Something special is happening to the discourse about Palestine and Israel in the United States. New spaces are opening up where none existed before. For instance, some Palestinians, Israelis and Jews are talking openly about a one-state solution to the heretofore-intractable conflict. A greater number of Jewish people talk about being post-, or anti-Zionist and they’re talking about it within their communities. On the Palestinian side, more people are coming to the realization that there will never be a Palestinian state – although Palestinian elites have been slow to publicly admit the reality. A number of factors have contributed to the changing and splintering of the conversation, most notably, amongst Jewish groups in the United States.
First, there was the London Review of Books article published by Professors Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer in 2006. The article aroused so much interest and controversy that it was lengthened and adapted into a book. It prompted a new discussion highlighted by the question of whether Israel’s foreign policy interests were necessarily the same as America’s foreign policy interests. The discussion took on new relevance as Israel destroyed southern Lebanon and American troops faced escalating violence in nearby Iraq. Today, few American policy advisers would insist that it is in America’s best interest to attack Iran, or to permit an Israeli attack on Iran.
President Carter’s book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, went a long way towards introducing the reality of apartheid to an American audience. He was publically vilified for accurately describing a situation that most Americans are instinctively against; the ethnic separation of two peoples, with one subjugating and dominating another to enhance its control of resources and maintain its racial privilege. Neocolonialism would have been an apt description as well. Zionists sharply condemned the use of the word “Apartheid” because of the psychological linkage it created between Zionist Israel and Apartheid South Africa. This despite the fact that Zionist Israel and Apartheid South Africa share many characteristics, including an institutionalized preference for one race over another.
The rise of the blogosphere, and the proliferation of blogs such as this one, has further encouraged the splintering I mentioned earlier. A reader who is vexed by President Carter’s use of the word Apartheid to describe the actions of Zionist Israel need only probe superficially to gain access to a wide range of media, both for and against the characterization. Through viewing videos posted on YouTube, reading first-hand accounts by members of her community on their blogs, and participating actively in near real-time discussions about articles through blog response boards, the reader can gain a more accurate picture of reality than what has been narrowly presented by the various interests that impact the editorial decisions of many news editors around the country. The democratization of access to information has revealed the uncomfortable reality of Palestine to any American willing to look. That brutal reality presented itself most recently through the January Massacre in the Gaza Strip. Despite scant reporting and a near blackout of images of the carnage in American newspapers, readers saw the reality. Blogs like this one did the legwork.
Yet, despite all the progress made in recent years, I remain frustrated by one dominant discursive characteristic. That is the tendency of Jewish commentators to speak about the conflict through a Jewish lens. On its face, this criticism appears absurd. It’s natural for Jews who have identified with Israel for most of their lives to question Israel’s actions, and its very existence, through the identity that enamored them of Israel in the first place. Many of Israel’s Jewish critics are so critical precisely because of their love for Israel, or at least the Jewish people. However, it is this tendency that gives rise to a myopic view of the situation.
Jewish people who are critical of Israel are right to question what Israel means to them as Jews. “Not in my name” is a solid basis for taking issue with the often-criminal behavior of the Zionist Israeli government. But it is not enough to eventually heal the rift between the Jewish and Palestinian peoples. A purely Jewish focus on a more-than-Jewish problem causes many leftist Jews to take a paternalistic view of Palestinians. Rather than equals whose inalienable rights form the crux of the case against Zionism, the Palestinians are the clay of Jewish humanism, waiting to be fully actualized by thoughtful and reflective Jewish hands. Instead of insisting that Palestinians are human beings whose existence is the repudiation of Zionism, some Jews on the left argue that Zionism violates Jewish ethics. I am not suggesting that the two streams of thought are mutually exclusive, only that the focus on one may inhibit the realization of the other.
While I believe that the soul searching is positive, I want to emphasize to the Jewish community that the crisis at hand is not one of Jewish humanist values versus Jewish nationalism. While that is a very real struggle for the Jewish people, it must be remembered that the real struggle in Palestine/Israel is for the rights of the individual irrespective of creed or communal identification in the face of ethnocentric chauvinism. The focus ought to be shifted from “Where have we gone as Jews” to “What is happening to other human beings in Israel/Palestine?” Frankly, human beings are suffering at the hands of Zionists while well-meaning Jews engage in handwringing over Jewish identity and what that means in the context of Zionism. There is a right time to reflect on that question, but the more pressing issue is the humanitarian one. There is nothing ambiguous about the fact that all people are created equally and ought to be treated equally under the law.
Ahmed Moor, if you want to talk about aparthied, you can start with the Arabs.
Does the people Kurds, Coptics, Black Christians of Sudan and Berbers mean anything to you.
Sadly the Arab oil lobby has prevented any talk about Arab aparthied.
Ignore the troll.
Agreed. This is the old “Yea, we may be bad but they’re bad too” argument you often get when you try to discuss these issues with some. For the life of me I don’t understand why any thinking person would believe it helps their cause. It basically admits that they are guilty of the wrong for which they are being accused.
Nomi, I think you need to take the advice of our resident Hasbara monitor, Mooser–he’s in charge of monitoring Hasbara 101 here. You are in way over your head here. These are not ignorant waters you can play in for diversion like a plastic kiddie pool.
He’s more than the Hasbara monitor. He’s the Mondoweiss mascot, IMHO. And he’s fucking funny.
Mooser definitely has a gift with turning a phrase, and using humor effectively as a rhetorical weapon. Cheers to your sense of humor, guy!
RE: “the Hasbara monitor/Mondoweiss mascot, IMHO” – a/k/a Mooser
MEMORABLE QUOTES for “Invasion of the Body Snatchers” (1956)
> Wilma Lentz: “There’s no emotion. None. Just the pretense of it. The words, the gesture, the tone of voice, everything else is the same, but not the feeling.”
> Dr. Miles J. Bennell: “This is the oddest thing I’ve ever heard of. Let’s hope we don’t catch it. I’d hate to wake up some morning and find out that you weren’t you.”
> Dr. Miles J. Bennell: “Drugs* dull the mind – maybe that’s the reason.”
* Mooser’s “ziocaine”? – J.L.D.
IMDB SOURCE – link to imdb.com
ALSO SEE MY RELATED COMMENTS (October 30, 2009 at 1:07 PM / October 30, 2009 at 1:30 PM / October 30, 2009 at 1:42 PM) UNDER “LIKUD LUNACY: GOLDSTONE LIABLE FOR SYNAGOGUE SHOOTINGS” @ Tikun Olam
link to richardsilverstein.com
Gosh, that’s a hell of a thing to imbibe with my morning coffee! Thanks to all! But you guys are much, much too modest. My objection to Zionism were innate, as soon as I found out what it was, I was revolted by it, wanted no part of it, didn’t think it was in any way Jewish, and thought it would come to a bad end. So what more did I need to know? I was in my teen years, and even the thought of losing my virginity to an iron-thighed sabra or handling a machine-gun could not reconcile me to Zionism. Besides, I heard rumors about what time they get you up in the morning at a kbbutz.
You people are the ones with the facts, the ones with the devastating factual answers to Witty, and the rest of the hasbara. Never at a loss for the facts or a link to go with.
Compared to you guys, I’m just sitting in the dark and screaming NO!
nomi998 – the new witty with much less finesse.. this article is specifically for people like you!
Here’s a clue for the mentally challenged around here who don’t understand the relevance: There’s no Arab or Muslim regime which gives equal rights to minorities (religious minorities, women, gays, you name it).
Imagine an alternative history: a Muslim state was established in historical Palestine, with a large Jewish minority. Three guesses for what type of existing Muslim regime it would resemble:
A. Syria – an oligarchic hereditary dictatorship, under Emergency Law since 1962, with barely any constitutional protections for citizens, no multi-party elections, and a constitutional requirement that the president be Muslim.
B. Saudi Arabia – a hereditary monarchy, ranked the seventh most authoritarian regime by the Economist, with no recognized political parties or national elections, and a rule of law determined solely by the Qur’an and Islamic law. Oh, it also hangs people for being gay, and happens to be the only country in the world where women are banned from driving on public roads.
C. Gaza & the West Bank – incapable of forming one government, but entirely comfortable with civil war. Enough said.
The options I haven’t mentioned are of the same nature, so don’t kid yourselves. The belief that replacing the current rulers of the land will somehow miraculously make everyone equal suits the simplistic views expressed here, where facts are scarce and foaming at the mouth is common, but reality is more complex than the suburban garage you’re all sitting in and making yourselves feel important by writing comments on an insignificant blog.
Expand your mind. Read some history: link to z.pe
Carnas: “. . . reality is more complex than the suburban garage you’re all sitting in and making yourselves feel important by writing comments on an insignificant blog.”
LOL, Carnas, tell us about the suburban garage you’re sitting in to make yourself feel important by writing comments to comments on an “insignificant blog.”
BTW, Mondo is hardly insignificant, and you know it. It’s the vanguard of the peace movement in the I/P travesty, a voice among millions who are rising up against apartheid in Palestine. You can feel the panic in the neo-cons and the Zionists who had an uninterrupted, eight-year corruption of American foreign policy under Bush-Cheney.
Also, you fail to document the David-Duke-like racist policies of Israel in your litany of human rights abuses in the Middle East. It’s shocking in this day and age to hear about segregation of men and women on public transportation, Jewish-only roads and neighborhoods, and the second-class citizen nature of Israel’s Arab and Muslim communities.
Israel claims to be the only true democracy in the region, a nation-state modeled upon the USA, but that just seems to be hasbara designed to make me feel better about $3 billion of our tax dollars going to incinerate women and children with white phosphorus and limb-shearing DIME cube bombs. You need to pay attention to how ordinary American citizens are shouting down Ehud Olmert on his hasbara tour of universities, and how the audience on the Daily Show soundly applauds any mention of Palestinian human rights.
Simplistic views? Yes, this site is simplistic: free Gaza now. We don’t need another hasbarian telling us we “just don’t get it.”
Overt racism? From carnas? Oh my, perish the thought.
carnas, you repeat one of the standard Hasbara 101 options Mooser likes to
inform people about, only you do it with more verbiage than Nomi. Nobody here likes the USA regime’s continued support of the “royal” Arab despot families at the expense of their respective national populations, all towards the end of exploiting the Arabian national natural resources (mostly oil access on terms where the West’s elite can continue to make handsome profits). We all know
the reason given by the main perp of 9/11 was this and the rubber stamping of blood and soil Israel. Our general POV here is that we are focusing on the I-P situation and the USA’s enabling hand in it because it is the most significant
aspect of foreign policy as General Jones pointed out at the recent J-St conference; we congregate here not to hear cookie cutter hasbara such as you serve up, along with Nomi, but to discuss the issue the USA MSM does not because we are concerned citizens.
Citizen – notice my examples included Syria, which is not supported by the US, so your reasoning fails. And Chaos – calling everything you can’t respond to “racist” isn’t much of an argument.
Rather than tagging anything beyond the kindergarten-level discussion here “hasbara” and spewing one-line slogans you’d do well to use the few brain cells you have left.
No one’s saying the Palestinians are living it up and that everything’s hunky dory. The point is that a political solution is necessary; unfortunately, most people here don’t have the slightest clue about geopolitics, thinking that whoever screams about injustice the loudest must be the smartest. Here’s a hint for the hard of thinking: there has to be some reconciliation amongst the Palestinians for any long-term solution to work.
I agree with all you say about the Arab regimes you mentioned, carnas. As an American (USA), I do not agree with the USA ‘s foreign policy, the policy that allows such factual reality on the ground in the Middle
East. I also see that the USA’s sequential regimes’s are not helpful .
No let’s start with those that Nelson Mandella and Desmon Tutu referred to as an aprtheid state. That would be Israel.
A very thoughtful article. I completely sympathize with the sentiments expressed, but have a slightly different perspective. While I agree that the Jewish values hand-wringing should be superceded by more universal principles, opposition to the Occupation should be embraced regardless of its motivation. And end to the insanity of one people militarily ruling over another is what is needed first and foremost. As for Ben-Ami, the criticism surely is apt, and one can only hope that the movement he has helped to create moves away from him to a large extent.
In a larger context, Moor implicitly raises the question of whether there is any additional value to Jews opposing Israeli actions. I think there is. Jewish dissenters certainly cannot do it alone, but when Jews say “No thanks” to the unfair privileges bestowed upon them, it is a more prominent and influential statement of the unacceptability of legal differentiation based on ethnicity. It also helps to minimize the Holocaust rationale for perpetuating oppression, and reduces the fear many non-Jews have of incurring the anti-Semitism accusation. Moor does not necessarily reject the increased significance of Jewish opposition, but asks us to be careful and avoid patronizing our fellow human beings. A most reasonable request. When I hear about how the Occupation corrupts Israel’s soul, I always think, True, but it’s far worse on Palestinian lives. Let’s worry about our souls after Palestinians have won their freedom. But if some join this effort primarily out of supposedly Jewish values (are they really superior or even all that different from Christian or Muslim values?), they should not be discouraged from lending their efforts.
… opposition to the Occupation should be embraced regardless of its motivation.
I agree. The power of the coalition is what’s important, not the various motives of its members as long as they actuallydo the right thing. Eyes on the Prize…
And an equally thoughtful reply.
Mooser, sorry, I don’t understand what you are saying. I am well aware of how unfair the last USA military draft was. My family paid the price. Please explain your past comment–I have many dead or maimed soldiers in my exended family, and we do want to your POV.
Mooser, sorry, I don’t understand what you are saying. I am well aware of how unfair the last USA military draft was. My family paid the price. Please explain your past comment–I have many dead or maimed soldiers in my exended family, and we do want to knw your POV.
I agree, David Samel; but I feel compelled to add to your astute comment that
most of the USA citizens who pay most directly for the orchestration of PNAC
are average USA families (not the chickenhawk neocon scribblers and mouthpieces), given the dirth of a military draft and the omnipresence of economic plight “down in the holler”; and further, that
a disproportionate chunk of average USA family dollars is taken without recourse
by the IRS to enable blood & soil Israeli policies–something our fathers or grandfathers fought against in WW2. A jewish focus won’t end a more -than -jewish problem. Isn’t it scary that the same types who brought us into Iraq War II are now beating the drums for war with Persia, who by the way and considering
what’s happening on Iran’s borders, and considering the Shah and the Iraq-War,
would be a collective moron not to pursue their current agenda? Is it really so hard to see that Persia seeks hegemony in its neighborhood? Is it so hard to see Uncle Sam should see the rationality of this agenda–Uncle Sam does it over there and he doesn’t evem live in the Persian neighborhood.
“given the dirth of a military draft”
Just one small caveat (I wish my dentist would say that!) Citizen.
I was alive, 18. healthy and very aware, being that I was A-1, when the draft was last in force. Please don’t get the idea that the draft somehow swept through all classes and groups, taking an equal proportion for military service. It didn’t.
In fact, to make a comparison, I would say that the amount of family and personal resources sufficient to make a choice to join the military truly “voluntary” was about the same amount needed to get out of the draft.
Please don’t look to the draft to ensure equal service for all. It didn’t work that way at all.
Mooser, I have no clue why you would think that I ever thought that the former US Military Draft was the least bit fair. I never thought so.
Ahmed, this is a problem that has inhibited non-Jews in the US for a long time, because of the threat of being charged with anti-Semitism by the organized Zionists. I keep recalling the participant at J Street who asked “What if I care about justice?” instead of Israel.
One of the typical attacks against anti-Zionists is the charge: “Why do you care so much about what Israel does?” As if there has to be some sinister motivation even to care about justice, about our common humanity, about human rights. This is a human issue, not a Jewish one or a Muslim one or an Arab one.
Jews do indeed have a special interest in the crimes that are being done in their name, but the rest of humanity can’t leave it up to them. And, judging from the failures of J Street, I think that the majority of Americans are going to have to take the lead.
