Yesterday I went on Press TV to discuss the Israel lobby with Elazar Barkan and Dan Fleshler, and after the taping, the three of us hung out in a hallway talking. We all disagreed about what the lobby is. I'd insisted on the importance of Jewish money in the political process, and in the hallway, I said, You cannot explain the fact that Bush and Clinton ran against one another in '92 both in support of the settlements, a truly wicked project, without talking about Jewish political contributions. Because every president since Lyndon Johnson has said that the colonies are not in the American interest. Then Barkan said we were talking about a great mystery: and for some reason, it is impossible to separate a definition of the American interest from Israel.
Fleshler, whose book on the Israel lobby is greatly anticipated, agreed that the intertwining of interests is perplexing. He said that in 1981 he had said to his stepfather, What is it about these settlements? Why can't we stop them? It's like the Red Sox. "They can't ever get pitching!!!"
We all agreed that the Red Sox had gotten pitching. Barkan said, "Some things do change in life."
Then I said something I hadn't felt comfortable saying on air–out of the usual Jewish guilt and self-censorship–"It is absurd to even discuss all this without talking about the Jewish presence in the establishment, in finance, media, culture, and political life."
Over the next few hours, I thought about our delicious debate–which after all is not happening in the mainstream American media– and it came to me that I have been too reductive about "the Israel lobby." Without a doubt, the lobby exists. And Walt and Mearsheimer are right to describe it as a loose coalition of diverse types. Just as Joe Klein was wrong recently to say that the lobby didn't take Chas Freeman down–a "mob" took Freeman down. Mobs don't work when authority stands up to them; and leading senators failed to stand up to a neocon gang for a reason. Because the gang represents power.
It came to me that the verboten statement I'd made in the hall about Jewish power in establishment venues is critical; but that the lobby extends beyond that. It is a culture that has captured American life, a way of thinking, an outlook, a worldview–largely held by successful Jews, but extending to gentiles as well, and has at its root a redemptive idea of Jewish power after the Holocaust. If you think of the people who trashed Walt and Mearsheimer a couple years back, they were almost to a man successful Jews. They personified the idea of Jews achieving great status in American life. As for the hard core, Marty Peretz, Jeffrey Goldberg and Daniel Goldhagen, they are Jews for whom Jewish powerlessness is everything, the only story, and what power Jews have today they have achieved in the teeth of undying Jew-hatred, which is gonna rise again… But that's their problem. By and large the people who dismissed the Israel lobby weren't nearly as invested in militant Jewish identity/Israel as is Goldberg, who served in Israel's army.
The people who trashed Walt and Mearsheimer tended to be highly-successful people who have a supreme understanding of, What it is OK to think and say right now. The editors of the Washington Post who dismissed Chas Freeman as a crazy conspiracy theorist–I know one of them and believe me, he's not a Zionist, though he defers to Zionists. Walter Russell Mead, the minister's son who dismissed Walt and Mearsheimer in Foreign Affairs magazine–obviously no Zionist. A lot of my successful Harvard Jewish media friends who attacked Walt and Mearsheimer: again, they're not fervid about Israel, they're fervid about success. Ken Pollack, the liberal Jew at the Brookings Institution who did more than anyone else to serve up the Iraq War to the establishment, in disgraceful writings that completely dismissed the Israeli occupation–Pollack is a Clintonite who married Ted Koppel's daughter. In a word, an achiever. Yes he ended up working for an ardent Zionist, Haim Saban, putting out his propaganda about Arab attitudes towards the Iraq war at the Brookings Institution. But again, I say that Pollack's errors came more out of mainstream ambition than anything else. (Compare him to Iraq-chef David Frum, who who was nursed in his Palestinian-contempt by his late mother Barbara, a Palestinian-contemner in her own right, and first went after Chomsky in his late 20s).
What I'm getting at here is that the love of Israel has simply been absorbed as a part of American success culture over the last 20 years, resulting in the Israel lobby's stranglehold on foreign policy in the Middle East. Yes there are dual-loyalty organizations and publications dedicated to confusing the American interest and the Israeli interest, and making Israel's war our war; and they succeeded, the neocons and Tom Friedman succeeded. But again, Friedman and the neocons are outliers; Friedman and Doug Feith were talking nonstop about Israel in high school. Most of us weren't. Most of us were just trying to get ahead, and then wham, this Israel-loving culture overtook our public life.
Why did this happen? For a few reasons. Jews were generally taking up positions in the American Establishment and were silently exulting over this ascension. We were saying to ourselves, What a great country! What a sign of our redemption from the Holocaust! Uh-oh– is it about to happen again! And the rest of America was going along happily with it. Jews were driving the economy, making the movie business what it is, spearheading the great journalism culture, principals in the information age–I think one of the google guys is Jewish–and transforming our political life. Clinton had more Jews in his administration than anyone outside of Israel. George Bush let neocon Jews do the thinking on his foreign policy.
