Anees of Jerusalem was upset by reading here about Benny Morris's new book, One State, Two States, where he says that Palestinians value human life less than Israelis, and are lousier drivers, and so he wrote to the publisher, Yale University Press. And said:
I'm a 31 year old Palestinian from Jerusalem. My mother and father, who taught me something about right and wrong, who lauded my triumphs and accepted my failures, often drove me to and from school, quite safely, as I grew up. I can add my uncle as well: he picked me up many mornings in his clunky old two-door Fiat, and seemed to drive quite well despite the sometimes uncooperative vehicle. He also was mindful of the world and never seemed not to care about human life.
Do I have to continue down the list of Palestinians that I've known, both young and old, both drivers and not, and how they don't seem to be the barbarians described in that paragraph?
I'm appalled that racist language such as Mr Benny Morris's above is published by your establishment. Those words are pure colonialist racism. I am sure at some point in recent history some whites in Apartheid-era South Africa wrote a paragraph or two lamenting criminal tendencies, nonexistent human values, and careless driving habits as characteristics of 'the blacks'. Would you have published them? Would you publish them today?
Please, give me an answer. In the meantime, I am driving my car carefully and trying not to bump anybody.
Related posts:
- Yale Press book says that Jews value human life more than Arabs (and are also better drivers!)
- Yale Press book says that Jews value human life more than Arabs (and are also better drivers!)
- For Times Book Review the conflict is cultural, and Israelis are superior
- Murakami in Jerusalem: ‘Between a high, solid wall and an egg that breaks against it, I will always stand on the side of the egg.’
- Both Party Platforms Say ‘Undivided’ Jerusalem
{ 18 comments }
The problem is not Morris' narrative. To me, everyone should have the right of free speech, and free thought, and academic and intellectual freedom, even if others claim their beliefs are racist (after all, don't Zionists claim anti-Zionism is racist, too?). The problem is that the Zionist narrative is promoted by publishers and Big Media to the point where it predominates, whereas the anti-Zionist narrative or Zionism-is-racism narrative is blacklisted, suppressed and censored. We need more speech, not less.
Good comment Anees. It is regrettable really we all have to witness these obvious prejudices and Benny Morris surely is no exception in this context.
I've read a comment about this book recently, by someone named Y. Ben-David I just got Benny Morris’ new book “One State, Two States”. MANDATORY READING FOR EVERYONE! I was flipping through it and I came across his description of the “Clinton Parameters”. The fact is that the Palestinans REJECTED them. There was no agreement on anything. However, so that the Americans would not cut them off, they called the rejection “acceptance with reservations”, but the reservations pretty negated the whole thing. The Palestinians even rejected Jewish sovereignity over the Western Wall. So the claim that the Palestinians have pretty much accepted "the solution that everyone knows" and all that is needed is pressure and threats on Israel to get them to go along IS A MYTH. So that seems the biggest point in Morris' book. I don't like Morris either, but I just want to throw everyone on this 'new' point, and see what your minds come up with. I personally feel it's just one more myth, like all the others, where you're discovering some treachery, but you're not sure what that does to Palestinian rights as such…
Oh, you're OK with colonialist racism, then, Ed. No problem for you as a 'Christian', then.
He has to be OK with it, he is your good old fashioned bible thumping antisemite, if you hadn't noticed by now.
Ed is ok with free speech. So am I. I don't think we should crucify people who question Establishment narratives. I also don't want to see bullshit Zionist rhetoric censored. I want to see both go at it intellectually. Let people decide for themselves. And Ed is not antisemitic.
RE: " I've read a comment about this book recently, by someone named Y. Ben-David " MY COMMENT: Never trust anyone with a hyphenated name. John Lewis-Dickerson, Atlanta
Racism towards all Middle Easterners is at a disgusting pitch in the US. And the amazing stupidity of the things people claim they are scared of. And if I never hear that "72 virgins" bullshit again it'll be too often. And the fanatic super-powered terrorists. It's like they want to make damn sure you know they are both extremely fearful and supremely credulous. Now there's two attractive elements to found your thinking on.
So, Strahl, you accept the line about Bolshevik Jews killing millions in Soviet Russia? And Communism being very much a Jewish thing? I guess it depends on how you feel about Bolshevism and Communism. If you love Bolshevism-Communism, you would see nothing wrong with having the Jews be associated with it. Is that right, Comrade?