Yes, Jews are rightfully concerned about what is being done in their name. The whole world (except the USA masses) knows Uncle Sam is the Grand Enabler (& de facto Grand Inquisitor a la Fyodor D?). This makes all Americans complicit; hence what Israel is doing, has been doing, is also done in the name of USA values, hence in the name of all Americans. The real issue is: How can one reach the average American, give John & Jane Doe an objective realization of USA foreign policy? On its impact on their lives and their children? Health care and jobs
they all relate to immediately–not so, far policy, especially when all they get on FP
is a short fairy tale, repeated endlessly? Without a Military Draft, it seems hopeless to try to engage them given the makeup and bent of the bribed congress and executive branches and the collusion of the MSM.
The majority of Americans supported Shrub attacking Iraq, and many still don’t get
we never should have done that in 2003; they still don’t get that the 9-11 Commission was a farce and that Afghanistan is our graveyard and that the net security we may get in another decade or two by staying there is no better bet (at best) than just getting out of there–why bother to explore it since there’s no Military Draft? And why bother to see the overlap in the demise of the USA economy? Nevertheless, the way things are and with no real campaign finance reform on the horizon and no real objectivity in the MSM, there’s no question
any progressive change must be spear-headed by Jewish Americans ready to wrestle with being called self-hating Jews because the USA’s 98% of non-Americans need their support or else they will just be muzzled by a simple ADL charge of anti-semitism. M & W & Carter are indeed the giant markers of what I say here.
The rise of the blogosphere, and the proliferation of blogs such as this one, has further encouraged the splintering I mentioned earlier.
Here, here. For all of my criticism of this site’s judeo-centricity, and of its particular positions, such as its support of J Street, Weiss et al have fought and scratched to successfully open a previously non-existant space for an ‘interfaith’ discussion of the I/P conflict.
A purely Jewish focus on a more-than-Jewish problem causes many leftist Jews to take a paternalistic view of Palestinians.
This is a phenomenon described by George W.S. Trow when discussing ‘white’ support for racial equality in the ’60s. In some instances, the ‘white’ embrace of equality was in reality an assertion of ‘white’ hegemony, as equality was treated as a ‘white’ gift toblacks, rather than blacks inherent right.
J-Street is a fundamentally-Zionist organization whose criticisms of Israel are couched in Jewish self-love to the exclusion of a broader humanity. This enables Jeremy Ben-Ami to explain to Jeffrey Goldberg that equality between Jews and non-Jews in Palestine/Israel is not only undesirable, but a “nightmare” scenario.
Pre-f*cking-cisely.
Frankly, human beings are suffering at the hands of Zionists while well-meaning Jews engage in handwringing over Jewish identity and what that means in the context of Zionism.
Perfect. The time has past for the collective healing of the ‘Jewish’ psyche and all of the attendant melodrama of the enternal superlative. Tony Judt had it right: Zionists, the time has come to grow up. And if you can’t, mommy and daddy should change the locks and leave your duffel bag at the door.
Problem is mommy and daddy live in a trailer park in S Carolina, or on the western border of PA & NY, or on Stoney Island in Chicago
and they are worried about paying their rent and if they can afford to go to K Mart and get their kiddies new sneakers for school. And the powers that be know it.
True, true, true.
I tend to think that “segregation” would have been a better choice of terms to describe the Zionist regime, because of the strong negative associations it has for Americans. What is needed is a revival of the civil rights movement, with all its associations.
And the civil rights movement was not led by whites. It was led by blacks. The support of US whites was indeed crucial to the movement’s success, and US Jews were prominent in the movement, but not as the faces upfront.
A similar movement for the rights of Palestinians should be led by Palestinians – by Arabs, not Jews. Jews and other non-Arabs should take the backup roll in support, but the faces upfront should be those of American and Palestinian Arabs.
I know that the difficulties for such a movement would be hard to surmount, given the government’s persecutions of Muslims for “supporting terror,” and many US Arabs are fearful and confused. But they, and only they, have the right to declare “Let my people go.”
It is a problem of demographics as well. ‘Blacks’ made up about 20% of the population in the ’50s-’60s, whereas adult ‘Muslims’ presently constitute less than 1% of the US population. (I don’t know what the statistics are for ‘Arabs’ as I believe that people of North African or Middle Eastern descent are classified as ‘White’.) Additionally, there were significant geographic concentrations of ‘Blacks’, so that civil disobedience had real consequences.
The ‘G Street’ lobby will have to include a broad spectrum of supporters to be successful, I think.
Another thing the census pointed out is that most American Arabs identify themselves as Caucasians to the census taker. They’re not black, they’re not Asian, they’re not Latino, so they pick Caucasian. So in a footnote to the census, the data people think the number is skewed.
I think if you add Muslim to Arab you get more than 2% of the population – more than the number of Jews. But nowhere near the influence.
I am not at all suggesting that they should have to do this thing on their own, but that they should be the leaders, the Jews (and others) the followers. Yes, Jews following Arabs, Jews deferring to Arabs. Just as in the civil rights movement in the US, whites deferred to blacks and took the supporting role. Which is a very necessary role, like the offensive line. But an Arab should quarterback.
potsherd, I’m married to a Muslim woman, and she would take a dim view of being equated to an Arab. Of course, with all the MSM buzzing about “radical Islam” all the effing time, most of the great unwashed masses don’t have the intellectual capacity to figure out the difference, and even if they did, what would it matter?
Even my beloved Wall Street Journal is so beholden to the Zionist dogma, it’s impossible to get a decent, intellectually honest op-ed about the Middle East. That’s why the people are turning to the blogosphere to get the real story (and why metro newspapers are bleeding readers by the hundred-thousands).
Any Muslim OR Arab in the USA, regardless of their background, is under seige in the USA–heck, even Shrub kept saying he was not against Islam but against Islamofascists–the power of Frum’s rhetoric and collapsed meaning is overwhelming since the PNAC people took over, and remain in both parties. One small example is check out how easy it is for a Zionist sympathizer to become an intern for the USA congress, as compared to a young Muslim–and compare how they are treated, the few that get there in that servant-naive spy slot.
Beautiful post, marc b.
Moor’s hauntingly simple sentence caught me as the reason why I do this. Frankly, human beings are suffering at the hands of Zionists while well-meaning Jews engage in handwringing over Jewish identity and what that means in the context of Zionism.
People are starving. They lack water and fuel. Where are the well-meaning Jews in this country screaming for those checkpoints to open and medicine and life’s essentials allowed in. The cement to rebuild their broken lives. The books for their children. The escape route for their beginning university students to get to their scholarships. And the Palestinian fees (transfer fees) that Israel has kept since Hamas came to power.
Where were these voices at J Street? Where? In the latest post, Phil calls Peretz vicious for referring to J Street as a ‘circle jerk’. Well, I did too about 15 posts back, and it is for this exact reason. How hideously self-absorbed to care about Jewish identity in terms of the occupation and what it means in the context of Zionism when the first order of the day is to relive the suffering that every American Jew has the power to do – I dont – by speaking out and demanding this basic act of humanity be enacted immediately. What’s going on now is just the Gaza War in slo-mo, like Chinese water torture.
I’ve become so cynical about this, I now think that the only reason why Israel wants the US to go to war for it in Iran is so that an Israeli plane carrying a small nuke, or maybe a major bomb, streaking to the aid of the Americans will “accidentally” slip off the plane during takeoff and fall on Gaza. Oops, so sorry. Since it’s a moonscape now, the devastation wont seem so apparent on TV, but the people will be gone.
=================================
And I couldn’t agree more with marc b. about this:
Yes, Phil has so fought and scratched, and then Adam joined him, and many regular posters here have done all they can to spread the key issues not open for debate in the MSM here in the USA. The muzzled discussion is so bad it took the recent Daily Show, chopped as it was, to bring the issue not even to the USA mainstream, but simply to expensive, and not even basic cable TV.
Beautiful post, marc b.
No, MRW, you’re beautiful. I insist.
Thanks, marc b. Just saw this.
Ahmed – very well put essay you got there. You point out the truth that keeps popping up on this blog (and has been brought up consistently among the commenters): ultimately palestinians must be recognized as fully equal human beings – before any proposed “solution”. The conversation that still has to take place is one about the universality of justice and liberty for ALL. As you allude to – the “Palestine” peace proposals are supposed to be about is invariably presented as a “gift” – from Israelis to “others”. As in “Barak’s generous offer”. Implying that if only “they” or Arafat accepted said gift graciously, all would be well now. Of course, here we all know this is hog-wash. It’s not that palestinians insisted on looking a gift horse in the mouth, it’s that they were rightly suspicious of greeks bearing gifts, especially if it looks, speaks and yaws like a trojan horse.
I’ll add an argument for you to use: think New York, a place full of jewish people who demonstrate daily that they are perfectly capable of getting along with and interacting with other people – including those of arabic descent and muslim believers, not to mention an assortment of every possible nationality, creed, color and ethnicity. new York is often held up as a paragon of inter-racial, inter-religious and inter-ethnic tolerance – despite the occasional incident, which is chicked up to “hate speech” to be dealt with by law enforcement or legislation. yet it’s a city where there are a million jews – all different from each other, just as the rest of the city’s residents differ . Friction is there aplenty, but as a whole, the jewish community – as individuals and group entities – have not only prospered but have reached heights of comfort, influence and acceptance that they have never known historically. The achievements of the Jews of greater new York over-shadow those of entire israel, despite the fact that their numbers are smaller. To me that proves that when a culture or a people are not wasting energy on remaining insular, daily interaction with other cultures/ people/religions is a net benefit – to each person and to the community as a whole. jewish religion and affinity is not disappearing in New york but it is evolving – as it becomes a part of a complete – admittedly messy – fabric of humanity. I sometimes think that the main difference between the jews of new york and those of israel is that the former – by virtue of living in america – recognize, and indeed fight for equal rights under the law for all. In supporting rights of others, their own rights are guaranteed and even enhanced – all without having to refer to some necessary ingredient of “love for israel” or “love for the jewish people”. This kind of self-love in america is ideally what every culture and group professes for its members, be they latino, black, pacific islander, female, indian or christian, so jewish ‘self-love” does not have to be held up as somehow unique or superior to others’ “love”. It is there, but it is something taken for granted, not some kind of a mysterious ingredient required to ensure entrance into the fold. And when jews accept that they – as all others – are equals before the law, however much or little they have a capacity for ‘self love’ it works to theirs – and everyone else’s – gain.
As wise people said long before me: you first have to be a good human before you can be a good jew (or a good christian, or a good muslim or a good buddhist, etc). and aspiration to decent humanity is what’s lacking from the “peace process’, which is why it’s been doomed, time and again.
now I’m ready to hear about the one kind of forbidden ‘self love” in america. That of the christian whites. Well, my point still stands… because that’s another story altogether.
Great post, Danaa–I see by the end of it that you are aware of what you did not
tie in, which you call ” Christian whites.” I’d call them “whites,” most especially white males since you tied in the gender thing in your comment, as well as the Christian thing. Verboten to speak of white male self love in the USA. I presume, that’s because if you do, David Duke emerges out of the dirt like the big insect
in Starship Troopers. All white males must always think first of what their ancestors may or may not have done before they have a voice? In common acceptable PC parlance of white privilege beneficiary or direct historical oppression, how does this class of Americans, certainly the class dying and being maimed, walking with plastic limbs and lethal dosages of PST, most numerically–do they have any right at all to self-love? And how does this relate to Ahmed’s great essay? Danaa, and Ahmed, the both of you, how do we USA non-jewish male
whites fit into your essays? And is there a connection between us and Israel’s activites, and if so, what exactly is it? Should we white male USA Americans side with AIPAC, or with J-St, or with–exactly who, what agenda, what policy, and why?
Thanks citizen for the good words. As to your questions – these are quite difficult, as you well know (can i take a couple of years to answer them all?). originally, I wrote white males, but then crossed out the “males’, because it occurred to me that there also not a few white females, who may not care for the labels they are stuck with either. But yes, being a white [non jewish] male puts one in a uniquely disadvantageous position when it comes to US foreign policy in general, much less US policy with respect to Israel/palestine. Being a member of a group that’s presumed to have had all the historical advantages (really? ask some not so rich, not so urbane white males) and done all the persecuting (far from true but why quibble), leaves one exposed to the spoken or unspoken question: who are they to talk and why should they be interested in the first place? being one whose motives are forever suspect – must be aggrevating no end, especially if one knows there are perfectly understandable and legitimate reasons behind one’s interest (such as love of homeland – to go back to the theme above).
The flippant answer is – a white male can adopt a distinct disadvantage of sorts – at least for the duration of a conversation/argument. For example, they could claim to be gay (if they are not). Isn’t it interesting that the gay label alone is sufficient to take any white non jewish male off the hook instantaneously with respect to almost any issue they choose to advocate for, including I/P? Suddenly they get the same benefit of doubt usually extended to others……More disadvantages that come to mind is to claim mild autism (diabetes won’t do the trick I’m afraid), a unique medical affliction or a bond of eg marriage to an afflicted and/or disadvantaged and/or jewish person (no need to continue, got more ideas where these came from…all of which only require various gradations of suspension of truth…)
anyways, I just bring this up to highlight my belief that the core of the problem for the “white male” is a perceived lack of disadvantage that accrues from belonging to a class thought to have been dominant – as a class. i say “perceived” because obviously, such labeling of individuals solely because of some external characteristics they share with others is, of course, sheer nonsense. But there it is. Humans need villains, and white males are readily distinguished, so once they dare to proclaim non-jewish or non-indian or non black heritage, and fail to provide a suitable persecutable trait or disability, all bets are off. I’ve been observing this phenomenon for quite a while now, though being a female who can claim jewish ancestry (especially when convenient) not to mention any number of other ancestral affiliations (some advantageous, some less so and some just-in-time distracting), I have not been the recipient of its brunt in person – except by force of empathy (which mercifully appears to be part of my programming).
But you wanted solutions and answers, not more diagnosis – of which you possess plenty. I’ll be contemplating…..so stay tuned
“All white males must always think first of what their ancestors may or may not have done before they have a voice? In common acceptable PC parlance of white privilege beneficiary or direct historical oppression, how does this class of Americans, certainly the class dying and being maimed, walking with plastic limbs and lethal dosages of PST, most numerically–do they have any right at all to self-love? And how does this relate to Ahmed’s great essay? Danaa, and Ahmed, the both of you, how do we USA non-jewish male
whites fit into your essays? And is there a connection between us and Israel’s activites, and if so, what exactly is it? Should we white male USA Americans side with AIPAC, or with J-St, or with–exactly who, what agenda, what policy, and why? ”
Citi, I don’t question what my ancestors may or may not have done, since I was born as free and innocent as any other child. I do question why the supposed ancient conflict between Jew and Muslim was brought to my doorstep. The Palestinians are 100% in the right, but their struggle is no more my struggle than was the struggle in Rwanda between Hutu and Tutsi. There truly is merit to isolationism and the questioning of the melting pot and salad bowl ideologies.
Let me help you understand Todd, the idea is not primarily that the great white male is per se bad, but his government that is supposed to represent him has plunged him into the middle of this current catastrophe in the Middle East. How? When the Europeans were done and handed over the mess to the Americans they ran it business as usual.
Essentially you’re government has helped to maintain the crippled state and oppression in the ME, and likewise has benefited from its largess by the oppression. Your government also was the first to recognize Israel and put it on the map, quite a few great white males were involved in the process. Your government also is the main supporter of this colonial state which so oppressively treats the Palestinians and the neighbors.
This is the short message, I can get down to real particulars if you like. Not to mention other current neocolonialism activity which presents a system of hegemony through various countries and regions in the vicinity. It is the almost absolute ignorance of the past, present, and highly controlled goals of the future through the governments predominantly controlled by great white males.
