One of the best things John Updike ever said was at the beginning of a lecture on Melville when he said, All Melville scholars please leave the room. He was about to take his crack at an important literary question (Melville's withdrawal from the world in his 30s) and didn't want to be confused by the facts. In Updike's spirit I say, All scholars of Jewish history, please leave the room.
This morning I was reading Herzl's diaries from 1902, when he was negotiating with the Russians for the deliverance of the Jews. It was clear that the Russian officials feared their Jews because the Jews were oppressed, and the Jews were an essential component of the Communist unrest. The Russians were willing to work with Herzl to gain a Jewish emigration, especially of the poor. Though they wanted to hang on to the Jewish brains. I've written before in this space of the ways that my own ancestors were delivered from Russia to the U.S. through the efforts of the Jewish lobby of that period, which included Herzl, and Jewish bankers in the U.S.
All visions of Jewish deliverance have been responses to Jewish oppression.. Herzl pioneered Zionism as a political response to anti-Semitism in Europe. The Shabbatai Zevi, the Jewish mystical would-be messiah of the 17th century, gained a following among Mediterranean Jews because of the Spanish expulsion of the preceding century, and because he promised deliverance to Jerusalem. (Till the Ottomans put an end to him, by forcing his conversion). The Communists promised deliverance from the shtetl and the pogrom.
This explains the neoconservatives. They are recognizable figures to Jewish society: they are visionaries who promise deliverance. In their case, the vision was about remaking the Arab world as democratic so as to make it hospitable to Israel, which had fought endless wars with Arabs. This was nuts; they were as crazy as the Shabbatai Zevi, and they have been as discredited as the Shabbatai, but the failure of Jewish liberals to denounce the neocons stems from the recognition of them as Jewish prophets who were going to save the Jewish people.
Herzl was also a prophet with a crazy vision. His labors destroyed him in his early 40s, 40 years before the vision came to pass. In his diary he is constantly raging against "Jewish bankers." He means all the complacent conservative Jews in European society who are alarmed by his vision, including his own editors. What the Jewish bankers say to him is that his ideas are undermining their own "patriotism" in western societies, and also that his ideas are threatening the Holy Places of Jerusalem, which must be open to all people.
The bankers were right in the end: Jewish nationalism has threatened western patriotism (because Jews are compelled to act out of concern for Israel's security, raising the dual-loyalty problem), and the Holy Places are now under the governance of the Jewish state– which was enough to keep Arafat from signing the deal in 2000, and which is a concern to Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama too (who has probably been listening to Jimmy Carter). Obama spoke of an open Jerusalem at his speech in Cairo. Netanyahu then offered his vision, which was essentially religious, with Palestinians as bystanders in the Jewish dream. He's out of step with history.
Today the Jewish bankers don't know where to go. That is the achievement of J Street. They are getting big donations, and eroding AIPAC. J Street is surely attracting the young Jews. Tomorrow night, the Jewish Community Center in Manhattan is having a conference for young Jews on the question, "Love, Hate and the Jewish State." On that site, Nicole, a teacher, says:
"One of the major tenets of the Jewish faith is that we should seek justice and pursue it, and I think the state of Israel needs to take that more to heart."
I'm an integrationist Jew. I want Jews to integrate into western societies. As Jews, as whatever– but to be part of the western societies that we have helped transform with our Jewish gifts, thereby ending the Jewish Question. All the Jewish visionaries to this point have been against integration (which was called assimilation). Herzl was against it, the Shabbatai Zevi was, and so are Elliott Abrams and the neocons. And yet: we are now fully integrated. Maybe the vision can come after the fact this time round…
Related posts:
- Podhoretz likens Obama to false messiah who converted to Islam
- Zionism’s founder promised Catholic and Muslim officials he’d leave Jerusalem outside of Jewish state
- Please Greenlight this Western: ‘Shootout With the Israel Lobby Over Dividing Jerusalem’
- Emanuel Often Took ‘Peace Now’ Position and Praised Rabin as ‘Visionary’
- Carter (echoing Obama): ‘A new Palestine’ will see a shared Jerusalem
{ 24 comments }
Are you serious that you want "Jewish scholars" not to post? I'll break the rule right out of the dock (though most Jewish scholars wouldn't call me one. I'm a non-dogmatic Jew. Those that wish to associate as Jews should, those that don't should do what moves them. Jewish orthodox life even is NOT requested to be isolated. Its requested to limit its interraction to certain areas of life, which can be trusting, intimately friendly, kind, respectful. And, NOT many liberal Jews regarded anything that Eliot Abrams suggested as "salvation", especially the war in Iraq, which was most widely opposed among Jews as among any ethnic group, perhaps excluding African-Americans.
