When we talk about the Israel lobby, we have to talk about the emotional energy that binds it. We must talk about the fact that Americans for Peace Now, a good organization with fair ideas about Israel/Palestine, has remained on the board of AIPAC throughout the expansion of settlements over the last 20 years. How did that happen? It happened because Peace Now was bound by tribal loyalty. It could not step outside the Jewish family and challenge the family from a new spot, outside the tribe. So even as it worked against the settlements in noble public statements, it lent its body to the Zionist Organization of America and AIPAC itself, which fostered the colonies.
The stepping-out is finally beginning. Jews are stepping outside the tribe and challenging the tribe in the company of others. Here's a little about my story.
Ten years or so ago I went to a 92d Street Y event (the liberal Jewish New York institution) where a bunch of important Jews were on stage, and they touched on the intermarriage issue. The intermarriage fears had just kicked in bigtime. A small guy in the audience stood up and asked a really smart question about intermarriage. Basically: Can you imagine the Knights of Columbus having a meeting where they announced that you couldn't marry a non-Italian? We'd say that was racist. You have to approach this issue in a different way…
I was a reporter covering the event and his question really opened my mind. After it ended I ran through the crowd to introduce myself to the small guy. He had to get a train to the suburbs. He was a big lawyer. Wicked smart, he had enormous responsibility at his firm. But with a very nice air about him. A somewhat long-suffering shambling air familiar from Jewish shtik, the neurotic guy. We had a drink at a sports bar and talked about everything, including intermarriage. He wasn't intermarried, but he could imagine why others might choose that. In fact, he'd seen a good match at his own firm broken up by the Jewish guy's family on that ground. And the breakup caused a ton of pain.
A beautiful friendship began. I really liked this guy, still do. We'd see each other every few months. I remember just before the dot.com bubble burst, in '99, he looked around at the Chinese restaurant we were in and said, What do you see around us, Phil? Look at everything you see here, and everything on the street–was any of it made on the internet? No. It's a craze. It's not making any money.
He encouraged my work in some ways. I wrote about intermarriage then, for the New York Observer, and one day the American Jewish Committee had me in for a session with a Long Island rabbi where we debated Jewish exceptionalism. My friend who I'll call F came. So did my mother and my sister. I'm not sure how I handled myself. I tended to get lawyerly and simian and intense in arguments then. But F was there, and supportive. Three or four of my mom's six kids had married out, so she's tough and shrewd about the issue, but I can't say my vehemence on the issue made her happy. My sister married out, but I think she too has her concerns. The future of the Jews! She worries about that, even though she agrees intellectually with stuff I'm saying. So even as I argued, I felt guilty about my Jewish family.
Throughout my friendship with F, I avoided the Israel topic. There was a feeling that: You know what you're talking about when you write about intermarriage–hey, you intermarried–but Israel is for the big boys. Leave it alone. F said that in a lot of different ways. He had been to Israel once himself, years ago, but his wife was involved in Jewish institutions. Slowly, he was becoming a big Jew. And he told me to stay away from Israel.
Michael Kinsley has described this relationship in his own way. When he accepted a junket to Israel many years ago, and people got upset with him, Kinsley said, I'm not corrupted by that; I don't think about their opinion for one second. I think about my old friend Marty Peretz's opinion! A wise honest statement. And there you have the same relationship as Peace Now and AIPAC. Truly one of the greatest journalists of our generation, in Mike Kinsley, utterly fairminded and creative, was obedient on this issue to an extremist, Peretz.
I did the same thing. I deferred to the elders. I knew Eric Breindel in college, and I said, Let him handle foreign policy. I had several college friends who made their way high in journalism but deferred to Breindel's wisdom. Eric had authority because he was the son of Holocaust survivors; and he was a raging Likudnik. About the same time as he fell in with Menachem Begin, so did two other guys I knew in college, Doug Schoen, who is incredibly street smart, and Mark Penn, who's got real vision; those guys did polling for Menachem Begin. So they were engaged in Israeli policy, and shoulder to shoulder on the colonization effort. Mark Penn whose dad once sold Kosher meats in New York.
There was a familial energy around all this. A sense that we all knew one another and were members of the tribe–even Harvard guys in the meritocracy. We deferred to the people who studied the issue, rightwing Zionists.