Take for instance the “realist” school that many have referred to in the work of Mearsheimer and Walt in their Israel Lobby volume – you are hard pressed to find anything that America is at fault (controlled predominantly by the great white males). This is probably one of the weakest points in the book – “America tried – America had nothing but good intentions – America was hoping for the best – America was caught in a quagmire,” etc. Whereas they did a very good job pinpointing the lobby, they failed miserably in Americas complicity in atrocities throughout the region, and Americas blatant exploitation, etc. So in some ways Todd, if you are a proponent of this school, weaned on the milk of individuals like M&W, it is not wonder you would say –
“…I don’t question what my ancestors may or may not have done, since I was born as free and innocent as any other child. I do question why the supposed ancient conflict between Jew and Muslim was brought to my doorstep. The Palestinians are 100% in the right, but their struggle is no more my struggle than was the struggle in Rwanda between Hutu and Tutsi. There truly is merit to isolationism and the questioning of the melting pot and salad bowl ideologies.”
Want some facts about Africa also? Here, let someone else help out (and this does not only refer to Bush’s policym but Obama’s also) –
BONZA GOES TO AFRICA
Or better yet –
“Take up the White Man’s burden–
Send forth the best ye breed–
Go bind your sons to exile
To serve your captives’ need;
To wait in heavy harness,
On fluttered folk and wild–
Your new-caught, sullen peoples,
Half-devil and half-child.
Take up the White Man’s burden–
In patience to abide,
To veil the threat of terror
And check the show of pride;
By open speech and simple,
An hundred times made plain
To seek another’s profit,
And work another’s gain.
Take up the White Man’s burden–
The savage wars of peace–
Fill full the mouth of Famine
And bid the sickness cease;
And when your goal is nearest
The end for others sought,
Watch sloth and heathen Folly
Bring all your hopes to nought.
Take up the White Man’s burden–
No tawdry rule of kings,
But toil of serf and sweeper–
The tale of common things.
The ports ye shall not enter,
The roads ye shall not tread,
Go mark them with your living,
And mark them with your dead.
Take up the White Man’s burden–
And reap his old reward:
The blame of those ye better,
The hate of those ye guard–
The cry of hosts ye humour
(Ah, slowly!) toward the light:–
“Why brought he us from bondage,
Our loved Egyptian night?”
Take up the White Man’s burden–
Ye dare not stoop to less–
Nor call too loud on Freedom
To cloke (1) your weariness;
By all ye cry or whisper,
By all ye leave or do,
The silent, sullen peoples
Shall weigh your gods and you.
Take up the White Man’s burden–
Have done with childish days–
The lightly proferred laurel, (2)
The easy, ungrudged praise.
Comes now, to search your manhood
Through all the thankless years
Cold, edged with dear-bought wisdom,
The judgment of your peers!”
There were/are many average white males who never agreed with the white man’s burden, whether it was as a doughboy, or not harkening to the call of Hitler’s POV.
No civil rights movement ever got anywhere without a good share of white male
leaders. White males have always had to contend with John Brown. White males
are a problem for every ideology–you remember Obama’s dismissive comment on rural PA white males and their spiritual kin in the land between SF & NYC? They were mere automatons of antpathy, of bigotry, finding solace in guns and religion? They were arrayed along Obama’s extended side when he saluted the casket returning from Afganistan-Iraq recently for a photo opt, something Shrub didn’t do–btw personally, I don’t see much different (other than speaking ability) between the golfer Shrub and the golfer Obama, except Obama allows himself to be filmed golfing, while Shrub cut that out–both decisions having both to do with public racial perception–the manipulation of image to gain votes.
That’s actually an important point to make, Citizen. I was admittedly forgiving of Obama for his comment even though, realistically, my own family would be one of those he described. I’ve gotten permissive of comments against white people mostly because, well, as a people we’ve given it out a hell of a lot more than we’ve taken it.
You are right though. And honestly? You’re right about Obama too, in my opinion. With the possible exception that he’s restored scientific funding, on every other issue that matters — health care reform, Gitmo/Baghrim, torture prosecution, bowing to Israel, environmental policy, both wars — he’s effectively a version of Bush that can pronounce the word “nuclear.”
And, next to John Brown, they had to contend with Nat Turner. American jews are not the first to have to deal with an identity issue because people obviously akin to them
are in power and have been oppressing the world outside their kind. The test of virtue is power–even when you have no power and live in a S Carolina cracker trailer camp, or likewise are an Americn jew living in the cheapest condo near that trailer camp.
The fact of the matter is, gentlemen, is that the government of the US is billed as the government of, for, and by the people – its not, never has been. It never perished from the earth because it was never here. That is partially because the great white males that live here will not do anything about it – their government runs amok in foreign policy that oppresses the world. So, to make statements (as I said above) of “what does this have to do with me” is par for the course among the collectively ignorant or selectively inactive.
After all, a good portion of your “founding fathers” told you what this “experiment” was all about – “the purpose of the government is to protect those with property against those with no property” (Adam Smith, James Madison [father of the Constitution], Franklin, Washington, and many more all said this). Now this system is going to devour you, its about time, and hopefully this will sate its appetite.
GOVERNMENT OF, FOR, AND BY THE PEOPLE…
Ugh, as a white male, spare me the “political correctness is so oppressive” pity party. Inherited guilt is not and shouldn’t be the issue. White males benefit from very real privileges, at least in the United States. We are the beneficiaries of oppression. It doesn’t make us bad people inherently, but it is wrong to accept those privileges uncritically. And I’m not saying that race privileges determine everything (class privilege is probably stronger, but then it’s also correlated with race).
RE: “White males benefit from very real privileges, at least in the United States”
All of them, huh? My, robin, you are quite a religious person.
“And I’m not saying that race privileges determine everything (class privilege is probably stronger, but then it’s also correlated with race).”
Don’t jump the gun there, Citizen. Robin qualified his statement. And frankly, he has a point, too. Even poor white people have easier access to many resources than middle class non-white person. I’ve seen it in action personally. The fact is, nine times out of ten, out of three people applying for a job, if two are white males and one is a minority, the two whites are going to get interviews and the minority won’t even get that. And yes, I’m using a personal example I witnessed (I was one of those white males, for the record).
Chaos, I have exeperienced the exact contrary. A white male is the only job candidate that will be viewed less than objectively.
The creation of Israel was in short a solution of the “Jewish Problem” in Europe from Christian point of view and “anti-Semitism Problem” from Jewish side. However, there was no “Jewish lense” in the early stages of world Zionist movement’s agenda of establishing a “Jewish state” outside the West – as the great majority of European Jews were against the G-dless Zionism. The European Jews would have prefered to migrate to safer western countries rather than Palestine – if the Zionist groups had not pressured their local governments against Jewish immigration.
Calling Israel an “apartheid state” is like letting loose a rapist after two weeks in a prison. The anti-apartheid solution has not worked in South Africa. The racist Afrikan elites still control most of the agricultural land, nation’s economy and higher ranks in the army. The zionist regime – for all its actions is nothing but a western colonial outpost – and must be demolished – and replaced with a united Palestinian state over the entire Ottoman Palestine or at least the pre-1948 borders.
link to rehmat1.wordpress.com
Rehmat, I do agree with you that recognition and support of the 1948 state of Israel (Even Christian Zionist Truman crossed out the words “Jewish state” and replaced them with ” state of Israel”–you can see his anxiety, and wonder why he didn’t replace it with what he recognized as, let’s say, “State of Israpalestine,” or “state of Palisrael.”
I urge all here to google what has actually been happening in S Africa and the former Rhodesia (sic?) since the world banded together to evict the former white racist
regimes in those countries. It’s not pretty.
That’s something the Zionists don’t want people to remember — that they had a hand in forcing Jews to go to Palestine to build an insurrection, via their own lobbying pressure here and elsewhere.
I was struck watching the cable-breaking Daily Show that the question is: Why can’t Israel be like Italy? It’s a Roman Catholic country, and the Vatican, like Jerusalem, sits inside it. But there is tolerance for other religions, including Jews, Muslims, Zoroasterans, and atheists, whatever.
What is this nonsense that Israel wont be a Jewish state? Italy is Catholic. The Queen of England is the goddam head of the Church of England. Why can’t Israel pattern itself after these nations and learn to live in peace. Why is it stuck in the Dark Ages, manufacturing enemies.
Maybe Israel can’t be like Italy because even though the Vatican sits inside of Italy, the Vatican is a separate entity with world-wide religious jurisdiction that has nothing to do with the simply secular state of Italy. The state of Italy never claims to speak in behalf of all people of Italian ethnic background no matter where they are currently living on this earth, and no matter if they are secular or religious. Israel does, and repeatedly–that’s the whole point of J-Street, no?
Italy would have to claim to speak for all CATHOLICS everywhere to be the equivalent to Israel which claims not to speak for all Israelis but for all Jews everywhere.
The Mafia does, in a way.
But, tree, as you know, a Catholic is made and defined very easily and there is no overlapping of blood ethncity–if you claim to be a Catholic, it matters not a wit where or who you came from–and your politics are dictated by your belief in Jesus, son of God, who said give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and what is the Lord Father, what is his. (I won’t even go into the concept of the holy trinity, which could be rationally viewed as a form of pagan polytheism.)
MRW, imagine a cable TV show filled with American jews akin to the Sopranos (rather than Curb Your Enthsiasm–or the much more veiled Seinfeld show suitable for regular tv–hey, we can discuss Amos & Andy too–there’s a debate going on now on BET as to the latest alleged rendition). Right, it will never happen. That’s the point for a USA citizen earnest to be a fully participating citizen, no?
Citizen, get hold of a book called “Tough Jews” (by Richard Cohen) . You’ll love it!
The unfortunate answer to your question, MRW, is that there is money to be made by a selected minority (not Jews, but neoconservatives of every creed) in supporting and forwarding a regressive theocratic (because if Israel is officially the “Jewish state” then it is a theocracy where everyone pledges allegiance to Jewish interests above anyone else’s). Italy is Catholic, as you say, but it’s not the Catholic state. England is not the Anglican state, and there is no country you can forward as the Muslim state (if you’re going to forward Saudi Arabia, then you haven’t actually spoken to as many Muslims as I have).
But it was the Catholic state and the Anglican state at one time. Things evolve. And this is the 21st C.
Must be great to have automatic citizenship in another country. You can park your dough over there, and that state will protect your money-laundering efforts, and off-shore assets. Even better when you can get a tax break in your host country for donating to your own charity — and I do mean ‘own’ — or your bank and get your host countrymen to pick up the tab for you.
Yeah, MRW, that’s exactly right. It’s as of David “separate but equal” Duke and his followers had the state of, say, Oklahoma (minus the big screen “queers”), and anytime a Dukester decided things weren’t good enough for his or ilk in any other state, they could always pick up and move into some minority house in Oklahoma–even if the home owners or dwellers had lived there for centuries.
I’ve got dibs on Witty’s house. While he’s living in the shed, he can try out his skills of rational persuasion to try to convince me to let him drink out of the hose.
postherd, LOL, that’s so funny! And very apt. If he tries to convince you to make a humanitarian gesture–to wit, by letting him have a suck of your water hose so he
can barely live, just tell him NO–not until he publically declares you exist!
Mooser, I really don’t need to be schooled on prohibition era ethnic gangsters,
nor on their modern counterparts, e.g., in Las Vegas. I was merely pointing out
that a TV series on tribal bad guy Italians is OK, but not one on Jews.
The idea of a single state is the oppossite of democracy, compared to the two-state.
In a single state, in which the overwhelming majority of current residents regard rule by the other as an oppression, 49% will be oppressed by the 51%.
In a two state solution, the maximum number feeling oppressed is maybe the 20% Palestinian Israelis, of which I expect that if reforms are actually applied, wouldn’t feel so oppressed.
It IS a big deal, the difference between one imposed fantasy and another.
The two-state solution is never dead, as there is always the possibility of partition, with settlers for example allowed to stay, but as Palestinian citizens.
There is a third choice, which is a three geographic state solution of:
1. Zionist Israel
2. Civilist …..
3. Nationalist Palestine
But, that only occurs where in both Israel and Palestine, there is a large minority that renounces Zionism and renounces Palestinian nationalism for assertively civilism, meaning literally CURRENT equal rights (not right of return).
Witty? You’re an idiot. So England isn’t a democray? It’s a single state. France? Germany? Japan? None of those countries are democratic?
What’s undemocratic is a Zionist Jewish minority invading Palestine and appropriating, now, 93% of the land and establishing Jewish-exclusive territory. You never address that, Witty. You never address that fact. As a Jewish man, you drive merrily from a job within the Green Line to a “suburban” home in an illegal settlement on the West Bank without crossing a single checkpoint (or meeting a single Arab…) and Palestinians who have lived in the West Bank all their lives can’t even cross that walled highway to reach their own farmland!
And on top of all of that, Israel would pay you to do that, Witty. They would subsidize you to do that.
Again, you extoll a right of return for Jews and Jews alone. You, sir, are a racist and a supporter of apartheid.
For the record, the sentence in there was supposed to be, “As a Jewish man, you could drive merrily…”
Witty’s also speaking out in favor of black-white segregation in the US as well, which oppressed less the magical 20% number which Witty finds acceptable, being as how only 14% of the US population is black.
Many Palestinians in Israel currently vote for Zionist parties in the Knesset. Should there be a single state, many within the Jewish community might very well vote for “Arab” parties. The reason Jews in Israel currently don’t, is because the government’s propaganda through the media and the education system has brainwashed them into fearing Arabs and treating them as an existential threat. In a melting-pot type one state solution, these fears and the propaganda will most likely disappear. The oft cited failure of the melting-pot in the US does not apply in this case because the peoples of the region share so much in common, the only differences are the names of the religions.
In other words, to claim that the demographic split will translate to an equivalent political split (hence the “non-Democratic” accusation) is baseless for it does not take into account political diversity. That is the very essence of democracy, is it not?
So to suggest that a demographic split will translate into a non-democratic political split is narrow-minded and betrays the poster’s ideological and ethnic prejudices and tendency to oversimplify and generalize.
Chaos, I agree, except Witty’s grand daily adventure is and would be paid for by the people in the trailer parks across the USA, places where Witty had at most glimpsed in his car passing by on the main highway. When one says Israel will pay for it, it means USA taxpayers will pay for it.
Is that why we have 50 states? Whew! I never knew.
And, yeah, right of return is only a current right for the privileged in the imposed fantasy of democracy.
Witty: “In a single state, in which the overwhelming majority of current residents regard rule by the other as an oppression, 49% will be oppressed by the 51%.”
Sure, Witty, that’s why the USA has made no progress at all in the area of civil rights–why do you insult us here on this blog? Or do you say the USA is just a simple democracy? Any state to cure the problem has to have a constitition and a bill of rights. You seem to be happy Israel has neither–are you also happy Israel has no real borders execept partial borders enabled so long as the USA taxpayers keep paying off Egyptian and Jordanian bribes?
Richard, what you’re missing is that there is an objective standard of oppression, and that’s human rights. The fact that someone feels oppressed, particularly when that feeling is related to the equality of political rights for all individuals (including those of minority and majority groups), does not mean that his human rights are being violated, that he’s actually being oppressed.
A democracy in the territory Israel now controls, with a framework that enshrines human rights and equality before the law, would in itself oppress no one.
The current situation is not a democracy, and involves the rampant abuse of power and of human rights, even within Israel proper.
A two-state solution, given a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza (the absolute best case scenario), would involve Palestinian subordination to and dependence on Israel. More bantustans than a sovereign state. It would remain institutionally oppressive of Palestinians, as long as Israel defines itself as an institution of/by/for the Jews. THAT institutional ethnocentrism is the issue here, and the source of oppression (the abuse of Palestinian human rights).
Palestinians under occupation demand either independence from Israeli control, or equality with Jews in the state. The solution of equality, democracy, and coexistence in a single state is the best one for Palestinians everywhere and for JUSTICE.
If the will of the Israeli public opposes equality, it’s NEVER a question of “how do we accommodate that racism (meaning which Palestinian rights do we sacrifice, as is always the result)?” It is a question of “how do we (a) change the racist attitudes of people while (b) asserting more strongly the political will toward equality?” (And in the American experience the two go hand-in-hand; as in, racist attitudes crumble along with the institutions that oppress and segregate.)