I'm saying it was a Mood that overtook America for 20 years, of philosemitism. And Jews had more power than ever before in history. And Israel got swept in right with it, as a liberation story and redemptive tale of Jewish success, pushed by our militant family members, Peretz and Goldberg.
All that's over. That's what this post is really about. That mood and culture have ended.
I can point to a number of important events that signal its end. First, Walt and Mearsheimer, 2006-2007, who said that Israel-love was a bad idea; and their book was attacked and attacked and attacked and attacked and never went away. Why, Marty? Because so many people secretly agreed with its central policy assertions: that the criminal Israeli occupation nullified our democratic process, and the neocons pushed a tragic American occupation of Arab lands out of concern for Israel's security. This debate is breaking out publicly, thanks not to the New York Review of Books but to Chas Freeman, who years ago recognized this great secret resentment of Israel among government officials who didn't like the policy.
Iraq was of course a necessary condition for Walt and Mearsheimer's book, as it was to the second event that is ending the philosemitic era: Barack Obama's election, in which the American redemptive dream moved on from the dream of Jewish elevation, now achieved, to the elevation of diversity. Intermarry, children, so your son can be president! Third, Bernie Madoff and the financial meltdown. The myth of Jewish invincibility– poof. (Not to mention all the brilliant Jewish journalists who gave us the Iraq war.) Fourth, Gaza/Netanyahu. Americans are waking up to what Israel really is. A thuggish state, as Freeman says.
And fifth, maybe most important,Young Jews, the very people who you'd expect to revel in this philosemitic/Israel mood and culture, don't want it. As they say in marketing, the dogs aren't eating the dog food any more. These kids like a diverse America, they're used to Jewish success and therefore don't experience it as a redemptive liberation story; frankly, they're a little entitled, but the bottom line is that the philosemitic culture has lost its sociological oomph. And more than that, these kids have been on the internet with their hip progressive friends; they understand that Israel is bad news for human rights and they don't want to go to that party. They see brave young Jewish writers like Dana Goldstein and Max Blumenthal taking a stand on Gaza and say, Wow, that's cool!
When a mood ends, it ends. When a culture ends, it's just over. The flapper era. The 50s. The counterculture. They all came and went, leaving a lot of hangers-on looking stupid. The philosemitic culture is finally ending; and we don't do things like the Europeans, this is happening in a neutral, bored American way, it's just going bye-bye, like bellbottoms.
Related posts:
{ 50 comments }
I don't know about your optimism, but your definitely right about the philosemitic culture.
Get. Over. The. Holocaust. Now. It's been sixty years, more than enough time to treat Jews like every other human group.
But we have to work hard to make sure that what comes is the end of philosemitism, not the beginning of more antisemitism.
But I trust this diverse group of (for lack of a better term) progressives to not fall into the trap.
The sociological notes are one of the great charms of this site. But their connection with our general predicament is both at the same time real and profound and, on the other, rather ambiguous and tenuous.
My own view is that concentrated interests with sufficient political organisation in the US political system are routinely capable of imposing massive costs on others, both other US citizens and foreigners. The Israel lobby is one such major powerful organised interest, and that is the source of US policy towards Palestinians (colonisation, ethnic cleansing, Richard Witty-type apologias for the same). With such a powerful organised interest in place, the outcomes we get are what we would expect regardless of other aspects of the contemporary 'culture and mood', and there could be a very strong 'culture and mood' in favour of some policy outcome which was entirely contradicted in practice by an powerful single issue constituency.
In other news, for example, the US has recently decided to ban Mexican trucks from operating in the US, regardless of the benefits to the US as a whole, its illegality under NAFTA, and the retaliation Mexico is imposing on other US interests. It's all driven by the power of the trucking lobby. Does anyone want to claim its due to a mood and culture favourable to truckers? Or that this policy will be restrained by the 'mood and culture' that Obama's internationalism has created in Washington?
From a political perspective, the Left has always loved the Jews because they are a determined, tenacious, anti-Christian fifth column useful for breaking the Christian establishment. And the American Right has also found the Jews useful because of the usefulness of Israel as a pretext and subtext for warmongering. Zionist Jews in media also served as the Right’s Trojan horse into the left-liberal establishment for purposes of warmongering.
So in both cases, Jews are useful subversives.
From a cultural perspective, the Left loves the victim narrative, and no one is better at weaving and milking the victim narrative than the Jews. And the Right likes to tap into the whole “Judeo-Christian” mythos to motivate its base, and that narrative is also philosemitic. The “clash of civilizations” is today being framed as “the Judeo-Christian West vs. the Islamofascists.”
So there is far more to this complex problem than just breaking the Israel lobby and Zionism. Both the corrupt Left and the corrupt Right have to be broken along with it, because just like the Zionists, neither is really interested in doing what’s best for America, but rather what’s best for their own narrow-minded interests.
"The sociological notes are one of the great charms of this site."