Richard, The meaning of the first paragraph completely passed you by.
How does a humanist differ from a humanist Jew?
I often hear Jews speaking of their "gifts" and how they have enriched the West, but I would be curious to know what the average Jew believes Gentiles in the West would have done without them. What credit do we get for creating our own societies? Whatever place Jews have in the West, ruling Gentiles isn't it! In theory, I don't think I would have a hard time living in a society without Jews. Whatever trouble the rest of us would create for ourselves, I wouldn't miss the Jewish influence in politics, culture, media, finance, entertainment, or any other area that I can think of. I wouldn't have a problem with ending the disasterous attachment between the two groups. Maybe Israel the home of the Jews?
Richard, I join "Witty's mentor". Could you explain?
I’m glad to see Phil document the continuity between the Jewish Communists, the Jewish Zionists and the Jewish Neocons. They are all, indeed, joined at the hip. The Jewish Communists believed their (unprecedented) State-engineered mass murder of Christians and dissidents was justified by the “shtetl and the pogrom,” just as the Jewish Zionists believed their ethnic cleansing of Palestine was justified by the Holocaust (which was merely Hitler’s duplication of Communists tactics), just as the Jewish Neocons believed their instigation of mass killings of Muslims in the Iraq war was justified by Islamic harassment of Israel. But Phil is engaged in wishful thinking when he says the Jewish Neocons truly wanted to bring democracy to the Middle East. They wanted to bring democracy to the Middle East about as much as the Communists wanted to bring “social justice” to Russia. The key to determining their true intentions and motives is not in the rhetoric or spin, but rather in the outcome, particularly when the outcome reveals a pattern of mass murder.
And, you didn't get my "joke". The same applies to the next paragraphs about Phil's "being confused by the facts".
bullshit..all tht is ..is a bunch of lies
You don't think "revenge" against "the goy" played a role in the outcome of all three movements?
I agree with Ed about the Neocons. When Neocons use the word "democracy" they mean it in the coded Straussian sense, in which an elite class controls the media and defines issues for the "democratically elected" politicians. The institutions that are classically associated with American republican government–localism, a free press, strong voluntary institutions (like churches and community organizations [real ones--not the kind that require "community organizers"]), and a weak federal government–are anathema to Neocons. Their vision of a "democratic regime" has more in common with a Soviet satellite state than anything American, or Western, for that matter.
Hitler said exactly the same thing.
Find the quote.
Todd: "I don't think I would have a hard time living in a society without Jews."
Adolf Hitler said the same thing, huh? And there's the always implied "kill the Jews." "In theory, I don't think I would have a hard time living in a society without Jews." I need oxygen, food, water shelter and other essentials to survive. I don't need Jews. Read my post and respond to what was written, and in the context of this thread. If you don't wish to do so, then just ignore my opinions. But keep your Nazi hysteria, claims of anti-Semitism and Hitler comparisons to yourself.
I think the unbiased jury is still out on whether the jews over history have been a net gain or loss for the non-jews. I know this flies in the face of the usual narrative by both knee-jerk jew-lovers and knee-jerk jew-haters, the latter having been pushed to the fringes of Western society by shame or guilt over Hitler's solution. It is true that diaspora jews have performed as the middle-man plus court jew: can you say this usual position has enhanced the masses over time, or hurt them? I'd love to hear historical details one way and the other. We can then post the pro and con lists, no? There are pros and cons to feudal life, ditto regarding democracy, communism, and fascism–all as actually implemented, in part or more whole, now and in the past. I grew up in a lower middle class household in the USA. I don't think rednecks or jews, for example, have a firm grasp on applied ethics; the difference is the former are lampooned continuously and have been during my entire adulthood, while the latter are virtually anointed , given a free pass as a group. I don't think that's productive of a sane approach to those who effectively rule the lives of people such as myself.