The application of the Israeli basic law that is simultaneously Jewish and democratic, certainly requires reform to realize the democratic portion of that formula fully, as does the Palestinian.
With two states that are good neighbors to good neighbors, that reform will be possible (if not sooner), and should be assertively pursued.
But, the reality still is that even in the best of all proposals, currently the civilist single-state in the jurisdiction of river to sea, is more of an imposition, more of an oppression, than the two-state.
The application of Israeli Basic Law doesn’t happen, so it’s not really relevant.
It is only an “oppression” to those who have been brainwashed into ethnocentricism and seek to live in a homogeneous state based a sense of supremacy.
Furthermore, I don’t see how that poster can live in the US as a Jew, enjoy all the privileges and rights afforded to him by the US constitution and all the various post-civil rights era supreme court decisions and still claim that an ethno-centric homogeneous state is the only path to democracy.
Is that not the very definition of cognitive dissonance?
Witty: “The application of the Israeli basic law that is simultaneously Jewish and democratic, certainly requires reform to realize the democratic portion of that formula fully, as does the Palestinian.”
How can Jewish law be democratic? How about Christian law, or white law? What will it take for an assumed rational human being to see that “jewish democracy” is an oxymoron?
And, Witty, ever regular on this blog knows that the Israeli Supreme Court is not the final determiner of what is constitutionally right in Israel–er, especially since Israel has not constitution. Or borders, other than those kept in place at present
by the USA taxpayers’ annual dole to Egypt, for example.
‘The application of the Israeli basic law that is simultaneously Jewish and democratic, certainly”
Witty, you seem to have a very mixed-up idea of the relationship between God, the Jewish people, and the Law. Let me put it in a nutshell for you: we fucked up, big-time, back in Bible days, and God is no longer answering our phone-calls and He’s turned off His almighty E-mail. We can hope for better things in the future (you got a choice?)
I know, belonging to a religion of defeat, (God has turned His face from us, future plans unknown) Judaism, is a tough one when all around you everyone is in a religion of Victory (over sin and death through recognising the saving power of Jesus Christ), but please try to remember who you are.
That’s the thing about Zionism I hate so much! It requires a completely perverted understanding of Judaism to regard Zionism as anything but a great affront to God and Judaism.
Sure, I know, Witty, Judaism is anything you want it to be. Okay, so then, where is the Law?
That’s the thing I have always hated about Zionism, it requires you to stop being, in any meaningful way in relation to your fellow man, a Jew.
And for Christ’s sake, Witty, the Big Guy Hisself has told us what the end of our efforts in the statehood direction would be, but like you always say, Judaism can be anything you want it to be. You wouldn’t be the first Zionist who has told me that as long as we have Israel, who needs God?
But anyway, can you call God, ask Him questions about Jewish law, and get an answer? If not, you better shut up about “Jewish Law”.
The basic law is in effect, but is not applied consistently, largely due to the exagerated emphasis on security issues.
That is the significance of reform.
In every locale where civil rights was the law of the land, but not applied consistently, the most effective focus to remedy the problems were legal and entirely non-violent reform.
Wherever violence or threat of violence entered, the justification for fears rose to the surface and delayed the reforms.
To ignore that violence and threats of violence against Zionists is very real, even with a short period of tactical calm, is really a poverty of political analysis.
To the extent that dissent focuses respectfully on reform, it has a much higher likelihood of effectiveness than distant, punitive, and vague BDS.
Witty: “The idea of a single state is the oppossite of democracy, compared to the two-state.” Could General Robert E Lee express this better?
That is a good analogy, isn’t it. Sometimes, people want separation for all the wrong reasons.
Clearly, Israel doesn’t have some fundamental problem with incorporating the land of the West Bank and Gaza into its state. The “one-state” solution would not change anything about Israel’s territory (in fact it would give Israelis land that they covet). It would interfere with the maintenance of a specifically Jewish regime and Jewish ethnic privileges in Israel/Palestine. That’s exactly the reason Israelis oppose it.
“The idea of a single state is the oppossite of democracy, compared to the two-state.”
Not when the twio state solution is based on limits to self determination and sovereignty of one of those states.
The two state solution is based on the realization of self-determination and recognized sovereignty of both states.
If you desire that recognition to be more complete and more confident, work towards the conditions that make that happen.
I promise you that condemnation of rational Israeli concerns, isn’t that way.
There is no chance currently, that the single-state approach would be adopted by consent of the Israeli populace (even a likely significant portion of the Arab Israeli citizenry). The only way that would occur would be by literally extreme pressure on Israel, which would be extremely destabalizing to the region.
There really is no “success” at that. I find it odd that any sane person regards that as a “realist” path.
Wrong.
Even among so called pro 2 state Israeli governments, none have agreed to a Palestinian State with full self determination and soverignty. In fact, eevn with so called left wing factions ruling Israel, it has voted against granting the Palestinians self determination at the UN whenever the resolution has been raised.
You can;t promise anything Richard. On the contrary, history proves you to be out of touch with reality, if not a outright liar.
Ahmed,
I request that you also practice what you preach.
In an article that could have been about your perspective on the actual reality and proposals for the future, you wrote entirely in reaction to Jewish discussion or Jewish dominance of attention.
If you want attention, YOU have to articulate YOUR goals, YOUR experiences, YOUR beliefs, not as a projection, but as a description.
There is a book by Ngugi Wa Thiongo, called “De-Colonizing the Mind”. I read it, and don’t actually remember the content, but the title suggests to use the word “I”, and much more than just your angers (which is really “seeing through the others’ eyes” in reaction, still not getting to your independant free voice).
Stop writing about Israel only in reaction, fixated. Stop writing about J Street. Start writing about your life.
Great, so now you’re descending into troll-hood. I wish someone would hire you to rubber stamp triple-A ratings on toxic assets again, as bad as that would be for the US. At least you wouldn’t have so much time on your hands to ad hominem people here.
Don’t listen to Witty, Ahmed. Your post was wonderful and to the point, and your goals and your beliefs shone through for those who have eyes to see and ears to hear.
That’s Witty in a nutshell.
Stop writing about Israel only in reaction, fixated. Stop writing about J Street. Start writing about your life.
Yes, Ahmed, Richard is correct. You should really shut the f* up, blathering on and on about the real world, and focus more intently on your belly button. Israel: none of your business. J Street: none of your business. Your navel? The perfect focus for your expertise.
You’re in a puckish mood today, marc, and I like it! I nearly snorted coffee up my nose at this one.
Ditto for the esprit du corps.
Just a bit cranky, with my mid-life crisis and all. And a bit of sarcasm is just what the doctor ordered.
I’ve got a better book for you, Witty, than arrogantly hurling the insult at Mr. Moor that he needs to decolonize his mind by learning the language and politics of his own birthplace. And that book is THE BRAIN THAT CHANGES ITSELF by Dr. Norman Doidge. He reports the (latest) scientifically proven fact that not only does the brain produce culture, but the culture wires the brain in a particular way, which starts out as practices, then becomes biological differences.
Can’t tell you how long the book has been on the NYT Bestseller List, but you can find it.
You are innaccurate in your summary of my post.
I urged Ahmed TO write about his experience, in his independant assertive terms, not in relationship to Israel.
What ARE you? What do you desire? What do you strive for?
“Free from oppression” is barely a starting point, not nearly yet an assertion of identity, in fact entirely DEPENDANT on Israel for your identity.
It is if you’re oppressed. It was for Jews during WWII.
I urged Ahmed TO write about his experience, in his independant assertive terms, not in relationship to Israel.
What ARE you? What do you desire? What do you strive for?
Yeah Ahmed, keep a journal and write about your feelings and your hopes and dreams. That will help you better cope with the occupation and the oppression. Don’t focus on the negative and ugly reality that dictates every waking hour of your daily existence, but focus on unicorns and rainbows instead.
Then at the end of the school year, you can read it aloud in front of the class, but I’ll have to approve of your journal entries first…..mmmmmkay? Good boy.
Dick Witty is a bigoted, pathetic, delusional piece of excrement.
“And that book is THE BRAIN THAT CHANGES ITSELF by Dr. Norman Doidge”
Ziocaine! (As if more proof for my ziocaine model of Zionism was needed, but thanks Dr. Doidge. Say, I think my Dad bought one of your cars back in the early 60s. At least, it was pronounced the same)
Ahmed makes important points about Israel/Palestine activism that have broader significance to the conflict in general.
Your response not only fails to say anything of value, but succeeds in being incredibly patronizing toward someone who is apparently your moral and intellectual superior.
Do you really deign to tell this person that he is not allowed to write about Israel, about J Street, about Jewish Israel/Palestine activists – things that have a large bearing on his existence as a Palestinian and on his world as a human being? His writing must always be personal, and deal with his own experience, whereas you, and selected Jews and Americans, are allowed to speak in broader universalist terms and talk about groups you are not a part of?
Your racism is ugly, Richard.
But Dick’s racism is the only approved kosher variety all Americans are spoon fed from infancy for decades now. The world sees it, just not Joe Doakes.
Haven’t you noticed the Gerber baby now sports a knit skull cap?
That is a pathetic attack on the author.
The argument put forth by the poster above is practiced very often by Zionists in Israel. I hear it at least four times a week, and that’s on a good week.
The thrust of that weak argument is “Don’t draw our attention or anyone else’s to our mistreatment of you, focus instead on what you can do to improve your situation.”
And the response should be, “I am focusing on improving my situation, because your treatment of me is the f*(@^ng problem”.
Here’s your gem of a state. Stick it!
link to independent.co.uk
O, jesus.
You edit everybody’s thinking. Why? What is it about you that can’t listen to the other, and deal with it?
He’s a hypocrite. It’s all he knows how to do. He goes around pretending like he’s representative of some greater audience when all he is, is an unemployed aging faux-liberal Zionist who’s trying to shout down pretty much the whole community here. It’s disgraceful, it’s disingenuous… and ultimately, it’s also rather pathetic.
Chaos, you are not nice today……now you made me almost feel sorry for witty. How could you? would you rather have Nomi back? how ’bout chris berel?
Should I be proud, Danaa, that I’ve achieved something that I thought was hitherto impossible? :) I suppose you said ‘almost’ and that only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades. I’d recommend you save your sympathy for someone who is capable of it themselves.
“It’s disgraceful, it’s disingenuous… and ultimately, it’s also rather pathetic.”
It’s ziocaine! Look, I am actually not just trying to be funny about this. I would love to see a Zionist’s brain hooked up to a brain-scan and EKG during an argument. I’d bet it’d look just like someone who abuses cocaine.
If you have ever had the dubious privilege of watching a friend or relative succumb to the effects of long-term cocaine abuse, it’s impossible not to notice the congruency between their mental deterioration and a Zionist-supporter’s mental process. That’s why it’s ziocaine, instead of, let us say, ziophine. I’m telling you, it acts on the vagus nerve. You can look it up!
I might mention that you really can’t do ziocaine right if you are actually in Israel, because reality might intrude. No, for a true ziocaine high, you really have to be a Zionist asupporter from middle-class America (Okay Witty, all-rightniks gladly included)
Steady there, lad. There is a comments policy here afterall. Let me remind you:
Paragraph 11th:
You shall not take the name of Witty in vain, for the Editorial Staff shall not hold him guiltless who takes Witty’s name in vain..
Sorry, he just really pisses me off so much. I don’t mind so much when people pretend to be something they’re not, but when they start thinking that pretense gives them some sort of authority uber alles, it enrages me.
Say what you will about me — and yeah, I know I go overboard sometimes — but I don’t pretend to be anything I’m not.
Chaos, another thing that Dr. Doidge says (see post #41 above) is that when emotions are driving us, our brain extrapolates. We start making associations with what we’re experiencing, and assume the truth of them, that veer right off the high diving board into a pool of sand. RW gets emotional about Zionism and Israel. Ditto Nomi and her ilk.
It’s that whole amygdala thing. You have to be capable of great intellectual discipline to use the frontal lobe with subjects you care deeply about, and I haven’t met, or read, a Zionist yet who’s capable of it. It’s exacerbated here in this country by the fact that shrinks have elevated ‘feelings’ to the level of truth, when they’re not.
Essential correction: “With what we’re experiencing and hearing”
[One of Dr. Doidge's thing is that we dont know how to listen, we only know how to hear. If we knew how to listen we could change our brain. He spent four years writing this book reading and talking to the top scientists in the world about this, and examining their research.]
I’m actually not emotional in the way that you guys are flailing.
I am urging that Ahmed find his identity, express it, affirm it, develop it, form relationships from a place of confidence.
Maybe removal of oppression has to happen first, or maybe confidence in one’s identity based on what is intimate, native to oneself has to happen first.
Bong ♫ Bong ♫ Bong ♫
[head against wall]
Actually, you’re probably right, Witty. You’re an utterly callous, heartless person by all accounts that I’ve observed, debasing other people’s identities, rationalizing the murder of hundreds of children at the hands of the IDF as “self defense” and land and water theft by the Israeli government as “active negotiations.”
This is what I mean about Zionists being vicious people — all they do is cut other people down. Witty’s simply calm about it, but he’s no less cruel than Nomi, WJ or Carnas.
Richard, you are mind-reading Ahmed and doing your usual poor job of it. There is no reason to assume that he hasn’t already found “his identity”: his essay here expresses it, and affirms it. He is writing from a secure, confident and thoughtful place. Its you that need the emotional development. You are more than twice Ahmed’s age and live in comparative ease, and yet you are the one who is constantly “reacting”. You need to practice what you preach, Richard.
Dr. Doidge? How is post # 41 applicable to what you say, MRW?
Oops, Citizen, didn’t realize the numbers change, of course. Duh! Now it’s Post #77. Just search Doidge to find him on the page.
“There is no reason to assume that he hasn’t already found “his identity”: his essay here expresses it, and affirms it. He is writing from a secure, confident and thoughtful place”
I think what Wityt means about finding his identity is accepting that idea of what Zionists think of Palestinians.
Chaos, Witty is saying that the first sign of finding your identity is to go where the money and power is. After all, that’s what the Zionists did, and everything went well for them!
Witty is disgusting.
Richard, you reject some historical facts and employ double standards on human rights issues because of your emotional attachment to Zionism. Or that’s the charitable assumption anyway–that is, it’s charitable to assume you simply don’t realize you’re doing it, even when people point it out.
I’ve known other people like this on other subjects–Obama, creationism, Islam, the Confederacy, etc…
Their emotions get involved (they love Obama or they believe in creationism or they are Islamophobic, etc…) and their basic commitment acts as a filter for every fact which comes their way. My creationist friend seemed incapable of reading an article or essay on evolution with an open mind–he always looked for statements he could use to show that the mainstream scientific community was pulling a fast one. He already knew the truth, in his own mind, and all he did when he read was cherrypick evidence that further supported his viewpoint.
I’ll bet you Witty flees now. Like he always does. He’ll sit it out for a while, I maybe divert to some wild tangent here by starting a new thread, and then shuffle off to some other topic to start the whole thing all over again. Pretend like none of the rebuttals ever happened.
He’s probably gone off to check out Dr. Doidge. And well he should.
Who is Dr Doidge?
Kudos to Adam & Phil for publishing Ahmet’s excellent article. Survival of both people depends on enough people from both sides believing in political universalism instead of political tribalism.
Hey Ahmet, greetings from the mountains of Brummana, Lebanon, where I am visiting (I live in USA). My hotel balcony faces north and I can see tonight the glittering northern parts of Beirut, Ashrafieh, Jounieh, the Mediterranean sea and of course an endless string of interlinked pine mountains to the east… this afternoon’s rain has left tonight’s air especially sweet – enough said.