I second that. And yes, it's both the philosemitic atmosphere and the organized lobby.
And fifth, maybe most important,Young Jews, the very people who are supposed to revel most in this philosemitic/Israel mood and culture, don't want it. As they say in marketing, the dogs aren't eating the dog food any more. These kids like a diverse America, they're used to Jewish success and therefore don't experience it as a redemptive liberation story; frankly, they're a little entitled, but the bottom line is that the philosemitic culture has lost its sociological oomph. And more than that, these kids have been on the internet with their hip progressive friends; they understand that Israel is bad news for human rights and they don't want to go to that party. They see brave young Jewish writers like Dana Goldstein and Max Blumenthal and say, Wow, that's cool!
I think that is the most important part, Phil. I just hope that the young Jewish culture you're referring to isn't predominantly exemplified by the likes of J Street, because J Street appears to be nothing more than AIPAC-lite.
Thanks again for your writing, Phil. I enjoy it most when you "think out loud" like this, and I appreciate your willingness to constantly evaluate and change your thinking and opinions, based on the constant flow of new information, as opposed to hardening into ideology and doctrine which is then defended at all costs.
You've got it right. Can you convince Andrew Sullivan?
His new theory to explain Israeli war crimes is that Israel is being "Cheney-ized," i.e. that the neocon ethos started in America and spread to Israel.
The reverse is true. The "philosemetic" culture you identify arose with modern Zionism in Israel, and came to dominate foreign-policy discourse in the U.S. over the last 30 years. Along with it came the mechanisms that characterize the "War on Terror": occupation, ethnic cleansing, and torture. (The forbidden thought that follows is that this was the result of deliberate effort by a quiet group of powerful Jews.)
My first thought upon hearing of the Twin Towers attack was "We're all Palestinians now. Or…wait… We're all Israelis now!" In any case, I felt instantly that the distant war had come home.
–David B.
Seattle, WA
philo-
semiticLikud.Fixed that for Phil. Its not like Rabin got any love when he criticized AIPAC.
Although, you'll need to correct this, again, for U.S. sentiments that may be sympathetic to Israel but want a more even handed policy. Despite this, we aren't getting it.
Phil, when Israel started this latest round of attacks against Gaza, I admit I was not very current with American Zionist thinking. As I began reading anti-Zionist blogs and the pro-Zionist commenters on them, several questions immediately began bothering me, first, from whence their unwavering faith in the efficacy of accusations of anti-semitism? Second, their unremitting assumption or the right to judge the quality or extent of every Jew's Judaism or Jewishness, which they find lacking in relation to their Zionism-support, naturally. How did Jews come to that, I wonder? Another thing which jumped out at me, and I found mysterious, was their (the Zionism-supporters) unabashed linking of anti-Zionsm with economic and/or social failure. The first two I was able to delve, they wanted American Jews to conform to Israel-like standards, which they found comforting or useful. Your essay is the first thing I have seen which attempts to tackle, if indirectly, the third, the use of accusations of social or financial failure to disparage anti-Zionist commenters.
(I did get some very amusing replies, tho. My favorite was from "Zoltan Newberry": "Not every Jewish boy can grow up to be a dictor or a lawyer or and Einstein, but for those who's talents extend no further than kick-starting a motorcycle or smoking a joint, there is always anti-Zionism" (I paraphrase, but I've got a copy somewhere) What a dummy that Zoltan is! Motorcycles haven't had kick-starters for years and years!
Excellent, thoughtful post.
I have never admired Israel, but I also haven't limited my news sources to US mainstream media.
At the end of the day, a massacre is a massacre, human rights violations are human rights violations and war crimes are war crimes.
There is nothing to admire.
@BLG:
"philo-semiticLikud.
Fixed that for Phil."
No need to fix that. You're wrong and Phil is right. Simply because few people know what "Likud" is. Our society has not witnessed Likuds being killed in Germany, Likuds being oppressed in Russia and East Europe, and there are no protocols of the elders of Likud.
And after that, our society didn't cheer because Likuds climbed the social ladder and therefore proved that our society is empathic to minorities.
It's Jews in every case, not Likuds.
Which means that, as Phil said, there is a sympathy for Jews, which then translates to support for Jewish policy, of which Likus is the dominant strain in Israel.
This is only possible because society wants to support Jews and therefore doesn't question their rich religious patriarchs indoctrinating everyone and their mother with Zionist propaganda.
Your post was meandering self-talk.
Who knows what you mean by "philo-semitism"? Or even what you mean by "The Israel Lobby"?
Zionism will not die. It is not a fad. (None of your examples died in fact anyway. Even "flappers" played out again in questioning sexual more's, how many times?)
And, sympathy with Zionism will not die. And, the reason for that is that that is what Israelis want. They want to self-govern, rather than be governed by Palestinian nationalists, or by any utopian fantasy of cosmopolitan single-state democracy. (NONE of the key parties abandon their nationalism and consent to a single-state.)
