The idea of a three to four day conference (depending on personal choice of attendance) solely devoted to the “Voice of the American Jewish Left” sounded inspiring. It sounded like J Street might finally allow a forum for those who have felt afraid to voice their opinions on Israel within their own Jewish communities. Personally, I have always felt that certain opinions – viewpoints which are not actually mine – were expected of me, as a self-proclaimed future rabbi. The shock I see from people when I state my concern for the Palestinian people over the ideology of a Zionist state often threatens to push me back into silence, particularly when it comes from the aunt who told my parents I clearly wasn’t raised correctly, or the WORMS (We Openly Resist Military Stupidity) buddy from Viet Nam who more or less told my father I’d be more useful lying under a bulldozer. Well, I wasn’t raised one way or another when it comes to Israel, and I certainly have no intent to martyr myself for the cause, but I do walk that difficult line that faces many within the progressive Jewish movement: how to express my leftist ideals without the risk of being exiled from my Jewish community?
In trying to find that line, that voice, J Street let me down. They first let me down when they invited my college president, Ralph Hexter to speak, despite his notorious (at least to Hampshire students) cowering to Alan Dershowitz in the midst of Hampshire College Divestment from OCCUPATION (which never claimed to be a divestment from Israel) last year. During the first panel President Hexter spoke on, the one for students attending the J Street U conference (which started a day earlier than the general conference) was entitled, “Reckoning with the Radical Left on Campus: Alternatives to Boycotts and Divestments.” Surprisingly, I felt this panel went fairly well. Though still disappointed that J Street would invite Hampshire’s president without consulting the student or faculty body from Hampshire, I was relieved to hear President Hexter speak relatively positively of the idea of selective divestment that Hampshire SJP pushed for last year. The students in the room also responded in a way that was pleasing to me, as a member of Hampshire’s Students for Justice in Palestine. A few even seemed interested in the idea of collaborating with their schools’ pro-Palestine groups in working toward a divestment and boycott scheme that only affects the companies that are directly involved in the Occupation, such as Ahava, as panelist Aziz Abu Sarah suggested. While I’m sure none of those students will be attending the National Campus BDS Conference that Hampshire SJP is hosting at the end of this month, it is reassuring to know that they are at least thinking about the ideas of how money can talk.
Unfortunately I cannot say the same for the panel that President Hexter appeared on the next day for the general conference, entitled more simply, “Israel on Campus.” To be honest, I can’t even tell you what the response to that panel was, because I was so distracted by President Hexter’s claims of “excessive zeal” surrounding the BDS movement, but also the need to stand up to donors who try to intimidate a college to do their bidding with their money (of course, the implication being he is able to fulfill this need for his college). It was easy for him to project a completely different view on BDS for this panel, as I didn’t see any recognizable faces from the first panel.
Second, J Street let me down with the overwhelming white-ness of the conference body. Is there no way to reach out to Jewish people of color? While living in DC over the summer, I attended a dinner for the college-aged interns from Jewish and Indian/South Asian communities, which included Jewish Indians. So I know there is at least one community of Jews of color within DC. The fact that they – and assuredly others – were not reached out to, says something to me about the very nature of Zionism, even on the so-called American left.
Then, they let me down again with their repetition of the slogan, “Pro-Israel, Pro-Peace,” which I had thought included a “Pro-Palestine” (SOMETHING) as well. Speaking of pro-Palestine, the final letdown was the constant mention of the two-state solution as though it were the only solution. My understanding was that this conference was the first of its kind, and as such, would be a forum for discussion as much as education. Though each panel I attended Monday was educational and fascinating for me, there was no space that day, nor at any of the events I attended solely for the J Street U conference-goers, to talk about leftist Zionism. There really wasn’t an official space to talk about dissension at all. Some students did gather during the lunch break on Sunday to discuss similar frustrations, an informal event that was extremely necessary. At other times when I felt rebellious, such as regarding President Hexter’s panels or the student “lobbying” on Tuesday, I was sought out and “calmed down” in a way I found very patronizing.
I appreciate what J Street tries to accomplish. I understand that many fall directly under J Street’s politics, and up until last weekend they found the space furthest left for American Jews to talk about Zionism to be AIPAC (a frightening thought to me). For those people, and for the sake of a tactful approach to Israel, I support J Street. I understand that the collapse of the nation-state paradigm is not going to begin with the world’s one Jewish state, and as such, the two-state solution probably is more viable than a bi-national state. On a less radical note, I also understand that many people are afraid to attach stipulations to the money the US grants Israel. But after all the knowledge gained at this conference, I am left with questions. What are the alternatives to Boycotts and Divestments, promised but not delivered by the panel on the first day of the conference? Or more importantly, why do we need such alternatives? Why should US money continue to go to Israel, if Israel’s settlement building is going to continue, spitting in the face of President Obama and Special Envoy Mitchell? Where do I get to talk about Israel’s hypocrisies with other Jews?