In truth, both our countries are occupied by Zionists – except there’s no boot on my neck daily. Truth too is that the reason your people are still struggling for freedom is not just due to continuing Israeli land-theft and brutality, but also because your own leaders have failed you, just as the Israeli leadership continues to fail it’s own people – meaning: not a single Israelis leadership has been able to give it’s people a FULL AND LASTING peace. Good leadership after all must be able to provide security and prosperity to it’s people or else be rightly labeled a ‘failed leadership’. With more Palestinian youth like you articulating your humanity and brightness, perhaps an old cynic like me can imagine just a touch of hope in the future leadership of the two people.
Good luck to you Ahmet Moor, age 25.
I wish you the best, as do an increasing number of my people.
I also wish Ahmet Moor the best of luck. To be so wise at age 25 is a wonder. Americans generally only start to wise up a little at about age 50.
Reading your post brought this to mind: Amos Oz’s message to Menahem Begin after the Lebanon War.
Reading Taxi’s post, I meant to say. Actually, i meant to say it by using the proper reply button, and I didn’t.
Being raised, as I was, in communist Poland, I was brought up believing in greatness of freedom of expression in America, and for younger me it was the pinnacle of human achievement – I believed that free debate, like free market, will “by invisible hand” create a best possible outcome for the greatest number of people – tempering democracy with rights of minorities, and fine-tuning tensions between individual freedoms and equitable participation in wealth of the nation.
2001 Nobel Price for Economics was awarded to Joseph Stiglitz (shared with George Akerlof and Michael Spence) for analysis of markets with asymmetric information.
They pointed out that restricted access to information prevents market from being really free.
Alas, restricted access to information prevents expression and debate from being really free as well.
This is the reason why neocons couldn’t allow real post 9/11 enquiry, why Poland does not teach schoolchildren in history lessons about its shameful treatment of Ukrainians between World Wars, why pharmaceutical companies pay handsomely for clinical trials that show results, but withdraw funding if clinical trials falter, and why Israel Lobby is massively overrepresented in positions of influence in the Media.
I agree with you, Ahmed, that the starting position should be equal human rights and equal value of human life. It is self evident. But the first battle is to stop the bloodbath and malnutrition. Not much point getting human rights for dead people.
And to win battles one needs troops. And the Jewish community is a gatekeeper of information with regard to what is happening in Palestine and without winning the support of Jewish opinion makers reaching general American audience would be slow if not impossible.
When the objective information will reach American people, the conversation will switch from “what is good for the Jews in Palestine” to “what is good for all human beings in Palestine”.
Its already switched, even among people that you define as insensitive.
Its just that “never again” to Jews means it.
It shouldn’t mean suppression ofof others, year in and year out. But it DOES mean affirmation of Jewish identity and association, year in and year out, and will continue.
You put the quotes in the wrong spot. To you it seems a lot more like “never again to Jews” — to Palestinians? Go nuts.
You were born human before you were born Jewish.
Where’s your affirmation of your primal identity – you know, that little thing we call humanity?
Exactly. Step One. Philosophy (and casuistry) later.
Eva, thank you so much for your wisdom. You are awfully bright in brain, heart, and soul. When I think of all the bigoted and vulgar attacks on you over the years on this blog (by people with the thinnest skins imaginable yet), I can only say thank you, for plugging away in the greater interest of the family of Man.
If “never again” only applies to jewish victims, then the world has not moved beyond tribal battles as in the old testament. So interpreted, “never again” means nothing other than what Goering knew. Happy, Dick?
Eva – excellent points….the gatekeepers of informations – too true. Kind of tragic also. BTW, from your name I was sure you were hungarian. Oh well….
Ahmet’s heartfelt and well-written post has engendered some philosophical responses, many focusing on the notion of basic humanity.
I think we can all agree that the policies of the israeli leadership for a long time has been quite inhuman and cruel toward the Palestinians.
We can turn to the font of all wisdom, Cesar Millan the dog whisperer for a little understanding. Understanding your pet dog requires you to realize that it is first and animal, second that it is a dog, third that it is a specific breed of dog, and lastly, it is your cuddly pet.
In the I/P and wider jewish identity/jewish power situation it is important to remember that we are all human beings. Some supremacists believe they are more human or that others are sub-human and this creates a real problem from the get-go. These supremacists need to be removed from power or the situation will never be resolved. Only when all participants acknowledge and take into their hearts that it is our fellow human beings we are in conflict with can we ever in good faith reach some kind of resolution.
We all know the reality: the current government and much of the israeli population sees themselves as superior and the Palestinians and everyone else as inferior. The official policy is domination and control and has never been about fairness.
Homo-Sapiens; i.e. modern humans … then we are an ethnicity, then we are a religion, then we are communities, then individuals … as the most highly-evolved animal on this Earth we have the choice of accepting or rejecting these catagorization labels or assigning meaning to these distinctions or quibbling about whether these distinctions matter. I say they matter because they lead to real conflicts and real consequences. Those who act in good faith and seek real understanding and cooperation must accept and take into their hearts and minds the FACT that we are all humans beings as a first step.
I don’t see this happening anytime soon from the israeli leadership and a large segment of its population.
Some of us Americans have taken to heart that we are individuals first, though in our early years our cultural nurture is embedded so it takes a while to burst through to true appreciation of the responsibility of being an individual human on earth, born by random into a certain time and place. The USA’s founding documents, it’s credentials, as it were, mandate that the state is the servant of the people, not visa-versa. And so too all macro ID affinities inheirated or reclaimed.
To Mister Ahmed Moor- I appreciate your earnestness and your desire for a country with equal rights for all. Most of us who have lived or live in New York with its diversity and equal rights before the law admire the system and can understand that you would wish to live under such a system in the place of your birth (or the place of your grandfathers’ birth).
But you too should appreciate concerns that the one state proposal that you espouse would not result in the New York type government. The failure of the PLO and Hamas to provide for their populations, their history of corruption, authoritarianism (in the case of the PLO) and religious oppression (in the case of Hamas) and the general history of father to son regimes, with little history of democracy in the region, plus the current zeitgeist of Islam certainly bolsters the doubts that many Jews and Israelis share regarding the promise of one state which will yield a reality quite different from the ideal which you paint.
Therefore there is a great need to fill in the details of the government of this proposed one state and an explanation of what will ensure that this ideal government (with details) will arise rather than an Islamic state or some other sort of mess.
Obviously my critique is vulnerable to criticism because of the injustice towards your people that has flowed and flows from the Israeli government towards your people. Nonetheless I ask you to resist reacting to my criticism with an attack and realize that there is indeed a need to fill in the details and and to envision the path whereby the one state will resemble the ideal rather than the other governments of the region that I described.
I realize that this detailed government (and the process that will ensure that it will happen rather than the less happy results) will require much thought and work by many. So I am not demanding nor do I expect a quick answer. But nonetheless this is the direction that your ideals must follow if it is to become a reality rather than just a critique of the current situation.
But let’s not repeat what the USA settlers did to the native Americans, ok? And to inhibit such a future scenario, to the extent it’s not already happened, let’s remember the Nuremberg trials and the international law that derived from them, ok? Otherwise, all the innocents that died in WW2 died in vain.
“religious oppression (in the case of Hamas) “
Some contra-indications:
“Our society has always celebrated pluralism in keeping with the unique history and traditions of the Holy Land. In recognizing Judeo-Christian traditions, Muslims nobly vie for and have the greatest incentive and stake in preserving the Holy Land for all three Abrahamic faiths. In addition, fair governance demands that the Palestinian nation be represented in a pluralistic environment. A new breed of Islamic leadership is ready to put into practice faith-based principles in a setting of tolerance and unity.
In that vein, Hamas has pledged transparency in government. Honest leadership will result from the accountability of its public servants. Hamas has elected 15 female legislators poised to play a significant role in public life. The movement has forged genuine and lasting relationships with Christian candidates. ”
-By Mousa Abu Marzook, deputy political bureau chief of the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas). He has a U.S. doctorate in engineering.
Washington Post. 2006/01/30.
“A woman has been installed as mayor of the Palestinian Authority’s political capital Ramallah thanks to the support of the radical Islamist movement Hamas, officials said on Friday.
Janette Khuri, a 62-year-old Christian, became the first woman mayor of a major West Bank municipality when she was elected by a majority of her 15 fellow councillors.
Khuri, a member of the leftist Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), triumphed over the ruling Fatah faction’s candidate Ghazi Hanania when the three Hamas members voted for her.”
From onlinewomeninpolitics. Jan 07
The acting finance minister, Samir Abu Eisha of Hamas, said he’ll write the US$50,000 check in the coming days. ………….We don’t fund any Islamic celebrations, but we want to fund this Christian festival, which is a special part of Bethlehem,” said Abu Eisha. “As a Palestinian government, we hope our Christian brothers have a happy celebration. They are an integral part of Palestinian society.
Haaretz. 10/12/2006 .
“The pupils at the Holy Family School, Gaza City, all call Manawel Musallam “Abunah” – Our Father in Arabic.
His is a huge family of 1,200 children and, although the school is part-funded by the Vatican, here, as in all of Gaza, Christians are the minority.
Our identity is a multi-layered one. Ninety-nine percent of the pupils here are Muslim. This is one of the reasons Fr Musallam says he does not fear the Islamists.
“They should be afraid. Not me,” he chuckled.
“Their children are under my tutelage, in my school. Hamas mothers and fathers are here at parents’ day along with everyone else.”
link to news.bbc.co.uk
” the general history of father to son regimes, with little history of democracy in the region”
Give someone else a toke.
Most Hamas politicians are university graduates in fields ranging from medicine and physics to jurisprudence, economics and theology. Let us not forget that they were elected legitimately only to be rewarded by a U.S./Israeli attempt to subvert the process and install Fatah/PLO.
See:
link to vanityfair.com
I don’t think they need to be instructed in Democracy by us.
Brewer – Thank you for the indications of religious tolerance exhibited by Hamas. They aren’t sufficient to allay my fears which are based on the rhetoric of the leaders and founders of Hamas, but I welcome positive contrary evidence. Your tone regarding the indications of democratic inclinations amongst the Hamas politicians is negative (understatement). Also I fail to see the relevance of university attendance or graduation as proof of democratic tendencies.
Who do we have to blame for the lack of unity between Fatah and Hamas?
Oh, that’s right. Our own State Department.
link to vanityfair.com
I’ll take Hamas’ religious tolerance, incomplete though it may be, over Israeli religious tolerance any day of the week. Ask most non-Jews who’ve been to (or live) in the area and you’d know why.
“They aren’t sufficient to allay my fears which are based on the rhetoric of the leaders and founders of Hamas”
So your fears and the fears of others like you justify the abnegation of democratic and Human rights principles?
I believe we have heard this sort of thing many times – certainly in every case where a minority wishes to impose its will on a majority.
There was an election last year, down here in Kiwiland. I feared that the right wing National Party would dismember what remains of several very successful social welfare programmes. I was correct – they won and they did.
Whilst I deplore their actions I do not consider either my fears or even their actions sufficient grounds to deprive their supporters of their democratic rights.
It seems to me that your position typifies that of many Israelis. Democracy is only to be supported when the outcome can be guaranteed to suit your agenda.
Also neglected in your thesis is the rhetoric of Israeli political figures. Just one example is the leader of the third largest party, Shas. Wasn’t it he, Rabbi Josef, who said:
“The Arabs are abominable, you must send missiles to annihilate them” – ?
The intellectual level of Hamas politicians does not guarantee that they are committed to democratic principles but it does indicate that they are not zealots, solely focused on religious matters, unlike the Rabbi Josef. The fact that many obtained their degrees in Western Universities indicates that they have first-hand knowledge of Western political values. Not conclusive I know but a little less scary than the image portrayed in the U.S. and Israeli media.
I suggest you put your fears on hold until such time as there is universal franchise in Palestine. In the event that a properly elected government comprising representatives of both communities advocates religious persecution or military action against dissidents (such as Operation Cast Lead), I shall join you most heartily in condemning it.
You have mentioned your uneasiness based on the level of Democracy in surrounding Arab States “with little history of democracy in the region”. Edward Said addressed this very point in one of the last lectures he delivered:
link to youtube.com
It is, I think, during question time that he makes the point that none of the surrounding states have been free of colonial and imperialist interference in living memory. Governments have been imposed on them. Today, unpopular (i.e. undemocratic) governments are propped up by or threatened by the carrots and sticks brandished by Western powers. Egypt’s connivance with Israel is bought and paid for by the U.S. The attempted overthrow of Hamas (see the Vanity Fair article) is just one example of Israel and the U.S. blatantly trying to subvert democracy.
P.S. Wondering Jew
Ahmed Moor posits:
“This enables Jeremy Ben-Ami to explain to Jeffrey Goldberg that equality between Jews and non-Jews in Palestine/Israel is not only undesirable, but a “nightmare” scenario.”
My reading of your post indicates that your position is similar to that of Ben-Ami.
Brewer – I am not denying the possibility that a one state solution might be workable; I am denying the probability. Edward Said’s asserts what is possible, but he does not define what is probable.
The desire of my original post was to engage Mister Moor in a dialogue, rather than to argue against his assertions. Does he envision a single legislative body like the Knesset and a prime minister or does he envision a presidential system like in America? Would he want the current system of 120 members elected from party lists or something more similar to American congressmen voted from districts. I’d be interested to see the constitution of this new country. There are currently Israelis living in neighborhoods that used to be all Palestinian Arab before 1948. How would that situation be dealt with? What would happen to the Hamas impulse to require veils in their schools and modesty on their beaches? Some of this may seem trivial. But they say: envision world peace, which to me means, if we envision the details it becomes more real in our minds and the more real it becomes to our minds the more real we can make it.
(I do not reject the one state solution outright because there were Zionists who favored such an arrangement before 1948. Both Judah Magnes who has been adopted as the emblem of the idea by the blog of The Magnes Zionist and more importantly in my eyes, Martin Buber, originally favored such an idea.)
Meanwhile the practicality of the one state solution is negligible because the vast majority of Israel rejects it outright. Overcoming their opposition would require a war and a defeat of Israel and Israel being overrun by Arab soldiers. That is not a possibility that I wish to contemplate. Therefore the idea is both pie in the sky and cruel as hell.
“Meanwhile the practicality of the one state solution is negligible because the vast majority of Israel rejects it outright. Overcoming their opposition would require a war and a defeat of Israel and Israel being overrun by Arab soldiers. That is not a possibility that I wish to contemplate. Therefore the idea is both pie in the sky and cruel as hell. “
Could be achieved peacefully if the U.S. and World opinion willed it. Such was the case in South Africa.
I believe the first step in any such process is the acknowledgement, by Israel, of the rights of Palestinians, guaranteed them by U.N. Resolution 194 and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Get that in place and then let’s see what happens next.
Cruel as hell?
When I think of “cruel” I am assailed by the image of a young Palestinian woman who, first forced to witness the shooting of her father, her husband, probably all the male members of her family upon whom she depended for security, is ordered to gather up her children and leave her home on foot with just what she can carry.
This cruelty, despite the plethora of incontrovertible evidence offered by Israeli historians of 800,000 similar stories, has never been acknowledged and is more frequently denied by the Israeli Government. This, to my mind, exacerbates the cruelty.
Compared with this original atrocity and the sixty years of denial, being resettled in an orderly manner with proper compensation does not seem cruel to me – and this is perfectly feasible. All it takes is for the Israeli side to acknowledge what the intellectual left in Israel has known for decades and to accept responsibility.
From that point on, all urgency and most of the hostility disappears – Palestinian patience is legendary. In all likelihood, many Palestinians would take the compensation and remain where they are. Likewise many Jews would take their compensation and buy back their former homes. From this point of acknowledgement, the problem becomes a diminishing one rather than the escalating clusterf**k is is at present.
Sound unrealistic?
It is not too distant from what Hamas has already proposed – a ten year absolute cease-fire while these things are worked out.
Brewer – I appreciate the general cordiality of your tone.
