There has been a lively response to my article of August 28 concerning Naomi Klein and the Durban anti-racism conferences–over 100 posts and counting as of a few hours ago. Perhaps I can select a few themes from the back and forth for a bit of expansion, as these seem to be the matters that arouse the deeper questions.
The identity of Zionism=racism definitely stirs up the most feeling and the most doubts. This is as it should be, because if the assertion is true, and if Zionism is the fundamental organizing ideology of the Jewish State, then Israel is not only in pretty bad company, but appears essentially unable to change. I happen to believe this to be the case, and it is a chief reason I wish to disabuse people of the hope for a two-state solution, so long as the Israeli side of this remains animated and structured by Zionism. For the problem with the two state solution is not just that the Palestinian state is a bad joke and unworthy of the allegiance of any self-respecting human being; it is also that the Jewish state is preserved in Zionist form within Two-state policies, and the overriding impulse of a such a state is to seize all the land and the power for Jews, hence to render the Palestinian state into said bad joke.
Zionism here means "political Zionism," which is only one of the forms taken by the ideology over the last century. It is however, also the only form capable of fulfilling the basic project of Zionism, which is to be the historical destiny of the Jewish people as a whole. This required control over land, which requires a state (the "political" part) as an instrument of force, necessary here because the land didn’t belong to the Jews and had to be seized if Zion was to be built. Since it’s wrong to steal another’s land, and since the Jewish identity that evolved under Zionist influence includes a powerful belief that Jews have been wronged and are inherently ethical people, an iron necessity has developed to deny the criminal implications of Zionism by blaming, despising and degrading the people whose land is being seized. This became the core of Israeli racism and it won’t go away so long as Zionism guides the Israeli experience.
It’s not necessarily true that all Zion/ists /need be rac/ists/.To be a racist properly means that consciously racist attitudes are held in mind; consciousness, however, is relatively easy to manipulate through various strategies. What counts is whether one’s allegiance to Israel, or what comes to the same thing, one’s equivocation about putting an end to Israeli crimes, objectively contributes to the perpetuation of said crimes and the annihilation of Palestinian human rights. This can take place without any particular attitude toward Palestinians, Arabs, or Muslims as people.
Another, related query came forth in the responses, namely whether I think nationalism itself leads inevitably to racism. I don’t believe so, though certainly a seed of racism exists within nationalism. Whether or not this sprouts depends, however, on the degree of universal values also embedded within the narratives that comprise a nationalist project. And this is turn depends upon whether nationalism arises in the context of a liberation struggle.
Unhappily, such a struggle played no real role in the rise of the State of Israel, which was pretty much entirely a story of usurpation. I say, a real role, because Zionism has made much of the mythic liberation struggles depicted in the Old Testament. The strength of this need accounts for the insistence of Biblical claims in the lore and propaganda of Zionism, and to a degree, for the rise of religious fundamentalism in what was originally meant to be a highly secular project. But myth and historical reality, alas, are not the same, and the actual narratives that enter into Israeli nationalism are tales of expropriation and not national liberation.
Hence they perpetually generate racist structures.
Zionism is nationalism, not “usurpation”.
The determination to form a state, rather than just a society came as necessity, as riots erupted early in all of the locales that early Zionists sought to reside and where Jews had resided for centuries.
A state is primarily defensive, as are all boundaries, even our skin.
I agree with you about the need for a humanistic sentiment to pervade nation’s to minimize the potential for racism and racist application.
I disagree with you about the role of Palestinians and other Arabs as victims, that in fact historically and over a long period, they were perpetrators of persecution as well as victims.
That is the reasoning that leads me to conclude that the issue is fundamentally a conflict, and only an oppression in policy and application, not in identity.
Joel,
You act as if that question is answered, rather than remaining a question, and in a form that encourages some abuse rather than consideration. And, most importantly, the speculation that single-state is possible, greatly delays what might otherwise be possible by acceptance of Israel as Israel (Zionist even), and assertion of Palestine as Palestine, with full protection for minority and individual rights in each.
As soon as the Zionists decided to put their nation somewhere, it became usurpation.
Nationalism, in theory, may be harmless, but establishing a nation in fact requires territory, which the Zionists took from the prior occupants.
Yet your sole concern is not for the victims, but that the perpetrators not be offended by being forced to confront the truth of their actions.
That’s a fine straw man you’ve built, Richard. Dr. Kovel’s point, as made clear by the final sentence in the paragraph preceding the statement about Zionism and usurpation, is that whether a nationalist movement’s “seed of racism” will “sprout” or not depends largely on the context of how that nationalist movement arose — that is, if it arose due to a “liberation struggle” (i.e. liberation from occupation — see Ireland).
It’s also possible for a nationalist movement to usurp, the other argument you failed to properly address. Joel Kovel said, “[a liberation struggle] … played no real role in the rise of the State of Israel, which was pretty much entirely a story of usurpation.” Nationalism is the ideology and the force by which the participants of the movement are unified, usurpation is the action the movement may take.