The most that will change is the form of the effort. It is possible to establish 67 borders as borders.
Where do you get this from?
"From a political perspective, the Left has always loved the Jews because they are a determined, tenacious, anti-Christian fifth column useful for breaking the Christian establishment."
Eddy, take your anti-semitism somewhere else, huh? "The Jews" helped to "break the Christian establishment" Excuse me, but you are full of shit, and very stupid, and full of anti-semitic generalisation about Jews.
Anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism, but you are simply not smart enough to make that distinction. That is really, really dumb, especially if you are not making that conflation out of ethnic feelings.
When will your dialog be aired?
Will it be edited?
No need to fix that. You're wrong and Phil is right…
Which means that, as Phil said, there is a sympathy for Jews, which then translates to support for Jewish policy, of which Likus is the dominant strain in Israel.
Really.
So when a majority of Israelis wanted to open a Dialogue with Hamas, and the U.S. was going on about appeasement, McCain was making slanderous comments about who Hamas would want to win, and U.S. leaders were barred – this is "semitic?" When Rabin was having very open conflicts with Jewish leaders in this country?
You are going on like Semitic is one discernible thing. It isn't. Take the Iraq War. A majority of Israelis still supported it, even in hindsight. A majority of U.S. Jews didn't.
Whats the philo-semitic position to take there? What about in the Rabin-AIPAC fight.
You don't need to look very hard to see a wide divergence in opinions among 'semites' and how defining what it is to be 'philo' to that would be highly problematic.
Philo-Likud, on the other hand is a more accurate description.
Israelis Want Direct Talks with Hamas
Compare with the concomitant lashing Carter got for suggesting talks with Hamas.
@Me: "[Jews] climbed the social ladder and therefore proved that our society is empathic to minorities."
Unfortunately, what it also "proved" is that American society could be easily infiltrated and co-opted by a determined, cohesive, nepotistic, minority fifth column (a fifth column that itself poses as "liberal" even as it harbors the most vicious racial hostility towards non-Jews.)
Our society IS empathetic to minorities — to a fault. It should only be empathetic to minorities willing to assimilate into at least a respect and appreciation for (even if not a full embrace) of the ways and traditions of Western civilization, and some kind of loyalty to America.
The Israel lobby and perpetual Zionist/Neocon/Neolib wars is what we get for empathizing with a Jewish Zionist minority that despises our existence, or sees us as an exploitable means of advancing its own interests and agenda.
Besides, “minorities” should not even think of themselves as minorities at all, which is a deliberately divisive, left-wing framework. They should be encouraged to think of themselves as Americans. If only more Jewish Zionists thought of themselves as Americans first, they wouldn't be so willing to destroy the country on behalf of Israel and their own Jewish Zionist nation within a nation.
Witty: "sympathy with Zionism will not die. And, the reason for that is that that is what Israelis want. They want to self-govern,"
Not everyone gets what they want or even has a moral right to what they want. Israel calls itself a western democracy, the only democracy in the Middle East, and then gets upset when people try to hold it to the standards of western democracies.
As for Israel wanting to be the democratic Jewish state, it can hardly be democratic when Jews are privileged across the board, starting with the right of return.
@BLG:
"Whats the philo-semitic position to take there? What about in the Rabin-AIPAC fight."
I think the position is "well the Jews have suffered so much, and we really want our society to support oppressed minorites and those who have suffered in the past, so we support whoever they choose as their representative. If AIPAC beats Rabin, AIPAC must be those who know best what's good for the Jews, so we support them. We don't look to much into Jewish issues, don't critizise their bad apples, let them sort it all out."
And you get me wrong, I'm not saying some specific position is semitic, I'm only saying that we as a society don't question Jewish politics like we do question WASPy politics.
For further evidence of philosemitism take a look at this article regarding Rupert Murdochs speech in front of the AJC:
http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2009/03/obamas-not-iranian-but-.html
"Over the years, some of my wildest critics seem to have assumed I am Jewish. At the same time, some of my closest friends wish I were.
So let me set the record straight: I live in New York. I have a wife who craves Chinese food. And people I trust tell me I practically invented the word "chutzpah.""
I think the position is "well the Jews have suffered so much, and we really want our society to support oppressed minorites and those who have suffered in the past, so we support whoever they choose as their representative.
Thats the problem. What representative? It certainly wasn't the elected leader of the state of Israel. In the run up to the Iraq war, neoconservatives didn't speak for all US Jews. It certainly isn't, in the context of Israel – US relations, anything but the Likud perspective.
Otherwise, if we were talking about supporting oppressed minorites, we certainly would not have a problem implementing a balanced policy in between Israel and Palestine (something a majority of Americans want). If your point is taken, Americans would whole-heartedly side with the Palestinians against the Israelis.