The leaders of Israel feel that they have been given a trust to keep a Jewish state alive, a state that their fathers waited for since the destruction of the temple in the year 70 of the Common Era. A state that they have been entrusted to hand over to their children intact. The withdrawal of American support unless these Israeli leaders support the one state solution would put them in a tough position, but I’m not so sure they would give in so easily.
My hope is that a two state agreement can be reached. It will take a spirit of good will to reach such an agreement and if that spirit of good will would continue on after such an agreement, the two states might be able to cooperate and confederate and the result would be similar to a one state solution. Presently that hope is more like an ember than a flame. But as someone once said, “If you will it, it is no legend.”
Wondering Jew.
I too appreciate the opportunity to discuss these matters in a civil manner. Credit is due to you also – some of the propositions I have made would have had incensed the average Zionist. You have encouraged me to embark on a rambling discourse that is probably more
My point of view is probably informed by both the time and the place I was born – 1948 New Zealand and my circumstances. In my formative years, my country was shaking off its colonial past and I recognise the lack of imagination displayed by many Israelis when it comes to race relations. My father’s generation and those before it, though well meaning, could not imagine full integration and resisted it in many subtle ways. I have part-Maori children. My father once commented that these grandchildren had eliminated a previously unacknowledged tension within himself – a sense of not quite belonging.
Legislative initiatives such as our Waitangi Tribunal (a Court dedicated to native land issues) defused a possibly explosive situation and the conversion of a confrontational discourse into a “good faith” dialogue played a big part in raising Pakeha (non-Maori) awareness of genuine grievances that had disappeared down the memory hole. Settlement of such claims also raised the status and confidence of Maori. The net result was that my parents generation, who had practised a benign, paternalistic kind of racism (my mother still referred to the British Isles as “home” after four generations in NZ and regarded mixed marriages as “difficult for the children”) underwent a sea-change. Maori culture became an integral part of the New Zealand persona, Maori blood became a source of pride. This social change, in my view, was the direct result of the recognition of property rights superseding rights of conquest. The Waitangi Tribunal still hears cases but it is anticipated that it will become redundant in a few years. This prospect raises little anxiety today among Maori.
It ain’t perfect by any means but we now have a multi-cultural society and the New Zealand model has been emulated in other post-colonial states.
I firmly believe that the first step towards reconciliation is settlement of the land issue.
“The leaders of Israel feel that they have been given a trust to keep a Jewish state alive, a state that their fathers waited for since the destruction of the temple in the year 70 of the Common Era.”
First let me state that I do not consider the “Diaspora” narrative historically accurate. That Yochanan ben Zakai was able to establish his Rabbinical school within sight of Jerusalem in 70 AD argues against a general expulsion as do most Israeli historians. I am also skeptical of the notion that Jewish persecution is unique. Persecutions, pogroms and prejudice have been experienced to greater and lesser degree by most religions and races. I do not rely on this however. If it were indeed the case that Jewish suffering is greater than, say the victims of slavery, dispossession and internecine violence throughout history, I would still maintain that it does not in any way permit the infliction of similar suffering on another people. While we are at it, I might as well explain my attitude to the “Historic Right” of Jews to possession of the territory.
This concept relies upon “right of conquest”, a rather outmoded idea. That is to say, according to legend, Israel conquered the territory in 1300 BC or whenever therefore it retains title to it. This cannot be, for title first obtained by conquest must surely be extinguished by subsequent conquest or, alternatively, all conquerors have equal claim.
Other, more arcane, “spiritual attachment” claims are equally spurious – wanting something does not give one the right to take it and it can be easily demonstrated that the inhabitants, in this case Palestinians, have a similar “spiritual attachment”. Arguments of this nature become nonsensical when extrapolated into general rules. They therefore rely on exceptionalism.
Whilst I understand the sentiment that attaches to a “Jewish State”, the devil is in the detail. As it is practiced by recent Israeli administrations, it manifests itself as either a religious bigotry or racism that exceeds the proper function of the state.
Implicit in it is the concept that persons of a particular race or religion occupy a position of privilege. This is beyond the legitimate scope of the State and untenable in the 21st century.
“English” is a description of a polyglot race, descendants of Norse, European, Latin stock who observe a plethora of religions. “British” includes folk of every race and religion. Similarly with America and almost every Nation – most have had, at some point, to recognise the rights to a share of sovereignty possessed by the indigenous peoples over whom they once ruled. This has had very little impact on the basically “British” nature of former colonies such as Australia, Canada and New Zealand. Similarly, Islamic states such as Malaysia have not lost their basically Asian character.
At this I’d best address the thorny issue of the Islamic State.
From a Western point of view, any mix of religion and state is viewed with suspicion. This ignores the enormous influence scripture had already imprinted on our legal system before the modern era. Many of our legal concepts can be traced to Biblical and Talmudic influence and many States are known as “Christian” or “Roman Catholic” without inspiring fears of theocracy.
I observe no religion yet, having lived in an Islamic State, I have very few problems with the concept. I also understand that the Koran bears much more observable influence on the rules of such States because, in addition to its religious content, it contains much more that pertains to civil society than is found in the Old and New Testaments. As such, it is as indispensable to political thought in Islamic society as Hobbes, Hume, de Tocqueville, Marx, whomever, are to ours.
Where “the rubber meets the road” is in the application of this body of thought, the degree to which it caters to minorities and I admit it is problematical in some Islamic states just as it is in China, India and even in the West. I maintain however, that disputes arising from it are human rights issues properly dealt with by non-military International pressure and through the civil discourse only possible in a fully enfranchised society.
My main contention is that the existence of Islamic States (even those that oppress minorities) does not provide a rationale for a Jewish State that oppresses minorities, it provides a rationale for the elimination of all such abuses. It could well be said that Human Rights progress in repressive Islamic states is made all the more difficult by the existence of the Jewish State in its present form. International bodies such as the U.N. are weakened by Israel’s unwillingness to abide by and America’s arbitrary vetoing of U.N. resolutions, many of which are based on human rights principles.
I am not wedded to the single state solution. I simply maintain that no solution will succeed until the land rights issue is addressed. The longer that issue remains unresolved, the larger the single state looms however. This has been recognised by Olmert no less.
The survival of Jewish culture is not dependent on a Jewish State. It is, in fact, threatened by it. I believe that the pre-1948 Misrahim would find little commonality with the Israeli of today. This bespeaks a dilution of the culture.
Quite beautifully said, especially this:
‘A purely Jewish focus on a more-than-Jewish problem causes many leftist Jews to take a paternalistic view of Palestinians. Rather than equals whose inalienable rights form the crux of the case against Zionism, the Palestinians are the clay of Jewish humanism, waiting to be fully actualized by thoughtful and reflective Jewish hands. Instead of insisting that Palestinians are human beings whose existence is the repudiation of Zionism, some Jews on the left argue that Zionism violates Jewish ethics. I am not suggesting that the two streams of thought are mutually exclusive, only that the focus on one may inhibit the realization of the other.’
This chimes with Mr Barghouti’s emphasis on the Daily Show; not so much on the crimes of the aggressor, or even the injury he causes, as the inalienable equal rights of the victim. This approach neatly deploys our freedom-loving, democratic rhetoric against the reality of our actions, or lack of action. We talk the talk, this quiet strategy forces us to walk the walk, or failing that, to STFU. The focus on Israeli chauvinism and brutality shifts over to our complacent and/or craven acceptance of it.
Whereas before we were urged to agree that Israel’s behaviour was unacceptable, which left some handy wiggle-room for evasion, we are now being invited to consider our own responsibility, in a frame of reference that we almost religiously aver is the very bedrock of our civilisation, and the basis of our notion of what distinguishes us. Mr Barghouti is almost respectfully, certainly not spitefully, holding this mirror up in front of us, and asking us to overcome our natural tendency to look away.
Danaa said: ‘I sometimes think that the main difference between the jews of new york and those of israel is that the former – by virtue of living in america – recognize, and indeed fight for equal rights under the law for all. ‘
I don’t know about that. Did you see Max Blumenthal’s videos on some of the pro-Israel marches of recent times? The participants may only have been a sample, but I find it hard to believe they were unrepresentative of a very large proportion of the Jewish community there. These were not settler-style fundie-weirdos, they were the prosperous mainstream, uttering the sort of racist inanities Max also encountered often while in Israel – many of these being from visiting mainstream American Jews!
You only have to read the racist bile of the dwindling band of sad hasbarites you see at places like this to understand how ‘living in America’ doesn’t appear to laid the groundwork necessary for recognising or indeed fighting ‘for equal rights under the law for all’. Indeed, I’d go so far as to say that Israeli Jews are probably in general less likely, in their hearts, to host the sort of double standards that American Jews such as Richard Witty can manage, simply by virtue of their being actually over there, on the ground, in the reality of the situation. If they are racists, they are clear-eyed, self-aware, even proud racists – not racists who kid themselves that their attitudes can’t be prejudiced because they grew up in freedom-loving America, goddamit!
Most American Zionists have apparently never been to Israel and live secular and even intermarried lives, are fed a news/info diet carefully screened to be free of the ugly quotidian detail of occupation, and from this insulated distance, can afford to entertain grossly chauvinistic fantasies of tribal dominance in a mythic homeland, all within the blameless rubric of American progressivism.
Todd says: ‘The Palestinians are 100% in the right, but their struggle is no more my struggle than was the struggle in Rwanda between Hutu and Tutsi. ‘
That may be true from a moral standpoint, but not from a practical one. Bluntly, we could afford to ignore millions of black people in Africa killing each other and pass on the effort required to make a difference. It could plausibly be argued that most of us in the West have been utterly unaffected by the upheavals of sub-Saharan Africa (which by the way appear to have been going on for thousands of years). But how can anyone argue that the ME conflicts don’t impact upon our present and especially our future? The lives of our children will probably be as unruffled by Africa as ours were, but what happens in the ME is crucial to the chances of their enjoying anything like the relative peace and prosperity you and I grew up in. Perhaps it shouldn’t be that way, but it is.
Yes, Glen, as the General Obama sent told his J-St conference audience. Witty responded by saying some pressure needed to be applied, but he calls BDS regressive as a tactic despite the fact the current USA political system dictates nothing will change. And Witty conflates “dissent” with lack of practicality in the quest for human equality and justice. Remember the question of mid-19th Century Russian liberal intellectuals, What Is To Be Done?
Glen, I agree that I am deeply affected by what goes on in the Palestine. My point is that it should have never been an issue that America involved itself.
RE: “This enables Jeremy Ben-Ami to explain to Jeffrey Goldberg that equality between Jews and non-Jews in Palestine/Israel is not only undesirable, but a ‘nightmare’ scenario.” – AHMED MOOR
MY COMMENT: I agree with most of Ahmed Moor’s excellent post, but I must take issue with the above-referenced excerpt. I’m going from memory here, but I believe Ben-Ami said that the one-state scenario would be a “nightmare” rather than a solution. I think it is a quite a stretch to say this amounts to calling equality a nightmare. I believe Ben-Ami’s conception of the two-state scenario incorporates ‘equality’ for all of the inhabitants of each state within the two-state framework. More problematic is the question of equality between the two states and derivatively the question of equality between Israeli’s and Palestinians. It is certainly legitimate to ask whether a two-state scenario is destined (perhaps even designed, at least by some) to disadvantage Palestinians relative to Israelis. One can also ask how much equality can realistically be achieved via a one-state scenario (or perhaps some type of confederation).
P.S. Since I doubt there is really a ‘solution’ (a mutual accommodation is probably the best that can be hoped for), I use the term ‘scenario’ in its place.
It is Israel that has become the nightmare for the Jewish people. The sooner it is dissolved, the better.
RE: The focus ought to be shifted from “Where have we gone as Jews” to “What is happening to other human beings in Israel/Palestine?”
MY COMMENT: Of course, the latter is ‘by and large’ (for the most part) implicit in the former. I think Ben-Ami is trying to use the narrative that will work best with his “target audience” at this point in time. The problem with focusing on what has been done to the Palestinians by “X”, is that it is is much more likely to make “X” defensive. If it engenders enough defensiveness, it could even be counter-productive. It is also important to not inadvertently nudge the mostly slumbering demon of anti-Semitism that still haunts us.
Are you suggesting that it is inappropriate to ask, “What is happening to other human beings in Israel/Palestine?” because it might “inadvertently nudge the mostly slumbering demon of anti-Semitism that still haunts us”? If so, get lost; you’re in the wrong place.
I don’t think Dickerson is at all saying that it is inappropriate to ask “What is happening to other human beings in Israel/Palestine?”.
I think he is making two key points here.
One look at the last 40 years of occupation shows plainly, that without progressive Jewish Americans taking interest in ending of occupation, there will be plenty of “blips” of muted outrage in Media, and absolutely no progress on the issue. Only Jewish Americans could withstand the attacks that were using “anti-Semitism” slur as extraordinarily effective weapon. “Anti-Semitism” slur was so amazingly successful in blockading information precisely because majority American public opinion recoils from racism and racist attitudes and will pay no heed to statements they think are racially motivated.
So lets be grateful to heavens for courageous individuals like Norman Finkelstein, Tony Judt, Philip and many others, who listened to their own conscience, and to folk in J Street because they are moving in a right direction, even if it feels miles too slow for the rest of us.
As to “slumbering demon of anti-Semitism” I totally agree that there is a danger. The differences between incomes of rich and poor have reached levels that historically led to social unrest. Sure, there is more tools to distract the masses but the income differential is continuing to rise.
You can raise taxes of rich and powerful to prevent revolutions or you can find a scapegoat. I will put my money on finding a scapegoat.
There is enough pent-up frustration and resentment at Jewish success in business and the media to make them (again) a first class scapegoat material. And once there is a focus for social anger, the “masses” can become a little scary and unmanageable, so scapegoat has to be painted to be progressively more ugly and hateful lest the angry voters start looking for other culprits of their poverty to blame. In the worst case scenario, people in power end up believing their own propaganda on the scapegoats, and start using the power of the state to crush or punish the scapegoats.
It seems to me that there’s a clear core here, perhaps even a clear majority, endorsing what might be called a liberal universalist democratic ideal, for want of a better term, (or LUD ideal in shorthand), and that’s fine and even admirable.
Just as a matter of intellectual questioning however I wonder whether there aren’t only some huge practical but also theoretical problems that renders same not just unworkable and unrealistic but also perhaps constituting a recipe for terrible strife.
On the smaller scale, for instance, such a LUD ideal would seem to effectively require the suicide of Israel as a Zionist entity, no matter how gently or generously it were to propose keeping that nature. Thus for instance not only would it not tolerate Israel given how it was founded, but even if that could be gotten past it would seem to say that it would be wrong for Israel, even an Israel within its pre-’67 borders, to do anything to maintain its jewish majority, such as restrict its immigration to jews only, or generously and voluntarily only encourage its non-jews to emmigrate.
Now, that’s fine and you may endorse that, even if I believe the world can and should make room for an Israel as a Zionist entity within its pre-’67 borders. But I think on a broader global scale there are big difficulties too.
For instance it seems to me those same kinds of problems would seem to exist with all countries given that I at least don’t see in the LUD ideal room for any country or culture to discriminate so as to maintain its distinct identity. Thus, the LUD ideal seems to me to say that no matter the cultural, philosophical or intellectual characteristics of a person or group of persons, no country ought to be able to discriminate against them in terms of allowing them to immigrate into that country. And indeed it can also even seem to mean that it would be wrong for any country to not allow virtually unrestricted immigration into it since, of course, that would seem to represent the unmerited discrimination of others in favor merely of one’s own. (And even if that *isn’t* deemed wrong via the application of a LUD ideal, well then what the LUD ideal is inviting is a world consisting of countries who, because they can’t discriminate in terms of *who* they let in, will instead choose to let *nobody* in and thus essentially prohibit all emmigration and immigration.)