A state isn’t defined simply by its geographical boundaries, but more importantly, to use your analogy: one can use the bones and muscles the skin protects to rape and choke someone else to death, even a child. While the skin of a human being is indeed our protective boundary, and the borders of nation-states define their protective boundaries (that is, an unwelcome incursion over those borders would constitute an act of aggression), it’s a tremendous logical fallacy to suggest that human beings or nation-states are inherently “primarily defensive” simply because of the boundaries which outline them.
“A state is primarily defensive, as are all boundaries”
Nonsense. States can be, and often are, aggressive, not devensive. Israel and the United States are two of the most aggressive states in recent history.
And given that Israel has yet to define its “boundaries” – i.e. borders – and is clearly intent upon expanding them, it is a little silly to even mention such a concept in this context.
RE: Israel has yet to define its “boundaries”
MY COMMENT: Nor do they have a constitution (for obvious reasons).
Shirin,
You really think that boundaries are primarily offensive staging points?
Richard Witty, Why don’t you respond to what I actually said instead of pretending I said something I did not?
And what about Israel and its refusal so far to declare boundaries to its territory, hmmmm?
Witty, why are you ignoring the historical demography of the Palestine Mandate–from 1880 right up to the disproproportionate allocation of land by the UN partition to the Jews, and since then by the land-grabbing by Jews via settlements since 1967? Political Zionism has always been usupation. Your continual equivocation about putting an end to Israeli crimes, objectively contributes to the perpetuation of said crimes and the annihilation of Palestinian human rights.
Witty, you’re argument is just a tiny step above “a land without people for a people without land.” Do you favor a Palestinian state that is truly soverign, in control of its own borders and air space, equipped to fully defend itself, and to make treaties and agreements, as Israel now is? Yes or no?
Yes, I do personally. But, also the right of Israel to go to war with such a state if attacked by it.
This is a different relationship than the opportunistic deniability of Hezbollah and Hamas which attack on the basis that they are defending as a state is responsible, then claiming “we are not a state” when attack/defense efforts extend to a region.
Excellent piece, Joel.
Occasionally it’s interesting to go back to a time when discussion of Zionism was still permitted by the thought police. Here’s the original U.N Resolution adopted by the majority of the world’s population in 1975–
Resolution Adopted by the General Assembly on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination
The General Assembly,
…
Determines that zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination.
It’s not rocket science.
One basis of distrust in general assembly resolution process.
“Here’s the original U.N Resolution adopted by the majority of the world’s population in 1975″?
You mean the majority of the world’s governments. A country’s government does not necessarily have the mandate of the people. As the case with the Soviet bloc.
Do you know when that resolution was repealed? Hint: when the Soviet Union collapsed.
I seem to remember a rather large arm-twisting campaign by the world’s only remaining superpower.
(BTW, check the vote on the original resolution. You’ll find that it was indeed a global consensus.)
I think that much of this constant discussion of “racism” (as well as its equal “anti-semitism”) is a road to nowhere. Concerned totally with motives, with the true motivations of others ultimately being unknowable, it’s just a recipe for endless soul-autopsying and name-calling. And this despite the fact that nobody but nobody can seem to even agree on what racism or anti-semitism really means.
What bloody difference does it make in the end for most intents and purposes? Just because Hitler liked dogs don’t make dogs evil or bad. And just because one suspects another of harboring wrong or even ugly thoughts about something don’t mean that their stated ideas are wrong.
Of course for some limited purposes the analysis is fine. But too much today in the main all one seems to see is a silly battle to be the arbiter of the epithet, as if that and that alone were the end of the story.
I concur. Hating is a personal affair; it takes place within the confines of one’s own skin. It cannot be made into a crime. Murder, extortion, fraud, these are crimes that take place outside oneself.
When telekinesis becomes practical, then perhaps we can talk about “hate” crimes.
I don’t agree. One can take talk of racism and anti-semitism too far and use them as weapons to suppress opinions, but that’s not what is going on here. One couldn’t have a majority Jewish state in a land inhabited mostly by Arabs without imposing racist policies, up to and including ethnic cleansing.
I also don’t think it’s wrong to point out the problem of anti-semitism in the Arab world. How can one ignore the factor of hatred in a conflict? It’s absurd. The problem in the US is that we hear so much about anti-semitism amongst Arabs–we hear all sorts of bad things about Arabs–but we hear very little about Israeli racism and when it is mentioned, it is confined to the more extreme rightwingers. This is rather like white liberal Americans in the mid-20th century thinking that racism against blacks was only a problem among white Southerners (particularly poor rural whites who were often stereotyped themselves), not really noticing subtle forms of racism amongst themselves.
I’d agree but use what I think is a more apt analogy, which would be condemnation and focus on the racism of blacks in the US while ignoring the prevalent and institutionally supported racism of whites, or even worse, insisting that such white racism doesn’t exist.
Hatred may be an individual action, but racist states and institutions can and do encourage and reward such actions, and punish those who buck the racist tide. We are not talking about criminalization of attitudes here, but how to effect a positive change in attitudes. You can’t make a serious dent in racism when you ignore the institutional and instead attempt to deal with it only on the individual basis.
Richard Witty’s denial (“I disagree with you about the role of Palestinians and other Arabs as victims, that in fact historically and over a long period, they were perpetrators of persecution as well as victims”) is more extreme than telling the German Jews they had it coming to them.