I also agree. The Big Lie, thought to be discredited post Bernays-Goebbels, was resurrected with a veneer of Plato by the Straussian neocons, PNAC etc. This agenda is still proceeding, just as if Iraq never happened, towards Iran, then Syria, for example. See Doiestoveski's Grand Inquisitor Chapter in the Brothers Karamazov. I guess that makes us normal folks Ivan K in Straussian eyes? BTW, when will Solsintinzin's book 200 Years be published in English? He's not a worthy author like all the others published?
I'd like to know how much credit average Jews give Gentiles for creating their own societies. It's not uncommon for Jews to talk about their "gifts" or their genius for transforming host societies, as if nothing useful would be accomplished without them. Middlemen have to be needed, or the game is up. Why not look at the present pros and cons of Jewish behavior in America? It's hard to nail down for an average person because the issue is pretty much forbidden, but I do find it interesting that many Jews who narmally boast of Jewish power and genius in areas such as finance, academia, entertainment, politics, etc. often do a "who me" act when the sorry state of each area is pointed out.
If one accepts that Jews have outsized control in entertainment, one only has to look at the garbage that is produced, and the way that the majority is portrayed to see what a hostile elite does for a nation. In a normal situation, the slur redneck wouldn't be used, as it is as unacceptable as kike, or any other derogatory term. Just go back and read Harry Truman's words about Jewish influence (available at Truman's online library) if there is any doubt that there is considerable Jewish influence in politics. By the looks of AIPAC, and ME policy, the influence has grown enormously since Truman's time.
The hostile, derogatory or radical Jewish professor is a stereotype at this point. I had a few, myself. And I see no reason for cash-strapped schools in the middle of nowhere, with few Jewish students, to have holocaust museums of Jewish studies departments that amount to little more than a compilation of courses meant to cement the idea of Jewish victimhood and majority gulit. Don't believe me? How about this gem: http://www.legis.state.ga.us/legis/1997_98/fullte... Of course the West would be imperfect without Jews, but it is way past time to look at the effects that hostile minorities have in our societies. Doesn't this topic beg for it?
Your reply is quite hysterical. Hysterical and irrational behavior is one of the defining characteristics of many bigots.
Are you the same "Todd" who gets hysterical when the antisemitism that permeates your postings is pointed out? You must be a star "reporter" here at MondoLies…
Replace "Jew" with "Black" and "Gentile" with "White". See what a bigot you are? A true MondoBigot.
Replace Jew with Black and my posts wouldn't make sense. Gentile and White are pretty much the same thing in the West. The whole point is that there is no "Jewish visionary of western integration." I don't even know what a "Jewish visionary of western integration" is! I guess it would be some sort of multicultural destroyer of Western identity and culture. The term makes no sense. Phil seems to believe that assimilation means "transforming" a society to your own needs, and into something the hosts no longer recognize, before embracing it. That's not assimilation
The neocons cynically use "democracy" as a smokescreen for their real intentions in the Mideast, which is to destabilize and if possible destroy the Arab countries and reduce them to failed states on the Somalian model. This is the only way to ensure that no Arab or Muslim state will ever be powerful enough to challenge Israel and its militaristic, expansionist goals, particularly the conquest of South Lebanon and seizure of the Litani River and its water. This is why we see Israel and the US financing and encouraging ethnic, tribal, religious and national rivalry throughout the Mideast: not to bring about democracy, but to create chaos through a classic divide and rule strategy. Barring that, they would prefer dictators like Mubarak and King Abdullah that will favor US and Israeli interests. The last thing they want is a true democracy anywhere in the Mideast because a true democracy will conform to the desires of its people and will support the Palestinians and oppose Israel and the US, as well as support any Arab or Muslim resistance to Israel. Democracy is the sales pitch, destruction is the objective. They don't want some Arab or Iranian version of Chavez running around, that's for damn sure.
Comments on this entry are closed.