And there was a familial energy around my relationship with F. I deferred to him. I agreed: Leave Israel to the elders. Once he said to me, If you really want to understand the issue, the
most fairminded guy is Dennis Ross. Read his book, The Missing Peace.
Bernard Lewis, too; he understands the Arab world.
Then 9/11 happened, and the Iraq war. F supported the Iraq war, vigorously. And many times I've told the story on this site of how my own close relative said to me, "Philip, I demonstrated against the Vietnam war, but my Jewish newspaper says this war could be good for Israel…" That would have been the Union for Reform Judaism and Reform Rabbi David Saperstein's Religious Action Center. They were all for the war.
Iraq changed everything for me. I thought, This Jewish family that I have deferred to has lost its intellectual marbles because of Israel. It took a while for me to realize that. Bit by bit, I saw how even the "liberals" like my friend F, or Ken Pollack, or Peter Beinart, they were all in bed with the neocons, because the neocons were their hawkish family members who had the answers.
Once again: APN giving power to the ZOA by staying on the AIPAC board.
It took a lot for me to break openly with F. He was a good guy, a nice guy. And he was in my life. He felt Jewish responsibility for me. He pressured me. He always said, "You have all this mishigos about your family"– the emotional familial questions that I am so open about here because I'm all for transparency–"you shouldn't bring that nuttiness to the Israel/Palestine issue." He wasn't that different from other friends of mine, big New York editors, who said, "Stay Jewish, Phil," jokingly.
Or once: "Phil, we're not calling this column 'Outside the Tribe.' Because you're a Jew. You're in the tribe."
They were all my tribal minders. A lot of them are great guys. I love some of them. But I felt controlled by them. I felt their hands on my shoulder. And they were wrong. All of them think that Arabs are basically inferior, and don't deserve a right to a state, or that they have sacrificed that right or not qualified for it. A right that the Kosovars have, and the Pakistanis, and Indians, and that Abraham Lincoln said that Negroes had too– Palestinians had lost by attacking Jews. They placed their Jewishness before their Americanness, and it took them down the wrong path.
I'm an emotional person, and my attitudes were formed in a close-knit academic Jewish family by tribal affinities. The truth is, I've only been able to break with my tribal minders because of other Jewish company. It's taken finding smart Jews, smarter Jews actually, the ones who helped form Jews Against the Occupation years ago on the simple shocking principle that the refugees had a right to return–it took finding them to make my way to a better place. We need Jews in that place. We don't need tribal enforcers.
Good Post Philip.
Tribal structures must be opened somewhat. Just as we demand from Muslims that they accept when their daughters date non-Muslims. And in the same way we are amused by cranky old Christian parents who don't like their sons new girlfriend, we shall be amused by Jewish parents who act that way.
But not all tribalism is bad. When you stick together in times of distress, for example when the old padre of the family is sick and everyone helps, that's great tribalism.
So there's political tribalism and private tribalism. The latter is legitimate, the former not so much.
Big lawyers, editors, publishers, etc. The lower rungs of the ruling class, real smart except their 100%-Zionized nutcases.
Too bad you can't invite F back to that Chinese restaurant and tell him to look around–how's that FIRE economy and gunship-petrodollar thing working out after all these years?
Memo to Phil, yes, even Jews can be ruling class scumbags. In fact they seem to have quite a knack for it. (Just saying.)
Pretty good post. One for the mondo highlights.
I have become interested in the qualitative difference between 'Jewish consciousness' taken at its broadest, and non-Jewish consciousness, i.e. everybody else's. This is worth exploring, I think, because it is not reduceable to any particular set of 'jewish beliefs': as we all know, one can be an atheist, a non-zionist, or whatever, and still feel oneself emphatically to be 'a Jew', in that one is proud of that qualitatively different 'Jewish consciousness'. To call it superior would just be playing with words, but it's different, it quite definitely is. The interesting question is, in what respect?
To reduce it entirely to a matter of social psychology — the sense of belonging to an in-group which has survived as distinct and resisted assimilation through thick and thin for thousands of years — is not to my mind a sufficient explanation. There's more to it than that.