In fact, even the most blatantly racist Holocaust Deniers come across as less extreme than he is being since (as best I know) not one stooped to a blood-libel quite this low.
Richard needs reminding that Herzl in 1895 always intended expelling the Palestinians – it’s in his diaries (his early biographers had access to the diaries but deliberately left it out, we only got to know of it in the 1970s). And Richard needs reminding that there are letters from the very earliest immigrants (1881/82, the Biluim) which make their robbing intentions perfectly clear. The crime for which the Palestinians are being so horribly punished down 3 generations and more is being much too gentle and tolerant of the immigrants.
That is a lame characterization of my comments, Michael.
And, you misrepresent Herzl’s views and the views of the vanguard of early Jewish settlers, and of the masses of Jewish refugees.
Richard Witty, if you’re in a hole, caught out using arguments more disgusting than those which come from most (if not all) Holocaust Deniers, then stop digging.
You know full well that nearly all Zionists, from Herzl to the present day, intended ethnic cleansing. The only exceptions are the “exceptional” and very early (pre-1908) colonists of Rehovot. Unless you want us to count Jabotinsky’s Revisionist Zionists, who only believed in land-robbery, not necessarily transfer. This is not your “despicable victims” telling us of the wave of pogroms, Benny Morris is a strong supporter of ethnic cleansing – and yet even he documents it all.
So don’t peddle us your denialism, seeking cover behind the fact that some of the early Zionists realised the danger of showing their hand. Like you, they never fell out with the brutes in their number.
One of Kovel’s conclusions is that “Israel is unable to change, so long as it retains “Zionism” as a core ideology”.
I think that is self-talk, that belies actual history.
It is reasonable to conclude support for Palestinians’ needs, dignity, political aspirations, without such dismissive and decree-like sentiments towards Israel and Zionism.
One of Kovel’s conclusions is that “Israel is unable to change, so long as it retains “Zionism” as a core ideology”. I think that is self-talk, that belies actual history.
I think if one defines Zionism as support for ethnic cleansing and colonization of the Occupied Palestinian Territories, the claim that “Israel is unable to change” is extremely historically accurate post-1967. I realize that there are diverse views of Zionism. However, let us look reality squarely in the face: proponents of colonial Zionism utterly dominate the relevant political processes both in the United States and in Israel.
While those with more moderate Zionist views may be increasing as a percentage of the population in the United States, at present they do not have a single seat at the table of power, and they aren’t going to be getting enough seats to supplant, or even hinder, the colonials anytime soon. In Israel, despite heroic efforts, they are spitting in the wind.
Unfortunately, moderate Zionists in Israel have already been defeated, in my opinion more than 20 years ago. Colonial Zionism isn’t just embedded within most Israeli social, political, governmental, and military organizations, it now defines them. Even with a fantasy gedanken experiment overnight-transformation of 80-90% of the electorate, I think it extremely unlikely that the precarious and weak Israeli political system could impose genuine implementation of alternative policies on their almost unaccountable bureaucracies and private colonial entities.
Stopping wars is vastly more difficult than starting them, and the war of gradual ethnic cleansing and colonization against Palestinians has been going on for more than 40 years, increasingly entrenched into Israeli self-perceptions and notions of personal identity (and in Palestinians’). It is elemental human nature to get one’s hackles up when one perceives a threat to self-identity, and introspection under duress requires an extraordinary level of moral strength and courage that most people simply don’t have. I think that any change is going to come from moderate and non-Zionists in America, not so attached to the ‘traditional narrative’, reaching out to and prodding along potential converts from among their more fearful and conservative brethren. Kudos to Phil and Adam for stepping up to the plate and leading the way.
Moderate Zionism is conditional.
If there is a prospect for peace that does not expose the population to terror, then that is chosen.
If they perceive (or are told) that there is no prospect for peace that does not expose the population to terror, then they go fortress. It applies to most of the leaders, but not the current administration which is admittedly intent on incremental annexation.
That is why I advocate for peace-making rather than BDS. BDS ends the discussion as a discussion. Dissent and institution-building starts the discussion and shifts it from power/victim to power/close to peer.
Prior to ’48 I read that the largest population of Jews lived in Bagdhad. After the ethnic cleansing of the indigenous Arabs it became hard for Jews throughout the Arab world to live a normal life. I have also read that this was a desired effect for the Zionists. Can anyone fill me in on this nugget of history.
The most thorough coverage of Jews in Arab countries after 1948 was probably done by Marion Woolfson in the 1980′s, in “Prophets in Babylon: Jews in the Arab World”. I think its still available from used book sellers. Also, Tom Segev had a chapter on it in “1949:The First Israelis”, and there is a book specifically on the case Iraqi Jews by Abbas Shiblak called “The Lure of Zion”. and John Rose has a chapter or two on it in “The Myths of Zionism”. Also, there are some very old books by Rabbi Elmer Berger which touch on his visits to Arab Jewish communities and his understanding that US Jewish and Israeli efforts to “rescue” them were counter to their desires and safety. I think that most of his books are available from used book sellers, and all are quite inspiring from an early anti-Zionist American Jew.
On the internet you can search for pieces from Yehuda Shenhav(Israeli professor) and David Shasha.