Obama sums it up: Not only Likudniks can be pro-Israeli
For further evidence of philosemitism take a look at this article regarding Rupert Murdochs speech in front of the AJC:
Just let me know when Rupert Murdoch fails to represent a Likud point of view.
If by likud point of view is what he means by "Israel Lobby", then Phil and I agree.
If he means "anyone that bears any sympathy for Israel as a state of haven for Jews", then we DISAGREE.
I put it down to identity politics. After all, Jews–or, rather, the Israelites–did invent identity politics. That's what the shift into monotheism in an pantheistic world was all about. How else was that rag-tag band of Canaanite discontents gonna achieve some useful solidarity? A desperate King Josiah, fearing for the future of Judea, tried to revive identity politics and arranged to "find" the "lost" manuscript (Deuteronomy) somewhere in the temple. Deuteronomy comes down to us as the blueprint for identity politics.
American Jews, who pretty much bankrolled the Civil Rights movement, had a chance to revisit the power of identity politics. When harnessed to Holocaust mythology and Zionism, such politics could be made useful all over again. So, as with King Josiah, these politics are again deployed in the service of the homeland.
@BLD:
"Thats the problem. What representative? It certainly wasn't the elected leader of the state of Israel"
Right. But whenever Foxman and Hoenlein et al speak, they imply that they represent the Jews. And regardless of that, society more or less accepted that these are representative voices. So most parts of society have never heard of political Jews other than hardcore Zionists and PEPs.
Oh and even the elected leader of the state of Israel is not a representative for the Jews. He's a politician and the head of a very criminal state.
"Just let me know when Rupert Murdoch fails to represent a Likud point of view."
I meant the philosemitic atmosphere of his speech, the "I'm not Jewish, but it must be cool to be Jewish" aspect.
@BLG:
"we certainly would not have a problem implementing a balanced policy in between Israel and Palestine (something a majority of Americans want). If your point is taken, Americans would whole-heartedly side with the Palestinians against the Israelis."
You're at Mondoweiss. You must have heard of the Israel Lobby, right?
Another example for philosemitism. Americans care a lot more about Jewish suffering then about their own native's suffering.
I meant the philosemitic atmosphere of his speech
Right. How it dovetails perfectly with Philo-Likud – not Philo Semitic.
Another example for philosemitism. Americans care a lot more about Jewish suffering then about their own native's suffering.
A) You still can't and will not be able to define "philo-semitic" without ignoring the very marked arguments within the Jewish community. I've already listed the Iraq war, AIPAC fight on settlements with Rabin and Bush, and you can;t even address those.
You are ignoring the obvious and marked disputes within the Jewish community to fit this idea of "semitic." In the case of what the U.S. does in the last few decades dovetails with Likud.
You just ignored how your own point "we really want our society to support oppressed minorites". Its impossible to have it twist to what you are saying. Your entire point has just collapsed.
"Not to mention all the brilliant Jewish journalists who gave us the Iraq war.)"
Yes. And the Jewish journalists who opposed it were often out of a job. The EXCELLENT Robert Scheer was "let go" from the LA Times and is working now for less money. There are others. Jewish journalists who opposed the war had a double barrier: the general pro-war sentiment among all sectors of American society and the "the war is good for Israel" sentiment in the organized Jewish community.
It took real guts for a Jewish journalist–or any journalists for that matter– to oppose the war. Kudos to the many who did.
If anyone in Israel wants to adopt a dog, please contact me at adoptanisraelidog@jessicaramer.startlogic.com
If the point is that the Israel Lobby/Zionism is a part of larger Jewish politics, I agree. Harry Truman was a Christian philo-semite, but he would never have agreed to the founding of Israel without Jewish nagging and bullying–at least that's what he said. I have no sense that anti-Zionism is anywhere near the force in the Jewish community that Zionism is, and who knows how the young Jews who are supposed to change the world for us this time will turn out after their youthful rebellion ends. I think America should put its collective eggs in another basket.
I see no point in arguing that there is no Jewish group influence in the nation that serves to promote Jews and Jewish interests at the expense of the majority. It's as obvious as Jime Crow was, and is just as likely to collide with mainstream America's interests as is Israel with American national interests.
Media – Likud POV
Foreign Policy – Likud POV
Semitic? Let me know when Phil, Glen Greenwald, J Street, etc. get a forum or get to be the minority that dictates what it means to be 'pro-Israeli.' Then we can talk about (maybe) something broader than what is represented along the Israeli right-wing.
@BLG:
"You still can't and will not be able to define "philo-semitic" without ignoring the very marked arguments within the Jewish community. I've already listed the Iraq war, AIPAC fight on settlements with Rabin and Bush, and you can;t even address those."
You don't seem to understand that Phil and me are not talking about specific policies of one country or another, but about basic sociological sentiments in US society.