My recent experimentation has convinced me that there is a genuine 'sixth sense' transmitted within Jewish culture. Not everyone who is technically Jewish according to any given dogmatic definition necessarily possesses it, and I don't personally think it is strictly hereditary. I think it is possible for non-Jews to acquire this sixth sense, though it is harder when you don't have an already-made in-group to exercise it with.
To cut a long story short, I would describe it as a rudimentary but persistent form of telepathy. This explains, I think, the enthusiasm of US jews for the psychedelic moment, in the late 1960s, and their bitterness and retreat into tribal defensiveness, of a sort that frequently, but by no means always, amounts to racism, when that moment faded.
I discuss this rudimentary telepathic gift in some detail on my own blog, usually in relation to the use of salvia divinorum, which, somewhat like LSD, stimulates it (even in non-jews).
We would be getting too far off the purpose of this blog if we discussed this question as such, here, but it may be worth bearing it in mind, when, as very frequently, we find ourselves having to take account of the exceptional rapport which Jews justly claim to find among themselves. If it is a real faculty, then the upsetting (to Jews) reduction of it to mere social psychology, to the mere defensive pride of the in-group, need not be as frequently thrown at Jews as it is.
And, still the questions remain the same, even with your personal awakening, or late awakening to some of the issues of consequences of prior actions.
We have parallel consequences, but going in different directions. I was primarily a universalist and married a European child of a holocaust survivor, and LEARNED of the experience of that world (past and present), still in Europe and in Israel.
You married a Quaker (and named that as shiksa-ish as if it were marrying an Episcopalian). And were forced by the implications of that to appeal to a more universalist approach.
Being Jewish is a combination of values AND association. If your mind can get around the two actually, then you can assess the questions that you are posing. If you cling to (and then react to) alternately one then the other, then you're not really qualified to assess the questions. They can remain as questions rationally, but to the extent that you suggest answers (that have GREAT potential of harm if undertaken carelessly) you've stepped off the dock.
I'm learning now that being Jewish is "common sense" + "specific obligations". Universalism makes common sense. Equal due process under the law for example makes common sense. A predisposition to acceptance and kindness make common sense.
The specific obligations is what usually trips up rational idealists. Sure, resting one day a week sounds rational, but as law with confusing detail applications defined by authority that is beyond one's possible influence?
It trips up inquiry into Islam as well.
The Jewish tribal association has a purpose that is beyond tribal advantage and tribal protection. "You shall be a nation of priests". Our obligation is to uplift. It REQUIRES taking the next step from fairness and intellectual reasoning to spiritual sensitivity, and in a way that doesn't confuse.
One criticism of Zionism by many religious, is that it is of the shell of being Jewish, moreso than of the nut, that it emphasizes the association (a secondary means) rather than the commandments (a primary means).
Do you feel that you know enough of your own heart, tradition, parents' heart, objective history, to risk others' lives by bold action?
Do you feel that you retain the sensitivity and power to adjust your actions and the actions that you stimulate and/or lead once in motion?
i am but a poor jew
victim is my name
lying is my game
hate is my business
business is booming
into my parlor
welcome one and all other
leave your money
submit your life
we are people of a book
a book of tales
tales retold and sold
and sold
other are our victim
we are our victim
minds so diseased
A very heartfelt post.
I get where you're coming from but yet can't help but feel that your reasons are emotional and not logical or objective.
That's not to say that your instincts are off. But that in order for you to break away from that mold, you had to take a severe and very opposite stance.
Why is it that you can only see your Zionist friends as being 100% wrong instead of somewhat erroneous here and there? Why is it that you have had to take this stance that Jews are deeply flawed, prejudicial, inherently deserving of the hate they receive?
Why is it that you have set up a blog that attracts many rabid anti-semites and has pushed you under the yoke of another kind of suppressive mindset?
As an aside: Arabs are not inferior. But they are not in a good place in this time of their history. I'm not just talking about Palestinians…but the region at large. Islam is in a struggle with itself. That is what Israel has had to deal with. That is the reality. And yet you impose some sort of ideal on the situation that cannot bear out.
You can be critical about the state of the Arab/Muslim world without thinking they are inferior people.
You can be critical of Israel without thinking that its motives and raison d'etre are evil.
I guess I don't understand why you seem to be pulled into these polar opposites…and see things as either/or.