Overall, I’d say your comments are correct, and that in some cases Zionist emissaries worked to create or increase some of those problems. Also, some Arab Jews were lured by the prospect of a better life, and some were lured because they believed that they were helping other Jews who were under attack in Israel.
Another aspect of the story is the treatment these Arab Jews received in Israel. Here is an excerpt from Hanna Braun, who emigrated to Palestine in 1937, and left Israel, disillusioned, in 1958.
Hanna Braun
Those are the exceptions. The majority was overtly forced out of the sephardic diaspora or scared out. Very comparable to the Palestinian mix of motivations for exodus.
So I see you want to have it both ways. Jews are a nation apart and have always longed for “self-governance” in your view, but on the other hand the Arab Jews only came to Israel because they were forced out of their home countries. Which is it? How could the longing for ‘self-governance” and nationhood really be as universal as you make it out to be if the Arab Jews didn’t come of their own accord?
Most of the Palestinians were either expelled or left in fear for their lives. No one came and told them the grass would be greener elsewhere, as the Zionist emissaries in Arab lands told the Arab Jews, or that their fellow Palestinians needed their help in a foreign country, as was told to the Arab Jews. No one offered them monetary incentives to come to another country, as Israel did to those who made “aliyah”. No Palestinians willingly renounced their citizenship, none were allowed to return to their homes, even when their homes were in sight of their refugee camps.
Egypt was the only Arab country that actually expelled Jews, and the only Jews it expelled were those who carried British or French citizenship, and not Egyptian citizenship. Some Jews suffered in Arab countries after Israel, claiming to be the State of all Jews, expelled the Palestinians and refused their return, but the Zionists only cared about bringing more Jewish “human material”(an Israeli term) to Israel, and did nothing to help those Arab Jews in their own countries. It was not equivalent to what the Palestinians suffered.
The mix of original motives for diaspora Sephardic Jews to leave their former very long-term homes (often comparable or even longer than some Palestinians’ residence in former Palestine), was similar to the mix that led the Palestinians to leave their homes.
Some by choice, some by force, and likely in nearly equal proportions to Palestinians.
In every Arab state, there was persecution. You are wrong about overt expulsion. I believe Yemen overtly expelled their Jewish residents, which had a very high number of long-time Jewish residents. In all communities, they lived in an environment of quite intense fear.
Its not really a very progressive attitude to dismiss that persecution, just to prove some contemptuous thesis about Israel.
Also, I think you were wrong about “no Arab voluntarily left”. I understood that there were many that feared and many that explicitly chose not to live in a Jewish state, and sought other residence.
Is that choice? I don’t know. It wasn’t choice for the sephardic community Jews to be forced to emigrate either.
Witty, I’m not denying that some Jews left because they felt unsafe or persecuted. I am denying your assertion that the conditions were the same as for the Palestinians who had no choice and no option to return, and were not lured away by a longing for another place. That assertion of yours is very hurtful and not true or even progressive to make in an attempt to excuse what Israel did.
I have read numerous accounts from Arab Jews that insist that they personally were NOT forced to leave nor did they chose to leave because of persecution. The account from Hanna Braun, which upset you so, is similar in type and tone to those accounts I have read, in Israeli sources and other places. I have yet to read an account from a Palestinian who claims to have left because he or she didn’t want to live there. That should tell you something. Sadly, you can’t hear it.
P.S. By all accounts, Israeli included, Israel bribed the Yemeni government to allow its Jews to leave for Israel. The Yemenis Jews weren’t asked. The Israelis considered it their right to speak for them. Considering how Israel treated them, including the ringworm scandal and the kidnapping of Yemeni children, its hard to say if Israel did them a favor or a disservice.
Tree,
You are dismissing the degree and manner of persecution that led to Sephardic Jews forced emigration.
Because Israel existed, the sephardic Jews were no longer safe in their countries of residence, so they moved to where they were invited.
I really don’t have a clue what you mean by “want it both ways”.
No Richard, I am putting it in perspective. It was not analogous to what happened to the Palestinians in Israel. Have you not read Segev?
………….
Segev, 1949:The First Israelis”
You wax on about how all Jewish people constitute a nation and that Israel fulfills a long denied “need” for “self-governance” that this Jewish nation feels. If that was true then that yearning would be what draws Jews to Israel, and not merely a sense of persecution. Did your son feel persecuted in the US and so felt the need to become a refugee or did he, growing up with a learned attitude that Israel was a part of his identity, choose to go there regardless of the fact that he was not persecuted here? Or did he even go there because he felt that Israel needed him rather more than he needed it?
You insist on the existence a universal Jewish sense of nationhood, and yet at the same time you insist that the vast majority of Arab Jews only immigrated to Israel because they were “forced out” of their country of origin, not for any desire to complete this “nationhood”. Thats what I mean by you having it both ways, even though one thought contradicts the other. But neither of your contradictory thoughts represents the full truth of what happened to the Jews from Arab countries.
I don’t see the relevance of whatever contradiction you are referring to.
You seem to be looking for reasons that Israel is evil and persecutorial, or that European Jews (themselves very various) are evil or persecutorial.