One more time: My definition of philosemitic is this: Philosemites generally like what Jews come up with. If AIPAC cries the loudest, they like AIPAC. They don't bother to look at all those inner-Jewish fights you keep mentioning, that's the whole point. A philo-anything is someone in love, and someone in love doesn't see the ugly sides or the inner conflicts of his love interest. I, sir, am aware of the inner-Jewish diversity, Phil educates me about that. But the philosemite mostly is not.
Regarding Murdoch. Of course he is catering to "Likud" sentiments in the political parts of his speech. But right at the beginning there is something apolitical, a message to the effect that it's cool to be Jewish, which I would define as philosemitic. Are you blind to this part of the speech?
You don't seem to understand that Phil and me are not talking about specific policies of one country or another, but about basic sociological sentiments in US society.
Look like you are.
I got more examples, as soon as you deal with the ones provided.
Philosemites generally like what Jews come up with.
Which Jews?
Going down the list of U.S. foreign policy, its all Likud.
Go to one of these "philo-semitic" functions and talk like Phil Weiss. I dare you.
Regarding Murdoch. Of course he is catering to "Likud" sentiments in the political parts of his speech.
Damn Straight. It sure as hell wouldn't be Btselem's point of view.
Philosemitic fact #214: Bar mitzvahs have become a cool event for celebs etc., while no such thing could be imagined with Muslim rituals. Maybe it's just the media coverage on this issue, but I don't think so.
And just to be clear: That's a good thing, if it wouldn't lead to support for the dominant Jewish policy, which is brutal Zionism since the Holocaust instilled various psychological conditions in many Jews.
Me,
I also cringed when I read that speech by Murdoch. He was so craven, and he apparently didn't have a clue. Or–another possibility–maybe he did. Maybe his newspaper business is really hurting and he realizes he's going to be needing some really big loans from some wealthy Jewish bankers very very soon.
It's a philosemitic culture and era, but it's over, or at least changing–slowly. Imagine overhearing a conversation about all the evidence and reasons people carefully considered before having their daughter's clitoral hood amputated at birth, or deciding not to. The procedure wouldn't touch the clitoris, and would be done by an expert, in a sterile hospital with fool-proof pain relief. If you're like most females having babies in the USA today, you are not married–not to worry, the government will pay for it.
As a grown woman who enjoys having a very nerve-laden hood over her clitoris, wouldn't you want to just shake those slowly shifting status quo people and say: "But it's not your body, you have NO right to make a cosmetic decision like that for your daughter. Why don't you trust her to make her own judgement about it when she's old enough to weigh the evidence?"
Maybe after you play this scenario in your mind for a while you can start to imagine how disgusted and angry some born Americans are, as a circumcised-at-birth adult that part of me was taken. I will NEVER know what normal sex is supposed to feel like. You might begin to know how frustrated I am that people even feel comfortable discussing taking this decision away from a boy.
Circumcision is NOT normal. 95% of the non-Muslim world does not circumcise. In the US, starting with WW2, the circ rate climbed–and tons of money was made of that (leftovers make good cream cosmetics & nothing like adding to the hospital bill for such a simple surgery), combined with the notion that jews would be safer since the tell-tale ID would no longer be there to judge by the dropping of the pants; however since the 1970's the overall male USA circ rate is down to about 50/50 for infants today, with some states cutting fewer than 25% of boys. Canada, UK, Australia, New Zealand, Europe, Japan, China, Russia, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, etc. ALL places with good health and circ rates lower than the lowest US state.
The foreskin has over 20,000 specialized pleasure receptive nerve endings. That's more than the glans (8000) or the clitoris (4000). Circumcision takes away the normal frictionless rolling/gliding mode of stimulation for a man and his partner.
Infant circumcision disfigures. Google "circumcision damage" and you will see hideous pictures of damage that only becomes apparent AFTER puberty, and that is NEVER taken into account when people lie that complication rate for infant circ is about 1%. Just leaving the glans to dry and callous from exposure is a disfigurement, the likes of which we would never tolerate for girls. Vaginal drying techniques are one of the classes of banned FGM.
And circumcision is CLEANER? Because you think washing the penis isn't the highlight of a male's day? That takes about five seconds in the shower–once a week is way more than enough. Or because an open wound in a fouled diaper is your idea of clean?
Disease. The slightly-higher 1% UTI rate for intact American boys is mainly due to mishandling by caregivers whose circumcised doctors told them to force the foreskin back to clean under there. The AAP acknowledges this. They say to clean only what is seen, like for an eyelid. HIV is as rare in non-cutting Japan as it is in 95%-cut Israel. No national medical association on earth (not even Israel's) endorses routine circumcision to fight disease, so why pretend you know better than all their panels of experts who weighed all the evdidence?
To those worried that he'll have to get cut later and it will be traumatic; he won't, and it won't be. In countries where circumcision is rare they treat infections of the penis like those anywhere else (and like those in girls), with anti-biotics. And if he is cut older, he will get a superior surgery because everything is larger and easier to guage, and he'll have superior pain management because bigger bodies can tolerate more medicine and older people can communicate their needs.