IMO, this blog is reflective of your inner turmoil. I see a few voices of reason here and there (and I'm not talking just about my pro-Israel compatriots)–but by and large not.
How nice it would be if you could attract more who want a realistic and fair minded solution that benefits both Israel and Palestinians.
A very hard feat to have that dialogue without stepping on toes here and there…but certainly worth it.
I guess my final observation is that I probably don't understand the tribal pressure on you. I didn't have that…I was brought up in a mixed marriage and there was equal exposure to the Irish side (in fact my mother has some romantic ideal about the Irish).
I came to my conclusions on my own–and yes, a lot of it shaped by 9/11. I was a bit asleep before then, imo.
Anyway, I can only implore you to turn on the left side of your brain. It is important to function with both sides, I've certainly learned that along the way.
Why is it that you have had to take this stance that Jews are deeply flawed, prejudicial, inherently deserving of the hate they receive?
That's not Phil, darling, that's your mind.
But since you mentioned it, all humans are deeply flawed, power corrupts, and yes Virginia, Zionism is a total fucking scam whether you want to believe it or not.
Weiss on F.: "You know what you're talking about when you write about intermarriage–hey, you intermarried–but Israel is for the big boys. Leave it alone… In his own way, he was becoming a big Jew. And he told me to stay away from Israel."
In their own way, just like Islamists and the mosque, Jewish Zionists don't believe in (or even comprehend?) the separation of synagogue and state. This is a major reason hard core Jewish Zionists can't and won't assimilate into the US. Israel is for the big boys too stupid to comprehend the centrality of separation to Western civilization even as they suckle Western civilization's fruits as big shot Jew lawyers and media merchants.
And MM is a total idiot. Next…
Ed: the problem is the hardcore 'big boy' Zionists who you say "don't believe the separation of synagogue and state", who truly don't believe there is any difference between the interests of Israel and the US have extremely powerful positions within 'our' State! e.g. Lieberman as Chairman of 'US' Homeland Security – [tip of the iceberg]. Look at who is on Foreign, Intelligence and, even appropriations committees. The political dynamic is really beginning to un-nerve me.
"That's not Phil, darling, that's your mind."
Still, I guess Rowan (who tastes finer weeds than us) would have called it "a form of telepathy," but let me not break the spell by telling him all I see is someone who instinctively jumps on what he suspects is a breach inside Phil's mind without yet having noticed that mind has long become in control of itself, no longer wavering because of mellifluous displays of zionist charming: "…instead of somewhat erroneous here and there?" LOL.
The wormteam has yet no idea about the nature of the soil they're slithering on here. Go on, boys, keep eating earth and shitting your very enlightening form of hasbarism, let's turn this place into a giant anti-zionist plantation.
"The Jewish tribal association has a purpose that is beyond tribal advantage and tribal protection. "You shall be a nation of priests". Our obligation is to uplift. It REQUIRES taking the next step from fairness and intellectual reasoning to spiritual sensitivity, and in a way that doesn't confuse."__Richard witty
Now there you said something witty. So how about taking stock of your own counsel and doing some heavy uplifting of your own? I'd say that, of the two of you, Phil's the one who has properly discerned the true tribal imperative at this point of time and history. Clearly, your heart is with him (that on the basis of [some of] your posts), perhaps the spirit too (or parts thereof). Could be it's time to for you to take a step to "backwards" and redo a bit of that "intellectual reasoning" and real "fairness' — properly. Because the funny thing with transcendence is that sometimes what appears to be "backwards" is really forward. And vice versa, of course
Note to the perplexed; sometimes my sentences give me a headache too. Unfortunately, it's involuntary. And yes, aspirin helps.
haha! I have to laugh at how this is turning into a fight over the mind and soul of Phil Weiss.
In the end he has to look at all the facts (hopefully objectively) and come to his own truth.
@Suzanne:
Wow, you all of a sudden trying to sound like the voice of reason here, after all the trollish nonsense you've been spewing?
"You can be critical of Israel without thinking that its motives and raison d'etre are evil."
Well, I find that really difficult, taking into account Zionism's entire history from about 1930 to present date.
"IMO, this blog is reflective of your inner turmoil."