I don’t deny that there are conflicts and wrongs, but that the truth that Jews are a people remains. And, with free choice (in most cases), we express that in different degrees and in different ways.
I think that you are right that if the holocaust hadn’t happened, that Israel wouldn’t have emerged as a state, that even if there was a utopian desire on the part of many, it would not yet be a need.
And, that the presence of Israel at all, had a cascading effect on middle eastern history.
But, it is also a truth that Israel is small in the Levant even, and should not evoke the degree of animosity that it does, short of other prejudicial concerns.
Larger forced migrations occur routinely, and much more harshly, but are entirely ignored by the left, or even rationalized as inconsequential.
I write often on simplicity as a value, positively. The key word in that is “enough”. On either side of “enough” is unhealth.
Following WW2, European Jewish refugees sought “enough”, and the only locale where that was possible was in Israel. (ALL other states refused, literally, to accept Jewish refugees beyond token numbers.)
Currently, Palestine and Palestinians don’t have “enough”.
The descriptions of external Zionist urging sephardic refugees to come to Israel in some manipulated solidarity, is very parallel to the horrid effects of forced solidarity on Palestinian refugees in Lebanon for example that are still not afforded Lebanese citizenship after three generations of being born there.
“But, it is also a truth that Israel is small in the Levant even, and should not evoke the degree of animosity that it does, short of other prejudicial concerns.”
There’s a bit of Richard’s bias coming out in the open–if you criticize Israel more than he does, you are anti-semitic.
Not that there aren’t anti-semites jumping on this issue. But Richard’s attitude is pretty clear–Israel is guilty of some things, but nothing too terrible, not compared to what others have done and if you disagree, you’re a hater.
This in itself is a big part of the problem–people like Richard have convinced themselves that they favor peace and reconciliation and this is true to an extent in his case , but he has closed his mind to any criticism that is harsher than he wants to hear and if you insist on talking about such things, then either you are an anti-semite or a terrible person (like, I suppose, Norm Finkelstein).
They both did not have the option to reverse their decisions.
Not entirely true. Most Arab countries allow their former Jewish citizens to return, subject to the laws of naturalization. Morocco has even been encouraging Moroccan Jews to return. Part of the problem with an immediate return though was the fact that Israel immediately conferred citizenship status on the immigrant Jews, thus nullifying their previous citizenship status. You need to read up on this, Richard. You are not very well informed.
This might not be too flattering for all of us, but it has to be mentioned. Here is Zionism, we have a group that believes in these “myths” (not all, but this is the claims of the vocal adherents). The myths are something that they believe that they have been destined to in this land, it is sort of a self-aggrandizement that they are special and have this specific purpose in life.
It manifests itself as racism against another group of people, a sort of obsession that no good can come this other race – the Arabs, and in particular the Palestinians locally, but it is being surrounded by these “Arabs.” You have all manner of institutions erected as “experts” in this subject of “those people” (The Arabs). There is tons of media that pours out all manner of vitriol regarding this ultimate “enemy,” papers, electronic media – indeed, there are entire studies just made to denigrate “those people.” It bears all of the earmarks of explicit racism, trying to vilify these people in all of their relations (family, governmental ability, mental capacity, I mean everything is turned falsely into a detriment – they are made to be a scourge on humanity. The Israeli society is decidedly militaristic, everyone is supposed to serve – it is almost like an army with a nation, rather than a nation with an army. It strikes out at the indigenous population, and all of the surrounding “Arab nations.”
The official stance of this nation has turned fascist, this can be seen in the election choices. This racism, fascism has been entered all areas of governance and life – wanting to build walls around “those people,” because all the Zionists (vocal ones espousing these sentiments, and in power) know how violent “they” are. You see and hear interviews with people during the latest debacle which is an escalation of violence called “Operation Cast Lead” – which say they should raze all of Gaza. Ninety five percent of the people approve of this brutal bombing, shelling, unleashing awful and illegal weapons to burn the flesh from the Palestinians bodies, and shooting of a mostly defenseless people, with almost half of the population being children.
What kind of a nation does these things? What nation does this remind you of, one with a mission to systematically destroy a specific people? Things have been getting worse and worse – what do you think, when it is all said and done, what are they going to do to the Palestinian people?
You don’t think Israel’s mission is to survive?
Why characterize it as “to destroy another people”.
They don’t live to destroy. What a contemptuous statement.
I think we’ve all heard these type of rhetorical questions and declarative statements before–in Europe between the two world wars, for obvious example.
First of all – Zionism has nothing to do with the true teachings of Torah. Zionism is basically based on the teachings of hatred toward Gentiles in the Talmud and modern Jewish definition of ‘Jewishness’ based on the ‘Jewish motherhood’ which is a pure racist doctrine.
The Zionist regime and its ZOG supporters boycotted or walked-out of Durban conference was their show of their obedience to the Zionist state and act to save their political career from being ruined by called “anti-Semite” or “Jew haters”.
My April 25, 2009 article titled “Canadian group at Durban II”
link to rehmat1.wordpress.com
Are you a plant?
You present exactly the sentiments that justify right-wing forms of Zionism?
Richard, are you claiming there are none, or not many teachings of hatred toward Gentiles in the (uncensored) Talmud?