Sexual mutilation is very wrong. How many people like me need to express their outrage at having been cut before boys are granted equal protection under the law?
Foreskin feels REALLY good. HIS body HIS decision.
One day a sitcom will tell the truth. What's so great about a bald dick, and not one wearing a "turtleneck" modestly, until time to come out? We need a new Seinfeld episode, written by a fully sexualized uncut dick. For now, I ask you, why is it that only in the USA post-1945, of all the western european countries, has circumcision been (until recently) the norm?
American shiksas are trained to like the cuts, European girls not. Any way you look at, I'm for Choice.
Philo Semitism in the US is over?????
I hadn't realized it had ever STARTED.
What do our leaders and the pro-Israel sewage know of Jewish culture? Our writers, mathematicians, astrophysicists? What do these worm-fucking Zionazi filthballs know of Paul Celan? Of Mandelstam? Of Bruno Schultz? of everything real jews are proud of??
They couldn't tell Arnold Schoenberg from Buck Owens!
The fact of the matter is, the Israelis and the garbage who support them are the LEAST Jewish people on earth!
They think because they watch a ninth rate comic like Seinfeld, wolf down hammentashen and eat bitter herbs once a year and support ethnic cleaning in the Mid East, that qualifies them to prattle on about the miracle of the Jews.
All this Likud obsessing is off the mark.
Yes, Likud — and Lieberman's Israel Beitinu party, plus the overt religious and settler fanatics of the Israeli far right are BAD. But Israeli expansion was always championed and often led by the Labor Party and now Kadima.
The same way that the Cold War and various aggressions around the world were supported by Democrats as well as Republicans here. In Israel, as in the US, only a tiny fringe of the mainstream parties ever advocated something fundamentally different. Does anyone believe that the Obamacrats are going to fold up the worldwide US empire or refrain from military intervention when they deem it to be in our "national" interest?
The problem is ZIONISM, not any particular party expression of it. As much as we justly despise the overt fascists in Likud and its ilk, the settlement project was began under Labor rule and continued unabated even under the sainted Rabin – who, by the way, was one of the most vicious ethnic cleansers during 1948.
Which country receives MORE criticism in the US media than Israel? Not Russia, not the Sudan, not China, not Venezuela. Those nations rarely if ever appear in the media. No, it is Israel who is most criticized.
"His new theory to explain Israeli war crimes is that Israel is being "Cheney-ized," i.e. that the neocon ethos started in America and spread to Israel. The reverse is true."
Unfortunately, that's how I see it too. Since the late 1970s, unquestioning fidelity to Israel has changed and coarsened us all. The Israeli narrative was never a particularly pretty tale, but with a little paper-overing, normal human admiration of pluck and fortitude, a conviction that Israelis believed in the same progressive liberal values we did and would eventually treat the Palestinians with generosity and justice (since they were like us, weren't they) once Israel became richer and more secure. In reform synagogues, Israel became a core value — almost a secular religion (see Alterman). Israel became a principal source of pride and triumph, rather than the much more impressive achievements of the community in the U.S. not just on behalf of themselves but on behalf of others in support of certain universal moral values.
However, beginning in the mid to late 1970s — with the occupation, the settlements, the rise of unreformed terrorists as political leaders in Likud (who were more influenced by the fascist ideas in their youth than the liberal ideals of the enlightenment), immigration into Israel from outside Western Europe and North America, certain fictions about Israel became harder to maintain. Israelis were not really like us, and rather than seek reform in Israel, we allowed ourselves to be coarsened more to their level instead in both foreign and domestic policy. (Elie Wiesel — someone whose writing I admired — is one of the saddest examples for me of this coarsening as he hackishly sacrificed his apparent commitmentto core univeral values to tribal interests). Now, members of the community will always find an excuse (no matter how lame) for why Israel can not make peace and can not be generous in dealing with Palestinians (arguments like those used to delay ending other wars, the American civil rights movement and almost every other peace and justice movements).
I fear support for Israel has dealt a heavy blow to Jewish idealism and activism in this country. It is hard to imagine today's elites as leaders of the New Deal or a civil rights movement, and it makes me sad and disappointed. It is tragic. Israel (maybe never, but certainly as is now exists) is not worthy of this price.
HM
That's terrible!!
Poor Israel!!
All they want is to do good in the world!
p.s. please see a doctor.
All this Likud obsessing is off the mark.
Yes, Likud — and Lieberman's Israel Beitinu party, plus the overt religious and settler fanatics of the Israeli far right are BAD. But Israeli expansion was always championed and often led by the Labor Party and now Kadima.
Kadima and Ysrael Beitinu are offshoots ,and Daniel Levy correctly calls them the three Likuds
On Labor, I've already brought up the policy problems of Rabin with US policy and AIPAC.
Certainly, though there is considerable overlap with the two on U.S. foreign policy. when there is a deviation, it goes Likud.