Elizabeth Asher Goldstein is in her fourth and final year at Hampshire College, studying the sociology and environmental effects of mass violence. Currently, she is working on a senior thesis – which is one part anthropology/sociology, one part legal studies, and one part memoir – around the role of the water crisis in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict; and it is consuming her life.
Related posts:
- Campus BDS movement looks to grow with Fall conference
- Despite smashmouth tactics, Dershowitz is effective. Why?
- Archbishop Desmond Tutu endorses Hampshire divestment action
- Impressions from the 1st full day at J Street conference
- Hampshire tries to downplay divestment, but says investing in Israeli occupation is not ’socially responsible’
{ 168 comments }
Elizabeth,
Would be willing to speak face to face? I live near you, and worked at Hampshire for two years in the late 90’s.
I can’t say that you won’t find me patronizing, but I would like the opportunity to convey my understanding of the importance of some of J Street’s positions.
Please send Phil an e-mail if that is of any interest. I’ll take you to Veracruzana for lunch.
Elizabeth, if you want to be distracted by Richard Witty’s similar constant claims of “excessive zeal” surrounding the BDS movement , and if you wish to be sought out and “calmed down” once more in a way you will again find very patronizing, then by all means make a date at Veracruzana. Or, in the alternative, just read him here on Mondoweiss. Better yet, follow him here on Mondoweiss for a few weeks. Judge for yourself if he’s worth the trouble of a lunch date at Veracruzana.
Citizen, don’t get in the wy of true love. Those two are made for each other.
“Personally, I have always felt that certain opinions – viewpoints which are not actually mine – were expected of me, as a self-proclaimed future rabbi”
Don’t worry, I’m sure you can adopt them, learn to love them, and make them your own.
Yeah, just read it again. Gosh I hope Witty is single at this point. These two are made for each other.
Mooser, yeah, I noticed that too, but she also described herself as wanting to go somewhere where she can “get to talk about Israel’s hypocrisies with other Jews.” And she mentions a few applicable concerns in that context. Mmmmmmm, yeah, I see what you mean more clearly on second thought.
Actually, you’re both grossly underestimating Elizabeth and overestimating Witty if you think they belong together.
Mooser, I think you owe Elizabeth an apology. She is questioning what she sees as attempts by the Jewish community she knows to stifle debate on Israel/Palestine, and enforce conformity of opinion. Witty never questions that. And Witty would never write, nor even read for that matter, a senior thesis on the water crisis and the conflicts.
“Mooser, I think you owe Elizabeth an apology. She is questioning what she sees as attempts by the Jewish community she knows to stifle debate on Israel/Palestine, and enforce conformity of opinion.”
You are so right. I never meant to imply (or infer, your choice) that Elisabeth doesn’t have exactly the amount of moral courage which makes a good Rabbi.
She knows, deep down in her soul, that Palestinian lives don’t mean a thing compared to Jewish feelings. She should do very well.
She’s got, like Witty, mud in her mouth, but at least it’s glat.
You know, sometimes your mind-reading skills really suck, Mooser. And you can be bitingly cruel to someone who seems to have more courage than you do. Does it bother you that she admits a problem that you wish to ignore?
Gotta agree with tree 100 percent on this. At the risk of sounding Wittyesque, a risk that is worth taking on rare occasions, not everyone has to sound exactly alike and people often do have commitments in more than one direction. If Elizabeth can become a rabbi and an activist for Palestinian rights, good for her.
I’m not sure she has more courage than Mooser; although he’s often taken what I think are grossly assumptive pot shots at me, I think over time he has revealed a lot of personal grief absorbed behind his clown mask over his independant stance, including within the Jewish community and the Gentile community. I don’t think any of his comments even suggest that he’s been ignoring what Elizabeth is trying to address. She’d learn more from Mooser than from Witty. Rather, often Mooser’s comments show he’s got a pretty good Jewish hypocricy detector and is ready to turn it on at a moment’s notice. Maybe he’s detecting stylish social status uber alles within a chosen career? Maybe he’d like to nip that in the bud–dutch treat for lunch.
Citizen –
Thank you for your concern, but I’m sure I’ll be fine. I have read some of his previous comments here on Mondoweiss, and although its clear we won’t see eye to eye politically, I feel perfectly comfortable in one-on-one discussion with someone who doesn’t share my viewpoints. Being ingrained in the mainstream Jewish community, you can imagine I face it often. It is only difficult for me when I start to feel very alone, as I did at the J Street conference.
And has been said many times in these threads, if all else fails, I’ll just stuff my face full of bean burrito.
Mooser –
I don’t understand your first comment? Is your insinuation that when I am ordained I will automatically assume the role of racist Zionist? That vague implication, combined with your later comment on the haredi, I find just downright hateful. How have you any more right to make generalizing judgements about religious Jews, than the Zionists have to make generalizing comments about the Arabs?
And what part of my post did you find the need to “read it again,” to find the nugget of “true love” between me and Mr. Witty? Furthermore, please refrain from making assumptions about my soul. You clearly didn’t actually read what I wrote if you think that I believe Palestinian lives don’t mean a thing compared to Jewish feelings.