Pfwooaarrr! Another real corker. Suzanne, I only see clear-headedness in most of Phil's positions, not turmoil. It may have been tumultuous to get where he's gotten but that's hardly a Jewish prerogative even in this context. Despite the higher tribal pressures Phil will have experienced, my own journey from a non-Jewish moderate pro-Israel supporter (two state, of course) to a conviction anti-Zionist is not dissimilar to Phil's. Sometimes it just takes some time to see things clearly and shake of allegiances. Maybe it'll happen to you one day…
"How nice it would be if you could attract more who want a realistic and fair minded solution that benefits both Israel and Palestinians."
And you've been advocating "fair minded solutions"? Like transfer of all Palestinians to Jordan? You're calling for 'balance' of course, unfortunately the real balance goes against Zionism, almost 100 %.
Maybe you're not the Suzanne I'm referring to, in which case, apologies…
But I think you are: your 9/11 experience is too telling…
@Suzanne:
Wow, you all of a sudden trying to sound like the voice of reason here, after all the trollish nonsense you've been spewing?
"You can be critical of Israel without thinking that its motives and raison d'etre are evil."
Well, I find that really difficult, taking into account Zionism's entire history from about 1930 to present date.
"IMO, this blog is reflective of your inner turmoil."
Pfwooaarrr! Another real conker. Suzanne, I only see clear-headedness in most of Phil's positions, not turmoil. It may have been tumultuous to get where he's gotten but that's hardly a jewish prerogative. Despite the higher tribal pressures Phil will have experienced, my own journey from a non-Jewish moderate pro-Israel supporter (two state, of course) to a conviction anti-Zionist is not dissimilar to Phil's. Sometimes it just takes some time to see things clearly and shake of allegiances. Maybe it'll happen to you one day…
"How nice it would be if you could attract more who want a realistic and fair minded solution that benefits both Israel and Palestinians."
And you've been advocating "fair minded solutions"? Like transfer of all Palestinians to Jordan? You're calling for 'balance' of course, unfortunately the real balance goes against Zionism, almost 100 %.
Maybe you're not the Suzanne I'm referring to, in which case, apologies…
But I think you are: you're 9/11 experience is too telling…
Gert–please calm down and stop hyperventilating…maybe breathing into a brown paper bag?
I never said transfer of Pals into Jordan…I said confederacy with Jordan so they can stabilize politically and economically.
Big difference, and apparently not one to come about easily because the Jordanians don't want them.
I have civil discourse with people whom I consider logical, pragmatic, sane, coherent and not on the fringe. Kooks will treated as kooks. Largely ignored, and admittedly, yes, I like to push their buttons.
Israel haters are not worthy of my time or respect.
@Phil
Jesus Christ, "Tribal Minders"? Did they have an electro-shock collar on you that went off when you said something anti-Semitic? How did you ever escape. "Resistance is futile, you will not be assimilated."
Paranoid much?
As for marrying a non-Italian. When someone can convert to Italian, then it won't be racist for Italians to object to marriages between Italians and non-Italians.
Until then, lousy analogy.
Pretty funny when you have an easy analogy that works much better. You could have said a Christian marrying a non-Christian. Of course, that would not be a perfect analogy, since there are so many Christians around that intermarriage isn't a threat to the survival of the Christian religion.
@ Suzanne: "Arabs are not inferior. But they are not in a good place in this time of their history. I'm not just talking about Palestinians…but the region at large. Islam is in a struggle with itself. That is what Israel has had to deal with. "
– Indians are not inferior. But they are not in a good place in this time of their history. I'm not just talking about the Iroquois…but the region at large. Native Americans are in a struggle with themselves. That is what America has had to deal with. -
Neither paragraph is truthful, are they?
The threat of intermarriage is that the MISSION of Jewish identity will disappear.
Jewish mission is conveyed through blood and/or teaching.
If Phil determines to inter-marry and not have children, that is his choice, but it then ends at the end of his life.
There are limited ways that our existence carries any more importance than our simple and short context. One is to have children that have a common coherent transferred mission in life.
"From generation to generation" is important. Its not nothing. The form of it changes. There is a leading edge to it.
Its ok to choose to not participate in that inter-generational transfer. The real questions of "right to speak" are on future effect. If Phil's comments prohibit others from having that choice, of whether to be and/or remain Jewish by blood, values and current association, then his voice will have been more suppressive than liberatory.