Of course in a perfect *and homogenous* world the absolutely free and unrestricted emmigration and immigration would seem to provide no problem, but that’s not the world we live in. But it’s not homogenous, and if, say, every arab country had to accept into it every person committed to the destruction of the Islamic religion, well, then isn’t the LUD ideal in essence saying that “yes, following me will of course mean any number of scores of terrible terrible civil war.”
Another problem with pushing the LUD ideal on any country would seem to be that it would seem fair for any such country to insist that before it went along *every* other country go along too, first. That is, refuse to enact the LUD ideal until, say, every arab country agreed to take as immigrants into it every non-arab and every person committed to the destruction of Islam too, and every hispanic country agreed to take every immigrant into it who was committed to the hatred of hispanic culture too and etc. and so forth and so on.
In short, and on the theoretical plane as opposed to the “merely” pragmatic—even if those pragmatics might seem to mean the acceptance of innumerable terrible civil wars—it seems to me the LUD ideal at least somewhat conflicts with the idea of the people having the freedom of association. (If not totally conflicts with same.)
Why, after all, would it be objectionable if, say, the poor Australian aborigines got together and said they wanted to form a little state of their own, with no immigration in, or limited strictly to other Australian aborigines, would that be a terrible thing? A small enough population group to begin with, terribly dealt with, decimated now almost; why does that seem not ugly at all?
Yet, if you accept that same *isn’t* ugly, on what basis does one go about saying “oh, okay, *you* can go about being insular—and, necessarily then, discriminatory as hell—but *you* can’t?
Not that I’m in any violent disagreement with the LUD ideal; it’s just that I can not only see that it might have some huge practical problems with it possibly inviting those worst kinds of wars that are civil wars, but also the theoretical problem too of denying the right of association. And I also worry that it seems to command some ultimate homogenization of humankind that I don’t know is all that desirable.
Insularity is one thing, for better or worse, but it can’t apply to Israel where it now exists. If the Zionists wanted an insular society, they shouldn’t have attempted to locate it in the middle of another indigenous population. It then became, not a matter of keeping others out, but of expelling them from the homeland they had first occupied.
btw, for an interesting speculative account of the future of exreme insularity, you might look up Mike Resnick’s Kirinyaga, about a group that attempts to recreate (and enforce) the traditional Kikuyu culture on an artificial world. I can’t help imagining a haredi version of this.
“to recreate (and enforce) the traditional Kikuyu culture”
If it involves penis-sheaths and shrunken heads, count me in! I’m all for it.
Early immigration into the USA was mostly legal and when the immigrants got there, they were on their own for survival, aided only by charities; today lots of immigration is illegal, and when the illegals get there, they are supported directly or indirectly by lots of taxpayer welfare dollars–big difference. One cannot bring this up in the MSM without being accused of being a racist.
Of course the greedy corporations employing them love it as they need not give any fringe beneifts; those are absorbed by the local taxpayers.
I’m surprised at the degree of bashing that occurs here.
If he read my posts, without the invective, they make sense, are humane and considerate to him, do not deny him his experience in the slightest.
The only thing that I see that could be offensive, is that it insists that Jewish experience is also important, and particularly in the manner that I and J Street and other radical centrists propose, which is reform of Israel to realize the dual nature of its primary law.
Most of the Palestinian nationalists that I’ve met are NOT prepared to drop their Palestinian identity, or Palestinian nationalism, in advocating for the single state proposal, hopefully as a civil permanently democratic state.
I don’t think they should drop their Palestinian identity or Palestinian nationalism. But, they should not seek a single state then, if they seek to retain nationalism in any form certainly. Identity can exist as a minority or majority, confidently and happily.
It definitely can’t in an unreformed Israel, that currently exacerbates discrimmination rather than rejects it.
Historically, the stated reason for discrimminations at all was stated as threat. Certainly in 1950, there was threat.
The single-state proposal is a political form of threat to Zionists. Again, as that represents 90% of the Jewish residents of Israel, that threat of imposition of a form of governance that is rejected assertively, would represent an oppression on that majority or large minority.
The only way to change the character of that, would be for proponents of the civilist vision, to persuade Jewish, currently Zionist, Israelis that they would be permanently respected and permanently equal members of the society. A minority likely would value that committed civilist approach, even some that are more commercialist than ethnic.
But, the current single-state formula does not suggest anything near that standard of persuasion. It is all constructed on condemnation, anger, implied threatened violence, towards a Palestinian supremacy majority.
Urging reform in Israel is a FAR MORE progressive stand, both short and long term.
Another practical alternative is agitation for a truly democratic Palestine in the West Bank and Gaza, that is similarly dual in character, and emphasizing the democratic over the national if possible.
In that way a federal nation could emerge from two compatible states, resulting in a bi-national state, maybe in 20 years.
The agitation path towards that same end will be resisted, fought for by Israelis.
I get that it takes strong emotion to motivate some people. Others are motivated by thought and willingly creative enough to act strategically and respectfully from thought.
What specific reforms do you recommend Israel make, Richard W?
Also, you recommend agitation for a separate democratic Palestine state, including with emphasis on the democractic over the national–should Israel be the model? Should the Palestine state be fully sovereign as Israel is?
Bullshit, Witty. You come around here attacking various authors and commentors — hell, the entire American Progressive Left, damn near — and then you’re going to complain about the bashing that goes on around here?
Talk about a case of, “Good lord! Just where did all of this elephant shit in the room come from?!”
“Certainly in 1950, there was threat. “
To whom, Witty? Who lost homes? Who lost land? Who was driven out? Whose villages were razed? Whose families were gunned down and mortared?
You’re so profoundly dishonest and solipsist to your failed ideology, it hurts.
“The only thing that I see that could be offensive, is that it insists that Jewish experience is also important…”
Therein lies the error, this does not even remotely resemble the “Jewish experience.” It represents the “Jewish experience” as much as the early settler activity of the indigenous genocide reflected the “Christian experince,” or in its various forms that apartheid South Africa represented the “Calvinist experience,” or that the British colonial empire represented the “Anglican experience,” or that Hitlers genocide represented the “Lutheran experince,” or that Hagee’s aberration is the “Christian experience.”
That is the assumption which is rife in most of the arguments, when Zionism is not Judaism, it is an aberration, it is a dangerous and deadly cult. All so-called religions that act as cover for colonial and illegal activity, theft, murder represent nothing nothing but the will of human beings to act like animals with impunity. So in essence we are not talking about legitimate activity, and any attempt to place it in that category is nothing but support for that which is unacceptable.
Zionism has turned that which was community exposition of law, much wrongly reasoned, into a set of virulent and deadly practices against another people. Doing this in the setting of a nation turns the removal of the leavened within the personal religious activity of choice in ones home into a slow genocide in a nation (redeeming the land)! This is proof positive that religion should not go anywhere near the seat of power in the modern state.
Don’t get me wrong, I do not mean that there is any religious convictions to much of the activity, it is just used as an excuse thereof. So classically Zionism is not Judaism, it is not the “Jewish experience” historically, it has been used as the instrument of a dangerous cult by some who are deceived (as has been the case of the use of religions among elites from time immemorial) and others just serves as a cover for illegal activity against humanity. This is what you support Witty, this is what those of AIPAC embrace, and this is the direction of the sentiment of J Street which says it loves Israel as she currently functions.
So my recommendation to this readership, to those of the Jewish faith as large whether they are AIPAC like or J Street leaning that you take a long hared look both evidential and historical, religious and secular, at what we are dealing with here. Israel is not a preservation of the Judaism it is currently an aberration, it reflects little of what you and I grew up with (hence the appeals and uneasiness that many are making in the community), and we do not need to land on the side of a so-called “Jewish experience” that reflects the carnage of Operation Cast Lead, or all the other various forms of barbarism inflected upon the Palestinian people – which is sum takes the name (if we look at it religiously) of who we claim to serve in vain.
THIS IS WHAT YOU ARE CURRENTLY SERVING IF YOU SUPPORT ISRAEL IN ITS CURRENT CONDITION
Brilliant post, v. I wish I had the patience still to write half as eloquently as you do.
I think other discussions with a more serious critical eye are in order –
ANOTHER FORUM
v nails it. Zionism isn’t Judaism, Zionism is idolatry.
I think it’s time for another prophet, another Ezekiel, to preach against the Zionists.
Zionism isn’t Judaism, Zionism is idolatry. Zionism isn’t Judaism, Zionism is idolatry. Zionism isn’t Judaism, Zionism is idolatry. Zionism isn’t Judaism, Zionism is idolatry. Zionism isn’t Judaism, Zionism is idolatry.
Thank you, a thousand times.
This is a superbly astute piece of work, V… !
Israel is not a preservation of the Judaism it is …
I would add that whatever Israel is not, it is still a nation whose people have the potential for redemption and much to offer the world. It doesn’t HAVE to remain pro-war, pro-ethnic cleansing, and pro-colonization.
v…count me in for some praise of your post too. I posted this link on another thread, but I think you would really, really enjoy this Larry Derfner article. He nukes it out of the park. link to z.pe
“Let me help you understand Todd, the idea is not primarily that the great white male is per se bad, but his government that is supposed to represent him has plunged him into the middle of this current catastrophe in the Middle East. How? When the Europeans were done and handed over the mess to the Americans they ran it business as usual….”
Jesus Christ, V! You didn’t even address my actual points before going off on your usual rant against whites. I assume that you do believe that as a non-Jewish white male, I was born less free and innocent than other people, and that it was right for Israel-onliers and ethnocentric Jews to bring the IP conflict to my door. Is that right? And spare me your history lesson, as I am familiar with how Harry Truman made his decision to recognize Israel to the opposition of George Marshall and State Department realists.
This forum goes nuts when the word the is placed before Jews, and you go on ranting about “the great white male” that I never mentioned. I can only assume that you are anti-Gentile, or a self-hating white. That’s how the logic goes, isn’t it?
Are you Jewish? If so, you seem like the domestic alternative to the PEP, which is the ZEP, or Zionist Except Palestine, who seeks to bash, destroy and deny the dominant culture in which he resides. Mooser is another.
Who doesn’t understand that the U.S. government is rotten to the core, and that it often works hand-in-hand with corporate interests in ways that are harmful and shameful, at home and abroad. Please enlighten us some more!
V, I never claimed to be particularly well-educated, close to power, or polished in any way. BUT if your job is to educate, learn to use contractions first. I know it’s tacky to point out, and I’m not a stickler for rules myself, but you have questioned my levels of education and intelligence in the past…..
“Are you Jewish? If so, you seem like the domestic alternative to the PEP…,” best said after you read the above, I have an advantage over you in the sense that I just posted (10:08AM). My words were not directed specifically at you Todd, but at how you’re post could be read and misunderstood (“…I do question why the supposed ancient conflict between Jew and Muslim was brought to my doorstep. The Palestinians are 100% in the right, but their struggle is no more my struggle than was the struggle in Rwanda between Hutu and Tutsi. There truly is merit to isolationism …).
The post I was refering to was post # 47 @ 4:20 pm.
Yes Todd, that is the one I am referring to also (at 4:20PM), I am just saying that the way it sounded it could have been misinterpreted. However, I am glad you clarified what was written. All I was saying is that if we inserted ourselves in the middle of this – and we did, in fact, established and supported the current debacle – how is that not our responsibility? The idea of some “ancient conflict” just does not exist, it is a fairy tale. Also, if you unearth what takes place in Africa, you will not find our hands clean there either. As an example, what did you personally ever do to Osama BL? Nothing? Than why were the towers struck (?), I think this is clear.
Walt and Mearsheimer’s book and paper did help blow another hole in this critical discussion open. Along with Former President Jimmy Carters efforts over the last three or more decades. It is also important to recognize the efforts of Vanessa Redgrave, Archbishop Tutu, Edward Said, Ilan Pappe and so many more.
But as you say the last five years or so I have heard many Jewish friends who simply had roadblocks about discussing this issue (many who knew little to nothing about what was really going on in the occupied territories) have opened up and are finally looking at this issue as humans and not as just Jews. Quite honestly I have never understood this intense attachment to calling one self a Jew when you are not practicing the faith. Really can not understand this. I was brought up Catholic, I am French, Irish, Polish, and Russian and feel little to no attachment to the country of my ancestors. Feel no animosity or hatred towards anyone who would criticize Catholicism or any of the countries policies of any of my grandparents.
Anyway it is great that the dialogue is opening up. But it is a myth that this topic is open or being discussed as it is here and at Juan Coles, Washington Note and a few other blogs. Most of the so called progressive blogs are closed down to writing about these issues, posting articles about this issue etc. Firedoglake, Crooks and Liars, Daily Kos basically have blog clogs when it comes to the heavy hitting bloggers writing about this issue. Even at Firedoglake the open thread for the community to post when articles or post are put up at that site they never ever make the little “special box’ that the folks in control of Seminal are in charge of. There is plenty of filtering, blog clogs, avoicance, etc in the progressive blogosphere when it comes to this topic.
Have you heard Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann etc touch the Goldstone Report, the Charles Freeman rail roading, the Aipac espionage investigation and dismissed trial. Now Rachel did do a bit on the trial after it was dismissed but it was more of a lark and dismissive about the seriousness of the investigation.
Finally Jon Stewart did a show on the I/P conflict. Long time coming. Jon who seems to pride himself in the myth that there is nothing sacred on his show, has just recently opened up to throwing his spotlight on this issue. He did focus some on the Gaza disaster this past winter. But to try and pretend that this has always been the case for the Daily show…is a myth or basically a lie. But this opening on the show is better late than never
Plenty of road blocking on this critical issue still out there
Its unlikely that Jon will pick up the issue again, with the degree that Anna Balzer in particular deflected his questions.
She even could have said “I want to answer your question in the context of questions that I ask myself”.
Instead, she just didn’t bother. The importance of acknowledging one’s opponents narrative/experience, is twofold.
1. It is a more effective argument technique. It states “I am a reasonable person, that considers more than only my own perspective, but in reviewing facts I regard these as most compelling”.
2. It allows for more effective conclusion, with the possibility of design of win-win solutions, rather than only win-lose.
Still wagging the dog I see. Or did you somehow magically become a producer on the Daily Show?
You keep chortling endlessly about Anna Baltzer deflecting questions. Putting aside the fact that you COMPLETELY ignore any article here that describes Israel’s crimes against humanity, for the most part, and the persistent hypocrisy of that (not to mention — surprise! — that you keep virtually stalking non-Zionist Jewish women with your rhetoric with increasing conspicuousness), what question, specifically, did she dodge?
Witty must have been watching his cell phone rather than the Daily Show; unless of course he watched the severely edited cable show, in which case, since he has been given the full show unedited show, he is just not seeing or hearing what’s there. Balzer did not deflect any question Jon asked, although Jon ignored what she actually said often enough, and/or deflected it.
“Its unlikely that Jon will pick up the issue again, with the degree that Anna Balzer in particular deflected his questions.”
Witty, I am posting this as proof positive that as usual you do not know what you are talking about, and choose to makes statements out of thin air. Here is the request of The Daily Show studio who are overwhelmed with the positive response to the airing of Palestinian plight on their show. If they had any questions or concerns about airing such a subject again it was all wiped out by the positive response:
“I can hardly find the words to express my gratitude for the outpouring of support over the past couple days. The Daily Show has been inundated with positive responses to the show on Palestine, so much that they’ve asked people to please stop calling the office and tying up the phone lines! So, at the request of the studio, I’m primarily writing to encourage you to continue contacting The Daily Show, but please use this form rather than the phone number: link to comedycentral.com
(make sure to choose The Daily Show with Jon Stewart as your topic).”
Let me clarify one other issue, Jon made the decision to air this show with his staff, and was fully prepared and informed. If Witty thinks Jon was caught off guard (as if any show of this nature is in any way “out of control”) as he has implied, he has no idea what he is talking about or he is just into plain contrary speculation.
Witty, this is not open to the vicissitudes of “perspective,” There is nothing perspectival about what is happening to the Palestinians and who is committing the atrocities. It like arguing there was a perspective involved when Billy The Kid shot a man for snoring, and arguing for the mans killing. Argument devoid of reality is invalid, postulating in a a propaganda laden atmosphere gives validity where there is none to be had.