Are you claiming Zionism and Torah are fully compatible? Or at least that there is
no significant difference between the two?
Are you claiming the definition of Jew as being born of a Jewish mother (or as having a Jewish parent or grandparent for that matter) has no rascist or ethnic
overtones, or substantially none, say as compared to the definition of a Christian or Muslim? Are you saying the matriarchal line litmus test has not played a very
significant historical part in Judiasm’s determination of who is a Jew without conversion? Or that said litmus test no longer applies, or is insignificant today?
Sentiments depend more on feelings than facts; they appeal to the emotions rather than analytical thought based on all known facts. That being so, how do the things
you say are sentiments justify right-wing Zionism by its own lights?
Please tell us what you mean by your usage of the term “sentiments” in response
to what Rehmat said.
Torah and Talmud teach “love thy neighbor as thyself”, and “do not do unto others what you would not have done to yourself”.
They also teach, “he who is before you may be the Messiah”.
I also question how and to what extent individuals, and some rabbinic teachings (with loyal followers) apply those two oft-repeated themes.
But, that is a different beast than your dumpster diving, Citizen.
As Talmud is the collection of dialog, and NOT definition of Jewish law, which you are opportunistically ignorant of (or repeat even though you know the truth of it), there likely are offending comments in Talmud, as there are many many universal sentiments expressed.
Richard,
You have not answered any of my questions. Par for your course. Instead you have called me a dumpster diver. So, you call me trash in that I dive after trash; good to know that’s what you think of the issues I raised–I will let readers here decide for themselves who is the trash, and who is talking trash.
The question of who is one’s “neighbor” in the Torah and Talmud has long been debated among leading Jews; you talk as if that’s not true; as if it’s a settled issue–and it’s not; here is a tiny skimming of the surface of the issue:
link to metanexus.net
And you know there are many
examples of double moral and ethical standard narratives in the Talmud, very explicit ones. Anyone who desires can find them. Their recognition is also provided by the Jewish redacted
text of the Talmud accessible to the general Western gentiles.
Why don’t you address the issues I raised instead of calling me names, Mister Reason?
I don’t deny Talmud is a collection of Jewish dialogue. And I never did. I never suggested any rabbi or all of them together were the pope, or the papacy. You have not shown that I am ignorant, and I resent you calling me, in the alternative, a liar.
For a man who usually poses as Mister Reason, you sure like to insinuate or directly call
me derogatory names.
There are many non-univeral sentiments expressed in the Talmud. You imply there
are not so many as universal sentiments. Given the problem of translation, and redaction, you
calling me a liar or dumpster diver help the free exchange of ideas and their impact?
Again,
If you find an odious opinion in Talmud, that is all that you are finding. It is not Jewish law, it is only a single person’s speculative opinion.
You’d have to read other texts for Jewish law, shulchan aruch for example.
I answered you “citizen”. You didn’t like my answer. To attack another’s religion, and particularly without knowledge, is dumpster diving, sorry to say.
You are intentionally looking to demean another. Why?
Hamas Objects to Possible Lessons on Holocaust in U.N.-Run Schools in Gaza
link to washingtonpost.com
….
U.N. officials, who say they are only discussing changes to a school program on human rights, have not commented directly on whether any new curriculum will reference the Holocaust. But Hamas leaders, saying any such reference would “contradict” their culture, are moving quickly to head off the possibility.
“Talk about the holocaust and the execution of the Jews contradicts and is against our culture, our principles, our traditions, values, heritage and religion,” Jamila al-Shanti, a Hamas legislative official, said in a statement distributed Tuesday after a meeting among elected leaders of the radical Islamist group and the head of the Hamas-run Education Ministry in Gaza.
Hamas Education Minister Muhammad Askol used similar language in criticizing the U.N. Relief and Works Agency, or UNRWA, saying it was not respecting Hamas’s “sovereignty” over Gaza.
Any comments?
The Holocaust has been used as a club to beat the Palestinians and an excuse to expropriate their lands. It is hardly surprising that they don’t want to hear any more about it. Wrong-headed, but hardly surprising.
The shameful thing is the way the Israelis refuse to let the Nakba be taught in their schools. At least Hamas bears no responsibility for the Holocaust, whereas Israel is simply denying their responsibility for the Nakba. Their guilt. But of course we can’t make the Israelis feel guilty for their crimes.
Do Israeli schools teach about the Nakba? I was informed that they do not. If you know differently, please give us your source.
Pingback: How can American Jews demand equality in the US and defend a system of inequality in Israel/Palestine?
Truth is just truth.
It stops being a club in the present when respected. To deny the Palestinian people the opportunity to even interpret the relevance of the truth for themselves, is a cynicism, a fascist approach.
Even Likud officials have recently spoken of the suffering that Palestinians endured in 1948. Its known by school children. And, the attempt to keep it from being known further is very troubling to me.
In Arad in 1986, my third cousin was studying Arabic, along with 2/3 of her classmates. To not study Arabic was an exception. That is no longer the case.
The nakba is a phenomena of 700,000 either forcefully removed or choosing to move (some of each), and not being permitted to return, a partial ethnic cleansing at the worst assessment. Refugee status maintained “in solidarity”, with former refugees in Lebanon in particular not absorbed into the population, and not permitted citizenship.