His expression of compassion for Palestinians is important, and can be stated in other than warring terms.
Israel haters are not worthy of my time or respect.
That's why Suzanne spends every day contributing reams of incoherent Jewsteria to this blog, adding nothing, winning only scorn and derision.
Suzy, where's your husband in all this? Do you see him much?
Actually, Richard, what Phil is writing on this blog is so important and perceptive that it will probably be remembered and revisited long after he has checked out. Your wishywashy apologia, on the other hand, not so much…
My presence here is a threat to Marshmallow. He's hooked like a writhing worm. That's a GOOD thing. :-)
Phil,
This is one of your very best posts yet. Speaking from the heart has aroused the deepest passions from both anti-Zionists and Zionists on this blog.
Keep writing brother. You are the true heir of Moses Maimonides and Albert Einstein.
Great post. I think the crux of the issue really comes down to whether one considers him or herself a human being who happens to be Jewish or a Jew first and foremost, before all other things. We can either join the human family, or try to maintain some tribal, separateness from it. We can either work to ensure that "never again" does the something like the Holocaust happen to anybody, or just that it will never again happen to Jews.
It's not just Jews who face these kinds of choices; all humans do. But increasingly our survival as a species depends on more and more of us making the choice in favor of humanity, as against tribalism.
"We can either join the human family, or try to maintain some tribal, separateness from it."
A Jew is BOTH human and more specific. Don't limit us to trivial "either/or".
On our survival as a species, have you read "Mutual Aid" by Kropotkin, a very reknown anarchist. I once asked Howard Zinn for book recommendations, and his autobiography was one. "Memoirs of a Revolutionist".
Mutual Aid argued that Darwinian evolution occurred by groups committed to Mutual Aid. It was a tribal description. Universal humanism without expression in a community in a place, is social death.
"I never said transfer of Pals into Jordan…I said confederacy with Jordan so they can stabilize politically and economically."
But how could they have a confederation with Jordan when Israel won't let them have a border with Jordan?
This makes me realize how lucky I am not to be Jewish. It makes it impossible for you to see the world clearly and not through the lens of your tribe.
Witty: "The Jewish tribal association has a purpose that is beyond tribal advantage and tribal protection. "You shall be a nation of priests". Our obligation is to uplift."
The notion that you consider your tribe as a moral example to the rest of us is stunning to those of us looking on from the outside. May I offer you some advice from the New Testament? Remove the log from your own eye before trying to improve someone else's character. We don't want you to be our "priests" and we definitely do not consider ourselves your flock.
You keep talking about the great value of tradition. Well, here in America some traditions have outlived their usefulness (or have been supplanted by even better ones). And the notion that some tribes are morally superior to others is one of those that definitely doesn't make the cut anymore. I mean, when you think your people as morally superior to non-Jews, whom exactly do you have in mind–Michael Milken, Bernie Madoff, Abe Foxman, Alan Dershowitz? (Actually, now that I think of it, Alan Dershowitz may very be on your top ten most admired list).
Witty: "Mutual Aid argued that Darwinian evolution occurred by groups committed to Mutual Aid. It was a tribal description. Universal humanism without expression in a community in a place, is social death."
You ought to read Kevin MacDonald. He's written about 20 books on Jewish exclusivity as an in-group survival technique.
"Israel haters are not worthy of my time or respect."
You sure do spend a lot of time here.
haha…look at all the hypocrites here insinuating that Jews are singular in their tribalism.
Your obsession with Jews marks you as tribalists yourselves. And very nasty ones at that. Please get over yourselves.
Witty: Mutual Aid argued that Darwinian evolution occurred by groups committed to Mutual Aid. It was a tribal description. Universal humanism without expression in a community in a place, is social death.
***
This is an important point, Richard, and I agree with you. Evolutionary Psychology is probably the most useful tool for understanding the essential role of ingroup altruism, and ingroup/outgroup distinctions in human survival and evolution.
The serious problem, Richard, is that pro-Israel Jews and Jewish organizations have very powerful positions in the US, yet maintain a Zionist-Israeli tribal sense of ingroup preference.