Ed's comments very often are packed with a lot of current and historical knowledge and logical conclusions, the kind not taught or encouraged in USA schools, nor addressed in any significant way by our MSM, but rather represent what has been left out of such institutions. He doesn't pull anything out of thin air. BTW I emailed Yale U and complained about the publication of Morris's text book racist passage. Of course they never bothered to respond.
I think there is such a thing as a "Jewish Establishment". I base my understanding of identity politics in the US on 'Manufacturing Consent'. Now while the book takes a materialist approach in demonstrating a propaganda model, Chomsky has said over and over that it is merely a first approximation. A step in the right direction. Not an end-all system. He never considered Jewish tribalism (ethnocentricism). Ed's blah blahing on the Russian this and Bolsheblahblah is another issue but I don't think he was ever implying there is something inherent to Jewishness that makes them do this or that. I bring up the book and the propaganda model and identity politics to illustrate my approach to the Jewish Establishment. I look at these groups as sociological entities. We assume these roles. We feel Jewish because Jewishness (identity) is not inherent. We can be genetically Jewish – sure. But then how do you account for the term self-hating Jew? Clearly, one group of Jews will IMPOSE this conception of Jewish identity on OTHER JEWS who they feel are not TRUE JEWS. So what is 'Jewishness'? It's a self-perpetuating prophecy. A sociological entity. It's the March of Dimes. It's some of these things, all of these things, none of these things. We can be born short/tall/fat/thin/Jew/Arab/Pastafarian/etc. But our identity is not 100% our genes. We create our 'self'. My understanding is that Ed is talking about Jewishness in the context of tribal politics and sociology. Not genes. I don't see him as a racist/antisemite then. I see him as someone trying to understand how a group behaves just like we'd study the Democratic party and see how they 'behave'. I admit tho, i havent read his stuff on Jewish blah blah and Bolshevism.
I don’t believe there is anything genetically “wrong” with Jews any more than I believe there was anything genetically “wrong” with Germans leading up to Nazism. I believe cultures and societies can indeed organically imprint their offspring to make them predisposed towards this characteristic or that, so that certain buttons will trigger certain behaviors, but if those buttons go un-pushed, or if the culture or society loses its desire to instill certain hair-trigger buttons, those predispositions will disappear over time. Many Jews seem to believe (or profess to believe) that Christianity or Islam or gentile humanity instills certain hair-trigger buttons vis-à-vis Jews in its offspring (“They take in anti-Semitism with their mother’s milk.”) But I see this as scapegoating and red-herrings perpetrated by Jewish leadership against Jewish laymen for purposes of control, and most modern enmity towards Jews is blowback as a result of organized Jewry’s behavior as instigated by the venal leadership, not the result of anti-Semitic programming perpetrated by Christianity or Islam or whoever.
No American, no Jew, no christian invented the "72 virgins" story. That you don't want to hear the truth is not surprising.
In his commentary on Surah 55:72, Ibn Kathir (d. 1373 CE) stated: "The Prophet Muhammad was heard saying: 'The smallest reward for the people of paradise is an abode where there are 80,000 servants and 72 wives, over which stands a dome decorated with pearls, aquamarine, and ruby, as wide as the distance from Al-Jabiyyah [a Damascus suburb] to Sana'a [Yemen]'." any muslim that goes to heaven will get this number of wives, its not neccessary that they are women from this life, almighty Allah will create them for every muslim beleiver "that enters heaven" because almighty Allah knows how much each man desires women and nothing can fill his needs ever except 72 wives. Moreover, No 72 is not a figure number its a real number, prophet Muhammad(PBUH) is inspired from almighty Allah he does'nt say figures just for making it look big, if he said something he is always right and correct with no doubt, i dont care what Diane Soyer said … she knows nothing rather than taking video of women that are face covered only :) Sources : Islam and Holy Qur'an teachings
Ibn Kathir is not a Hadith collector and there is no mention of 72 wives nor 72 virgins in the Qur'an nor any of the authentic Hadith collections. It's a myth, that has its origins in weak Hadiths (i.e. made-up ones)and was a mere footnote in Islamic Law until Orientalists got their hands on it and Israelis capitalised on it. Committing suicide after all (for whatever reason) is one of the ultimate sins.
Did you actually read the book, Citizen, or are you just going on what Phil told you about it?
It's just something that appealed to the Jewish obsession with other people's sex fantasies.
I happen to agree with Strahl and Ed. I think what censorship does is simply sweeping particular views under the carpet, where they remain safely protected from criticism. If colonialist racism is false, then it can certainly be demonstrated. If you censor it, no one does that effort, and we all reject it by default, without really understanding why.
Comments on this entry are closed.