The holocaust is a phenomena of orchestrated mass death, overt slavery, organized medical experimentation on individuals and communities, ghettoization to the point of starvation (exceeding far beyond blockade).
The Jewish Israelis do not learn of the Nakba; it’s not even a term used in their K-12 textbooks; it has also recently been banned in Arab Israeli textbooks:
link to mecaforpeace.org
Every Western child is schooled in the Shoah, and monuments to it are in our most precious public places. These children have never heard of the Nakba. Nor has it ever appeared in a Hollywood movie. Is it that much lesser to deserve such sustained ignorance, even given the holocast as you define it in comparison? Especially since the Palestinians did not participate in the Shoah?
So, no real comment on the very critical area of modern Jewish and Israeli history?
Don’t you understand the grotesqueness of the Naqba? Using the Holocaust as an excuse to ethnically cleanse another people. Is this the case that “our suffering was more so we can righteously shit all over you”? SHAME!!!!!
You sound like Norman.
I felt shame over Vietnam, I felt shame for the Contras, I feel shame over Iraq and Afghanistan. I have marched and talked endlessly over this. Aren’t you ashamed for the Naqba Richard? It was done in your name.
Its called “Holocaust hegemony,” whereby you smother the sufferings of others. Zionists however pay no heed to the Holocaust or its victims, they are just interested in the image. By the year 2012 there will be 1 billion Holocaust survivors (they make such light fare of the idea of survivors, that they are a growing population…)!
They are just interested in the image because they treat the real survivors like shit, so that they have to decide between food and life saving drugs. In my own community I had to (and still do) help, because they will never see a dime of the billions they bilked out of banks. Even though I am more generations removed it still makes me cringe that these reprobates would use the death and suffering to pad their own pockets.
However, the most grotesque aspect og this exploitation of this is to smother the suffering and moral voices of others with the Holocaust, it is unconscionable. It is almost like a deal was struck with other aggressors, that as long as they do not goose step, they are not committing genocide. So limiting the definitions, no where near the original, to make loopholes so big tanks can get through them. If you want to argue about this, there is plenty of more information and I am more than willing to verbally sack you in the process.
I feel proud that Jews asserted themselves/ourselves to “never again”.
I wish that it didn’t require harming others to assert one’s own identity and place, but it is and was.
In the present, I work to assist healing and the formation of a healthy functional Palestine, and oppose punitive approaches by both Israel and Palestinian solidarity.
I seek to not repeat harming in my name when it is unnecessary, and I support those in Israel that defend against retributive approaches. I attempt to distinguish between defense and offense, but can’t always.
As much as you and others feel “sure” of your views, you likely are not in fact, and more likely select material to support your conclusions very censorially, just as you criticize Israelis for doing on their end.
The Germans fully understand, and have taken to heart, the meaning of “never again”. It means “this kind of event must never happen”
Not so Israelis, who want us to believe its their turn now. Even that attitude, repugnant though it be, is more understandable than outsiders who defend them for it.
That’s just the kind of excuse that Nazi Germany used to excuse its expulsion, genocide and plunder.
Nothing about the creation of Israel was necessary. If only a quarter of the time and treasure used to create the state of Israel was used to rescue Jews in Europe, then there would have been millions more Jews alive and millions of Palestinians saved from lives of despair.
Palestine/Israel couldn’t have taken in 6 million Jews, or even a million at that time, without the violent dispossession of Palestinians (or even incredible and possibly life-threatening hardship for the Jewish refugees, since you seem to rank Jewish pain higher on the scale of wrongs than Palestinian pain). Most of the Zionist Executive recognized this, wrote off most of the Jews of Europe except the young “pioneers” it desired, did little to nothing to help those who weren’t interested in coming to Palestine, and even actively discouraged any attempts to rescue anyone unless it involved carting them off to Palestine( assuming of course, that the Jews were of “good human material”. It was not in the interest of most European Jews, and most did not want to go there.
And after the War this did not change. Despite the fact that Zionist Jews were allowed to run the post-war Jewish displaced persons camps, and cajoled and intimidated those who disagreed, most DPs chose to move elsewhere, either to the US or other European countries. Immigration to the US was vehemently opposed by US Zionist organizations after WWII, lest there be less Jews forced to go to Israel/Palestine. Look up Lessing Rosenwald, a strong and brave advocate for allowing the displaced Jews to come to America. Nearly single-handedly he was able to convince the US government to loosen the restrictions and allow Jewish DPs to come to the US. If he hadn’t been opposed by Zionist he could have achieved this much earlier.
You are excusing great pain and suffering that was neither necessary nor inevitable because of your ego need for a fantasy Israel.
Tree,
It amazes me that you are ignorant of the experience of actual post WW2 European Jewish refugees.
I do as my family, and friends of family, and their friends each told me similar stories in different locales in Hungary post war. That was that they were continued to be harrassed and forced from their former residences by the remaining fascist Hungarian cadre, on the basis that “they were the reason for the war”.
The very few Polish and Rumanian survivors experienced similarly. In Russia, the army was known for its proclivity to rape.