In other words, the non-Jewish majority of the United States is the outgroup. Inevitably, Zionists use their positions and power for the benefit of the ingroup at the expense of the outgroup. This is human nature, and would be no problem in Israel or in an Orthodox community that avoided poltical and media involvement.
Zionists in powerful public positions in the US, however, run a serious risk of being perceived as hostile outsiders by those in the "non-Jewish outgroup:" the majority of US citizens who have no loyalties outside their own country.
Why is it that you have had to take this stance that Jews are deeply flawed, prejudicial, inherently deserving of the hate they receive?
Are you lumping all Jews together? My experience is that Jewish culture is widely varied, and I would never attribute something to "the Jews" in an all-encompassing manner. That seems to me to be the definition of anti-Jewish behavior (incorrectly termed "antisemitic").
Phil obviously is speaking to a certain segment of Jewish culture. He goes on to say that it was another segment of Jewish culture that helped him (and is helping him) work through this.
This is a clear example of how Zionists smear those who don't defend Israel to the hilt. They will falsely accuse others of speaking for or about "Jews" when it's illustrative of a negative connotation they want to call attention to. Yet they will go on to lump all Jewish people together when it serves their own purposes.
@Witty:
"Jewish mission is conveyed through blood and/or teaching."
w00t? How can something be conveyed through blood? I know that blood is thicker than water, but besides family bondage, what does blood "say"? Nothing.
@Suzanne:
"look at all the hypocrites here insinuating that Jews are singular in their tribalism."
Hihi you're funny. I'm posting the first comment re this thread, talking about Jewish AND Muslim AND Christian tribalism, and there you are seeing only Jews being critizized. Methinks you only see what you want to see.
MacDonald's books are well worth reading, and in fact I would say they are well worth owning. I do not believe in the strategising gene, but that is the heuristic model he uses, like all so-called 'socio-biologists,' and on the heuristic level it works, in the sense that ethnic politics works as if there really was such a thing as a strategising gene.
Rowan, what is a "strategisising gene?" MacDonald certainly never uses such a silly term.
It's my own term for the entity which underlies the whole socio-biological theory, and I chose it because it accurately exposes the absurdity of the assumption involved, which is that the gene is not merely 'selfish,' but capable of forethought.
"Mutual Aid argued that Darwinian evolution occurred by groups committed to Mutual Aid. It was a tribal description. Universal humanism without expression in a community in a place, is social death."
Richard, I think this idea has merit. But do you not see a problem when a tribal/mutual aid group regards other such groups as inferior, subhuman/untermensch entities; as obstacles to the achievement of their own aims? Is this not the case with the zionist mutual aid community?
"The Jewish tribal association has a purpose that is beyond tribal advantage and tribal protection. "You shall be a nation of priests". Our obligation is to uplift."
It's one thing to say this is valid for the "Jewish tribal association" but for Zionism? Is Israel "a nation of priests"? What exactly has Israel uplifted? Seems to me it has corrupted if not destroyed the Jewish passion for justice. What purpose does Israel have that is " beyond tribal advantage and tribal protection"?
Do you feel that you know enough of your own heart, tradition, parents' heart, objective history, to risk others' lives by bold action?
No, but obviously the neocons and now neocoms do. Too, Zionists, HAMAS?
The threat of intermarriage is that the MISSION of Jewish identity will disappear.
Which mission? Which Jewish identify? Or, which aspect of Jewish identity? Retention of dna?
How easy is it to convert to Christianity as compared to Judaism? Why is there such a difference?
A Jew is BOTH human and more specific
You mean like a Gentile?
I get where you're coming from but yet can't help but feel that your reasons are emotional and not logical or objective.
You can't help but feel…his reasons are emotional…
That's not to say that your instincts are off. But that in order for you to break away from that mold, you had to take a severe and very opposite stance.
that mold
Why is it that you can only see your Zionist friends as being 100% wrong instead of somewhat erroneous here and there? Why is it that you have had to take this stance that Jews are deeply flawed, prejudicial, inherently deserving of the hate they receive?
mymymy
Why is it that you have set up a blog that attracts many rabid anti-semites and has pushed you under the yoke of another kind of suppressive mindset?
poor thing
There is here stated a hatred of tribalism, as somehow "inferior" in the name of objecting to Judaism as "superior".