The scary thing is that these things do seem to have pendulum-type momentum, and what happens when this particular pendulum swings the other direction? How far does will it go? This is why in my opinion driving a stake through the heart of Zionism in America is the urgent need of the hour, before the damage to America is too great.
Which country receives MORE criticism in the US media than Israel?
Israel's enemies. Recently this was Saddam Hussein's Iraq, and is now Iran and Syria.
@BLG and Me,
BLG claims there’s lots of diversity in the Jewish-American community, but there really isn’t on the question of Zionism, particularly when the question is “up or down.” And Zionism is an entire ideology unto itself. It is an ideology revolving around various forms and degrees of the institutionalization of Jewish supremacism, exceptionalism, and "choseness," and seeks either de facto (Israel) or de jure (America, due to Jewish nepotism and domination of media) recognition of the philosemitic state of affairs. It is consequently inimical to separation of religion and state, and to the American ethic.
I agree with Me that in theory, Jews in general can make a contribution to the American whole in that diversity in general can contribute, but both are predicated on the understanding that self-identified minorities agree with the basic tenets of American political and social theory, one of which is separation of religion and state, and another of which is that racial favoritism is not institutionalized with an eye towards the creation of a royalist, oligarchic elite defined by bloodlines.
History seems to indicate that organized Jewry is unwilling to play by those rules. Support for Zionism is one, but not the only, indicator of Jews who are unwilling to embrace basic American tenets.
BLG claims there’s lots of diversity in the Jewish-American community, but there really isn’t on the question of Zionism
On the adaptation of policy, I'm claiming there is a complete lack of diversity. There is a diversity of opinions in the Jewish community, but not in policy making. The Iraq war being the most recent example. The problem here is, the opposition was very silent compared to the droning Op Ed pieces cheering for the war.
Overall, I'd agree with this sentence. The 'significance of the relationship between neocons and the Israeli right, placing the "war on terror" squarely within the neocon-Likud vision of Mideast peace' is important here.
Clarification
policy making
foreign policy making in U.S. politics. Likud.
The Zionists support American values to the hilt–first and foremost, the establishment of a state through ethnic cleansing and the dispossession of the indigenous people. Perhaps that's why there is so much sympathy for Israel among Americans. They are a smaller, yet equally nasty version of us. The worship of money and pursuit of it by any means fair or foul are also key American values, elevated to the status of religion.
Phil, this is a brilliant essay. As if there was an epiphany moment, for which you are uniquely attuned to, and can convey clearly to the daily followers of this blogsite. You are uniquely positioned at a unique point in history, and we're grateful for your passion, your intelligence and your insights.
r
Somehow, everyone forgets the 90-95% killed by smallpox when this is frequently brought up. Not to mention Native Americans as numerous unrelated groups form a weak analog to the Palestinian issue.
The redemptive dream is one shared by all Americans, because of their immigrant origins. The two ethnic groups historically denied the dream were Native Americans and Blacks, and Blacks are closer to achieving an equal share of it now than ever before. Chomsky is criticized by some who oppose Israel's aggression and treatment of Palestinians for not speaking out enough against an American Jewish culture that lobbies for Israel and its policies. I would agree with Prof. Chomsky that although the 'Lobby' is powerful and has quite a bit of influence with policy makers, there are other forces at work behind America's subsidization of Israel's aggression than just a tiny minority of American Jews, regardless of their academic or financial success. Israel is a dumping ground for America's over capacity to produce military hardware, for instance. The military industrial complex is much more powerful than the Lobby, and plays a large role in America's policies regarding the Middle East. Same goes for the oil industry, which also plays a great role in Middle East policy. Americans who support Israel's aggression because of their religious connection to Israelis deserve plenty of criticism, but it is doubtful they are the sole originators and executors of America's support of Israel.
Another segment of American society more powerful and influential than the Lobby are America's evangelicals and other big box nondenominational church congregants. These are the people who pay attention to religious leaders like the Rev. Hagee and read his hate books. These people are adamant in their support of Israel and had no sympathy for Gazans recently. A co-worker who attends one of those big box churches, an otherwise very nice person, once told me never go against Israel because God will punish you. I find it hard to believe this sentiment is wholly the result of the Lobby or a respect for Jewish elevation. The red heifer prophecy is a greater influence on these people, and their co-opting of Israel into their demagogic power is a greater threat to the peoples of the Middle East, including Israelis, than America's Jewish society.
Same goes for the oil industry…
America's evangelicals and other big box nondenominational church congregants.
America's evangelicals (thankfully) can't get their stuff together. They were used in the 2004 campaign, and still can't get abortion off the books, despite all the disparate groups agreeing on this subject.
As for oil, AIPAC and Bronfman were able to kill the sweet Iranian deal for the U.S. oil companies. They were able to do this and get the U.S. to pressure U.S. allies to comply, too. Its still being enforced.
Thats clout that the Evangelicals couldn't dream of.
Comments on this entry are closed.