The United States chose not to accept refugees by the intervention of “America First” agitation, having NOTHING to do with Zionist urgings (maybe extremely slightly). The only place that those refugees could go was to Israel.
My mother-in-law went to large cities, where it was possible to hide away and be more anonymous, but only temporarily.
You are rationalizing for a prejudice, rather than respecting history and human need.
It is reasonable to bring your compassion to the Palestinians who have current difficulty and prospective continuing or worse, but it is unreasonable to reinvent history to support a current objective.
We share the criticism of the right in Israel reinventing history, and my prescription for the remedy for that is to be informed and compassionately and clearly convey the truth, and in a form that is undeniable. Browbeating is NOT that form.
Just the opposite.
It should be apparent to any observer by now, that neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians will be forced from their homes or forced from political self-determination without objection. To hope for that in any manner is counterproductive.
The only success is in reconciliation. BDS will fail miserably. And, an act of war that fails miserably, does not achieve its objective or carelessly, is only cruelty.
Richard – some of the points you make about hatred aimed at Sephardic Jews are presumably genuine. However, this argument and similar examples have been so abused and lied about that we’re entitled to yawn and think you’re repeating hasbara.
In the meantime, much of the other stuff from you reminds us of the conduct of Holocaust Deniers, in fact it’s often worse. Statements such as “Very comparable to the Palestinian mix of motivations for exodus” turn the stomach of decent people.
Gerald Fredrick Toben has just been imprisoned for “villifying the Jewish people” on his web-site (or, rather, breaking the court order to stop doing it). The main charge (correct me if I’m wrong) was re-stated by the prosecution as follows, Toben had said “that Jewish people who offended by Holocaust now were of limited intelligence, and that some Jewish people had, for improper purposes, exaggerated the number of Jews killed during World War II, and were doing so in order to profit from the perpetuation of what is described as ‘a Holocaust myth’.”
Your conduct, deliberately flaunted in front of people who you know will be offended by it (something Toben was not doing) is far worse than that. If there are lessons to be learned from the Holocaust and from those who deny it for cynical reasons (in your case, to defend a racist/apartheid regime), then we need rid of you from here.
Hence, I’m registering a “Report Abuse” on you for (1) accusing me of dishonesty with “you misrepresent Herzl’s views and the views of the vanguard of early Jewish settlers, and of the masses of Jewish refugees.” but then (2) cynically failing (indeed ignoring) my detailed response eg “You know full well that nearly all Zionists, from Herzl to the present day, intended ethnic cleansing.” This blog is provided for exchange of views and information, you’ve ceased to take a meaningful part in it. (Many more examples just on this page, you brought up “never again” and then cynically ignored my challenge of it, you cynically snapped at Citizen’s comparison of teaching of the Nakba and teaching of the Shoah).
There’s a lot more that’s offensive in what you’re doing, but I think that’s ample to have you buttoned.
You are not well-served by dismissing others arguments so cavalierly by the term “hasbara”.
The reason I say that is that there is truth in the arguments, and you can only then rely on the propaganda of picking sides in a war, rather than consider others’ perspectives and understand history or present reality anywhere near completely.
Michael,
Your dismissal of the experience of those Jews persecuted in “haven” Muslim countries, similarly turns the stomach of rational informed people.
To understand reality, you have to take in multiple truths that remain as truths.
You misrepresented my response to assertions that the nakba is not being taught. I stated that I believed that it should be taught, that in the era preceding and around Oslo, many Israelis were educated as to it, and were educated even in Arabic.
Perhaps you didn’t read that post.
Your assertion “You know full well that nearly all Zionists, from Herzl to the present day, intended ethnic cleansing.” is actually FALSE. If you read a broader section of actual Zionist literature, you’d read that actual residents did not actively seek ethnic cleansing, but preferred co-existence if it was possible. They sought to reside, not to expel.
If anything they were guilty of not understanding their neighbors. But, the early violence against plain residents (analagous to historical anti-immigrant violence in the US), scared them to the bone.
Your description of what is “offensive” prohibits live and let live.
Experiment with accepting Jewish/Zionist presence and residence and state, but criticizing policies, rather than your wholesale and uninformed and utterly unsympathetic condemnation.
Better that you adopt mutual sympathy, if you are to invest in any attitude that could be called progressive.
You know, there was a period of time that the Ku Klux Klan was a populist movement. It was presented to the people as progressive, just, supportive of labor, supportive of farmers.
They agitated against agricultural price fixing, cornering of commodity markets on Wall Street. But, they came to express that most prominently in anti-immigrant stands, and then in racist assertions, then lynching and burning people’s homes, farms, businesses.
They might even have perceived accurately that their world would change if the effects of the rest of the world creeped in. Migrations from other sites of trauma.
Its ironic to me to hear the assertion of universal humanism associated with the urge to prohibit assimilation of refugees from their trauma.
It upsets me when I hear actual callousness expressed towards Palestinians lives, and it upsets me when I hear callousness expressed towards Jews’ and Zionists’ lives.
I don’t buy either propaganda, but do seek to understand what are real needs, and to assertively VALUE them.
Mutually not selectively. But, needs are DIFFERENT than demands.