I was involved with an activist group for a couple decades that assertively advocated for "universal humanism", and condemned tribalism.
I came to realize that the expression of contempt was what drove the worst characteristics of defensiveness. In contrast, acknowledgement and expression of appreciation broke divisions and made collaboration possible.
"Which mission? Which Jewish identify? "
This is a very good question. For a Jew to be a mensch (fully human), he/she must act humanely, and also learn the skillset to transform what is trivial into holy (a change in individual and collective consciousness).
For those that are angry at Jews because they wannabe that transforming person, but feel excluded from it, they can be if they want to learn and work at transforming all their relations. It doesn't happen by condemnation nor by wishing though.
On your point "like a Gentile". I'm not sure what you mean by that. It was described to me that human beings (to be human beings) have to adopt a cardinal (universal and self-evident to a sincerely inquiring person) morality that includes consideration for others, non-violence, truthfulness, non-stealing, integrity, purity, simplicity.
And, to that common obligation, Jews have other specific obligations.
Some do that priestly practice. Some support and defend others that practice.
Hitler gave the form of anti-semitism, that demands that Jews assimilate, a bad name. That was that individuals that had ANY basis of Jewish identity were slaughtered (really slaughtered) regardless of whether they were practising, self-identified as Jews or not.
The Jewish mission on the planet remains, so the necessity for Jews to be a coherent community remains.
That "tribalism" has been hated by oppressive dogmatic assimilationists, has resulted in the loss of MANY jewel cultures on the planet, some of which were assertive and important cultures, some of which were passive and important cultures.
One aspect of wonderfulness of Jewish culture was that it learned to be social in orientation (tribal) rather than limited to a specific land base.
Its a tragedy to forcefully remove, like an old man being forced to learn new things and sympathies after his whole life of learning and now habit. If the community is the home and not the place as much, then so long as the community has a safe haven, the sense of home remains.
My children's smile, my wife's smile, is home.
Something to remember for the next century of potential climate induced mass migrations.
Richard, what you said about tribalism is very interesting. I do happen to believe (because I'm interested in science) that humans are wired to be tribal.
And it could be argued that in an era of family breakdown and isolation that much of people's unhappiness is due to not having a tribe. (maybe that's the problem of some people here?)
Anyway, nice points.
"humans are wired to be tribal" is a euphemistic way of saying that humans are innately racist.
no Rowan…it doesn't mean that. However given that every trait has its dark side, it means the potential for racism (or rather xenophobia) exists.
Considering that you are seeping with that kind hatred, you should explore the idea so you can examine your own inclinations.
it's pointless arguing with someone who claims to know what you really think better than you do yourself, so I shan't. But there isn't any evidence of racism, or even 'tribalism', in the comments I post here.
witty, please compare the principles of universal humanism with the principles of being jewish, that is, of the jewish community/peoplehood.
Phil –
If Romans, Catholics, Muslims, Germans and others had not been so intent on wiping out the Jewish civilization, then the issue of "intermarriage" and "tribalism" would be moot. There would be well over 200,000,000 Jews and if 10% or so wanted to become a Muslim or a Catholic or a Buddist – so be it – it wouldn't have any destructive effect on the Jewish civilization.
But Jews are an endangered species as a culture – the last "culling" of the herd 60+ years ago is extremely difficult to recover from. As it is, Yiddish civilization is dead – the only people who speak Yiddish anymore as a native tongue are Hasids. Those who know Hebrew are a bit larger. Without Israel – Jews would be kaput.
Really, how Jewish are you? Are you really in the Jewish civilization? Will your grandchildren be?
The Knights of Columbus is a Catholic, not Italian only, organization. It does not support "intermarriage" out of Catholicism. Where do you get that notion? And, anyway, more and more Italians in America are less and less Italian. Maybe they eat pasta and know a few words of Italian. But if Italy was down to 6.5 million people and there were just a few million more committed Italians worldwide (who cared about perpetuating Italian culture), then there would be concern in the Italian community about people marrying out because that could lead to the extinction of Italian culture.
How much Native American culture is left in the US?
Tribalism is not racism, by the way. Askhkenaz are "intermarrying" with Mitzrahi and Sephardi Jews at a very high rate. Jews have all different primary racial backgrounds – the "tribe" is a common culture.