Anna was not abrasive at all, not in the least, she was merely responding to a barrage of nonsense in regard to what was taking place in currently in this colonial disgrace. From the side of the supporters in America of what Israel is doing, it is merely a testimony to might makes right – and further, it is a seminal example displayed in the face of the region that America can do what it wants to any given population. When this is finally broken it will signal the total loss of control of Western Hegemony and its designs there and in the entire territory, so the freedom and equality for the Palestinians signals more than merely a local debacle being decimated. Along with that it will mean the end of the Zionist aberration which has done so much to vilify Jews around the world (and has been used as a cause to create another diaspora).
I don’t think Anna was abrasive. She was cute, and deflected every question that came her way.
I hope that that was not what Jon Stewart intended. I think that he was inviting courageous liberals to his show, not radicals, and may have not been happy about the result or process. My sense was that he himself wasn’t the initiator of the invitations, with the seeming unfamiliarity with the individuals’ political positions.
Which questions, Witty? Be specific.
“She was cute, and deflected every question that came her way.”
Meaning, she didn’t give the answers RW agress with.
“I was brought up Catholic, I am French, Irish, Polish, and Russian and feel little to no attachment to the country of my ancestors. Feel no animosity or hatred towards anyone who would criticize Catholicism or any of the countries policies of any of my grandparents.”
After your whole family had been turned into soap just because of your ethnic identity, you might feel differently.
And for that, Palestinian children must die, huh? What makes you better than the people who did that to your ancestors?
“After your whole family had been turned into soap just because of your ethnic identity, you might feel differently”
Squeaky-clean? Zest-fully clean? With added confidence because you know it contains a whole days-worth of anti-odor protection? With skin he’ll love to touch?
Oh, give it a rest, Carnas, you’ll strain your vagus nerve. And why don’t you provide some substantiation that “your whole family had been turned into soap”.
And you really don’t want to talk about making people into soap when white phosophrus is part of the Israeli picture.
“After your whole family had been turned into soap just because of your ethnic identity”
“New Alhava Bath Bars, the soap from Israel that won’t burn your skin like white phosphorus!! ” Yeah, we better stop with the whole turned-into-soap schtick.
Mooser? I love just love your commentary man. :)
Mooser. lol. Hey, carnas, the slippery soap story? You’re going door-to-door with the soap story 19 years after Yehuda Bauer (Yad Vashem Director) said it was a crock of shit?
Amazing Carnas, one doesn’t really need to know anything about the Holocaust as long as one can spread these kind of mythoi? Maybe one doesn’t want to know either, while these stories offer save ground? Can be used:
Can someone tell Derfner that he is an antisemite
I really like this old man. He somehow reminds me of the US conspiracy circles I discovered post 911 that most of them were really stupid, bumptious, dealers in fictions, paranoid, always afraid the services were closely watching them.
It always felt that “the services” must know better and don’t waste their time on these nitwits. Paranoia is a cheap way to give yourself the impression you are important. In this context it was really refreshing to meet Patrick Lang.
News for all the challenged posters around here: the validity of the soap story is not relevant to my point, which was that Kathleen’s automatic projection of her own feelings regarding her ancestry and ethnic identity reeks of a patronizing attitude which you’re all quick to rail against when it comes to anyone but Israeli Jews.
Chaos – honestly, grow a brain. My point had nothing to do with the Palestinians.
“Chaos – honestly, grow a brain. My point had nothing to do with the Palestinians. ”
No, they just happen to be paying the price for something theyt had nothing to do with.
RE: “News for all the challenged posters around here: the validity of the soap story is not relevant to my point.”
So, carnas, why did you bring up that proven lie and tie it to whatever you meant to convey? Jews turned into soap (or lampshades made of Jewish flesh?)–what was your point? You were responding to Kathleen’s wondering why Jewish ethnicity
was so important to secular (or religious?) Jews as I recall. You directly implied it was because Jews were turned into soap–a proven lie. So, we get it: Palestinians have been the ones who have had to pay for Europeans’ actions simply because
if one is picked on by the school yard bully, the only way to protect oneself is to
pick on somebody weaker than oneself.
A “soap opera?” hehe I just could not resist…
But to try and pretend that this has always been the case for the Daily show…is a myth or basically a lie. But this opening on the show is better late than neverThe position I recall him taking was that of someone making a trivial comedy show, with politics being just a resource(I forget how he phrased it). I think it’s not entirely honest but it’s good positioning to gain the most breathing room.
Recently he called Truman a war criminal, and had to follow that up with a full retraction and apologies.
“there’s clearly no prospects for the abolition of the nation-state in the short-term. And the Jewish people’s claim to a nation-state is just as strong as the Finnish or Dutch or Thai claim. Or, for that matter, as the Palestinian claim. By far the best way to secure a just resolution of those conflicting claims is through a two-state solution–an independent Palestine, and a democratic Jewish Israel.
I completely grasp the pull of radical cosmopolitan values, but I think people who think that the area west of the Jordan River would be a great place to try implementing them in the short-term are being a bit crazy. It’s not even clear that Belgium or Canada will be able to survive as bi-national entities.”
link to yglesias.thinkprogress.org
“Jewish” as a designation is a religion. It isn’t even properly an ethnicity, when one looks critically at the historical and scientific record. Equating it to Finnish or Dutch or Thai or Palestinian is absurd — where is that supposed to put pre- (and largely anti-) Zionist Palestinian Jews, after all?
The fact is, Israel is not a true democracy. The democracy was formed only after a military campaign of ethnic cleansing was waged on non-Jewish populations. And yes, by that same token the United States was not a true democracy until recently (and I think a case can be made that it still isn’t, certainly in practical terms).
In that sense, Zionists have made “Jewish state” and “democratic state” mutually exclusive. No other modern country has that problem, and there’s no reason Zionists should be foisting their principles of “ethnic” and religious seperation on the rest of us — Jews or not.
“Jewish” as a designation is a religion. It isn’t even properly an ethnicity, when one looks critically at the historical and scientific record.”
I was hoping you would get to this sooner or later, Chaos! As a matter of fact “Jews” isn’t even what we called ourselves. “Jews” is a designation that was put on certain groups of people for the designators benefit.
Do Zionists think that Jews lived in ghettoes because they wanted to? They must.
It is so totally absurd! Zionists take their picture of a Jew from anti-Semites, and their model for the Jewish religion from Christianity (or worse, idolatry).
They will destroy us. They will destroy Judaism in any religious or social form.
Amazing how the same people who recognize the Palestinians’ national aspirations without any questions asked are the quickest to define the Jews’ in whatever way that makes it possible to deny them the same aspirations.
The only ones “defining” th Jews are Zionists like yourself, who are forever moving the goalposts about such trite concepts.
Any way you look at it, Palestinians are Christians as well as Muslims. That’s a fact. It’s also a fact that such people were living on the former Mandate land before even one Zionist Jew stepped upon it. Carnas, do you think that is not true? And if you
think it is true, what’s your point?
What’s true is that the Palestinians were living on part of the land, certainly not all or even most of it. What’s also true is that they refused to share any of it, and therefore rejected any partition plan. I’m not a fan of people who never take any responsibility for their own decisions.
link to mideastweb.org
2. Palestine was not an empty land when Zionist immigration began.
3. Zionist settlement between 1880 and 1948 did not displace or dispossess Palestinians. Analysis of population by sub-districts shows that Arab population tended to increase the most between 1931 and 1948 in the same areas where there were large proportions of Jews. Therefore, Zionist immigration did not displace Arabs.
And why should the Palestinians have had to “share” their land, to see half of it going to strangers who meant to flood the land with unlimited immigration and set up an exclusive state?
Zionists always behave as if they were entitled to the land that belonged to another people, and it was the fault of the Palestinians for refusing to recognize this and relinquish their own birthright.
“What’s true is that the Palestinians were living on part of the land, certainly not all or even most of it. ”
True did you say?
In 1891 Ahad Ha’Am opened many Jewish eyes to the fact the Palestine was not empty, but populated with its indigenous people when he wrote:
“We abroad are used to believe the Eretz Yisrael is now almost totally desolate, a desert that is not sowed ….. But in truth that is not the case. Throughout the country it is difficult to find fields that are not sowed. Only sand dunes and stony mountains …. are not cultivated.” (Righteous Victims, p. 42)
“Zionist settlement between 1880 and 1948 did not displace or dispossess Palestinians.”
Oh really?
Arthur Ruppin wrote in 1913:
“Land is the most necessary thing for establishing roots in Palestine. Since there are hardly any more arable unsettled lands. . . . we are bound in each case. . . to remove the peasants who cultivate the land.” (Righteous Victims, p. 61)
The one state solution is useful as a threat, but it is lightyears away from being a credible prospect. Israel and the lobby can’t even give up settlement expansion, I can see them giving up Tel – Aviv.
And there were despairing people who thought Nazi Germany really would reign uber alles. And then there is Stalinist Russia — also a memory now. Apartheid South Africa? Not that they don’t have problems there still, but that one passed as well.
Israel is just as incompatible with modern human progress. You can already see it — now they Israeli government is lobbying to rewrite international law to justify its crimes.
It will pass.
J-Street as Red Herring as analysed in Importance of Nuremberg Tribunal Law
The Palestine-Israel conflict is primarily a domestic issue for Americans. The associated politics only looks international in nature because the Zionist imperial system, which is looting the USA and putting decent, loyal, patriotic Arab and Muslim Americans in jail, works through corrupt Jewish Zionist social networks founded on commitment to subjecting Palestine to the control of the “Jewish People.”
The Zionist concept of the Jewish people is a 19th century reinterpretation of the Jewish meta-population that had formerly been united by social networks based in common faith and in obedience to Jewish sacred law serving as a sort of uniform commercial code among Jews.
Both the traditional Jewish networks of trust and the new Jewish Zionist social networks gave and give Jews non-transparent advantages in their dealings with non-Jews.
Jewish progressives must prove their sincerity by demanding
1) that the Zionist plutocracy and intelligentsia cease and desist the ongoing program of Islamophobic incitement: Scare-Mongering Muslim Interns, Undermining Democracy,
2) the release of the Arab and Muslim American victims of Jewish Zionist show trials: [Khaleej Times] US Charities Paying for Sending Aid to Palestinians, and
3) that the US government start enforcing the anti-terrorism statutes against supporters of Zionist terrorism.
All the rationals supported historically by USA Jews for USA civil rights and unfettered open borders are now spurned by Jewish Zionists when it comes to Israel. In contrast, all the rationals
given past & present against those USA domestic movements were/are advocated by Jewish Zionists when it comes to Israel. The bottom line: White non-Jewish people need to pay for past and current sins, as a matter of inheritance or simply being alive in their white skins, while Jews can have their cake and eat it too–the best example of this for those on this blog, is Richard Witty. Ah, so that’s why Phil keeps him immune here–as a sample of the very hypocrisy that most annoys Phil. Smart move Phil, it does give us a sense of the thick bigotry we are up against.
J Street’s assertion that its focus is on the Jewish community’s view towards the I-P conflict is understandable given its purpose. It was founded as a countermeasure to AIPAC, as a means to support Obama’s search for peace. It contends that AIPAC is tilted toward the Likud hard line and the American Jewish community is tilted toward a (Kadima) measured tone and therefore a new lobby representing the American Jewish community’s true feelings is necessary.
Obviously this opens it up to accusations of paternalism and Jewish only roads. Also obviously the activists who oppose AIPAC are not attracted to a measured tone but to a less compromising tone. But nonetheless when we remember their purpose (representing the “silent majority” and backing Obama) these criticisms are beside the point.
If individuals in the Jewish community wanted to follow the same “alternative” of Kadima as opposed to Likud, which is nothing but the two faces of Janus and equally responsible for the atrocities against the indigenous population (Palestinians), they could have just as easily found those elements in AIPAC. Than there is no viable reason for J Street, it will not deliver anything substantive.
If we are going to compare it to Obama’s campaign as opposed to what he has delivered to the US Population, which has turned out to be a series of smoke and mirrors with nothing substantive, than we should expect the same from J Street (I made this comparison in earlier posts). The illusions of the Obama campaign have worn off, like a person who bought an advertised product has found that the product delivers nothing near to what was advertised (and is changing by the minute).
What there remains of alternatives in the community is how to paint the house, the same house, while it is on fire. AIPAC and J Street are arguing over the colors as the inhabitants are perishing in the fire.
I do not come out of a tradition that tells me that I am part of a group of bullies in a given schoolyard, those who take turns holding down a weak child as he is beaten senseless and his lunch money stolen. What a woefully inadequate illustration it is in the light of what is being done to the Palestinians, who are being murdered and their lives are being stolen. We are no longer that child being chased and beaten, but have become people of privilege and wielding the instruments of power indiscriminately.
I have been trained and adhere to assisting the weak and the downtrodden, and have not been told that it depends on who they are or whether they are part of “my group.” I will not cheapen or smother the cry of others with a Holocaust hegemony, using it like a bludgeon to stain the memory of those that have died for ill gotten gain. It does not matter who tells me to do this, it does not matter of the entire community plunges into this destructive delusion, the “never again” always will mean NO ONE ever again.
I refuse to be like Obama who got the office but did so by walking over the bodies of his own oppressed people, that hawked “hope and change” to do nothing but maintain a status quo. Nor will I attach myself to those with the accouterments of power that ply it indiscriminately to the destruction of an almost defenseless people.
Essentially what are we talking about, we are talking about fighting for the very soul of what Judaism is (for lack of a better term), however conceived as community enlightened within a secular framework or as religiously imbibed for whatever purpose. You may be called a chump, or self-hating/antisemitic, you may be told that life is short and you should get what you can by any means, but do not sell you’re birthright for a mess of pottage.
“Wallach: Is Judaism part of your mentality?
Hoffman: I’m not about to deny my Judaism, and I’m not about to let B’nai B’rith and real hawks on Israel define what Judaism is.
Wallach: How do you define it?
Hoffman: A way of life. A way of championing the cause of the underdog, of not being afraid of being a dissident, almost a permanent outsider.”
Gee, I know non-jews who have the same way of life. And btw, isn’t championing the underdog an iconic way of describing the American spirit?
Absolutely Citizen, and that is what I am trying to communicate, that in reality there is more in common than there is opposed. Of course, you have to be talking about the real thing instead of some makeshift copy. Essentially what Zionism has done is stolen that very spirit you have spoken about of “championing the underdog.” It has been looted in what is now a groundless maudlin spirit of victimhood, while robbing the true victims who are the target of a convergence of power.
This is one of the reasons why the resistance to what Israel is doing must be a concerted effort of humanity, it cannot be allowed to become an exclusive enterprise. That is because those who opt for this exclusivity – “its a Jewish problem” – is a bogus call, because only those who are involved in subterfuge, who want to do things behind closed doors, have something to hide – it simply is that they wish to maintain the status quo that they see as beneficial for them alone at the cost of others.
If you break down humanity as it experiences that which adverse, whatever degree, you have two results – and both results essentially become the responsibility of those who have been victimized. One party is like clay and other is like wax, when the sun finally rises on either of these the clay hardens but the wax melts. One is malleable (wax), while the other becomes hard (clay), and the correct community always encourages the former rather than the later.
Whether we are looking at the current scenario in Israel/Palestine or in the USA, we are going to have to “champion the underdog” in order to get through the current debacle to the other side. So you are either going to cloister and cling to everything, and rob others as they languish or you are going to share so that we can all survive and rise out of this together. You can extend this from these communities and actually look at it globally, its either going to be working together to gain a global equilibrium or the same old destructive world order. It is a choice that everyone is going to have to make, and we do not have the luxury of time.
And on that note: link to thejerusalemfund.org
Pingback: Delegitimization is moving fast. What next?
Pingback: Delegitimization is moving fast. What next?