "years of drudgery" and most likely an ordinary and unremarkable life like most people's, so for you….
witty = (what am I that would single me out in some differentness and give me meaning) = being jewish! which = being for Israel…….therefore witty must find himself in jewishness and Israel……even though no on in their right mind would want to be defined by Israel and the bloody bits of dead children it creates … that's the one different from the majority that you inherited or chose or is particular to you in your own mind so instead of actually broadening your life and opening your mind liike Phil does, your great experiment of "defining yourself" is really just a tunnel that leads back to the same old you spiced up with some babble about self determination for jews in Israel and etc..
You ought to take up Buddhism for your self search instead witty and avoid all the abuse you get here.
I am actually starting not to dislike you and think you are suffering from some kind of mid life crisis instead of plain stupidy and hypocrisy.
Anti-semitism exists. Read James McBride's The Color of Water. Anti-Palestinianism exists. Great injustice is done to them. To protest against this injustice is not anti-semitic.
"Anti Palestinianism" may exist but the converse, "Palestinian supremacism" also exists. Prior to 1948, many Palestinians enslaved black africans. Phil and dance are you willing to recognize that your beloved arabs too committed genocide.