Tree -
Thank you for defending my honor while WordPress and I were battling to let me log in and respond!
Elizabeth,
One request. Please do not prejudge my views or opinions.
“I’m not sure she has more courage than Mooser;”
Oh, you can be perfectly sure of that! Probably better looking, too.
No, courage is in real short supply here at Moosehall. I used to have some, but then I came to, and said “Go find yourself another sucker”.
And the last time somebody challenged my allotment of courage, I drew myself up to my full short, looked them right in the eye, and ran like hell!
Frankly, it takes a whole lot more courage to endorse Zionism than it does to repudiate Zionism. About the same amount it takes to put a gun in your mouth and pull the trigger.
“One request. Please do not prejudge my views or opinions. “
Oh! Here it comes. Take my advice and wear a boilerplate under the back of your shirt, Ms. Goldstein. If Witty’s attempting to disarm arm, that’s a sure sign about what he’s clutching behind his back.
Elizabeth,
One request. Please do not prejudge my views or opinions.
As a general principle, I try to ignore Witty, but that line is priceless. He invites himself to dinner, and then dictates the terms of the conversation. Or is it just a reflexive, pseudo-sensitive pose, a flashback to the days of sideburns, Acquavelva and bachelorhood? You do realize Witty, this isn’t a date?
Elizabeth, you respond to me, “Being ingrained in the mainstream Jewish community, you can imagine I face it often. It is only difficult for me when I start to feel very alone, as I did at the J Street conference.”
If you really stretch you imagination, perhaps you may see that for a non-Jewish American, he or she may feel very alone finding out despite the one-sided Mainstream media coverage of Israel and the depths of the “special relationship,”
for so many decades now, and after PNAC’s Iraq war going on for eight years, and the drum beat for it to continue by war on Iran, and in this current USA Wall Street First economy, something is seriously wrong–and that it won’t be solved alone by either Jews or Gentiles. Personally, I see WW3 right around the corner. I’m not sure that will be helpful for Americans or Israelis–and you?
Citizen –
I appreciate what you are trying to convey about this being a non-Jewish American issue, too, but honestly, it is a stretch of my imagination to feel the alone-ness of a Gentile on this issue. Not because I doubt the reality or legitimacy of that feeling, but simply because it is so not my experience. When I talk with non-Jewish friends at Hampshire on this issue, I am able to be freer with my criticisms of Israel, but at the same time I feel a fundamental misunderstanding or insensitivity coming from the non-Jewish viewpoint. I keep trying to come up with an example that would be quick and easy to explain in this little box, but this is really a discussion that would be better vocal.
I’m not entirely sure I see your point in relaying the Zionist question to the US economy (you had me with Iraq/potentional Iran war, then you lost me with Wall Street). In anycase, as long as you bring up WW3, I might as well put it out there: 2012. The world as we know it will supposedly come to an end. That might be WW3. Maybe followed by a societal collapse and a retreat into smaller, horizontally run communes. Of course its ridiculous to count on any of these things happening, but secretly, I’m hoping for it. A clean slate might do us good. I say “us” but in the event of an apocalypse of sorts, I probably will not be the fittest. I’ll probably be eaten. But I’m okay with that.
Lizzy,
What do you owe to your being born in the USA, the propositional nation?
Do you realize how many n0n-jewish people and their famiies have suffered for this secular stance?
Lizzy,
What do you owe to your being born in the USA, the propositional nation?
Do you realize how many n0n-jewish people and their famiies have suffered for this secular stance?
I’m sorry, Citizen, it’s getting to the end of Day 2 without sleep, and I don’t think I fully understand this question.
To start with, I owe a lot to my propositional nation. I’m an American patriot – despite the awful things the US does or funds other governments to do – and I proud diasporic Jew.
I’m not really sure where I’m supposed to go with this… What secular stance are you talking about? What about the non-Jews? Is this a response to my last comment to you about having difficulty putting myself in the place of Gentile anti-Zionists?
Sorry to be suddenly thick, but my brain is basically shutting down as we speak. I’d give up here and go to sleep, but I have class in an hour, and this debate is keeping my brain somewhat alive so that I make to class.
Donald says, “At the risk of sounding Wittyesque, a risk that is worth taking on rare occasions ….”
Donald, you seem always to be at risk of sounding Wittyesque, but I do agree with you here (and Tree also).
“Donald, you seem always to be at risk of sounding Wittyesque, but I do agree with you here (and Tree also).”
That’s a low blow.
Seriously, it probably is meant as a low blow, but I take it as a compliment up to a point. In theory RW has good principles–empathize with both sides, stress nonviolent solutions, racism towards either side is wrong, etc… It’s only when you follow him closely that you notice the double standards he holds on some human rights issues. He’s not like my current liberal hero Lawrence Wright in the current New Yorker (yet another plug for an article Phil ought to be writing about), someone who really does empathize with both sides and doesn’t make excuses for the blockade, for instance.
My my, lunch with Richard Witty at the Veracruzana!? You’ve got to try their tacos al hasbara!
Elizabeth, Israel doesn’t have fixed borders, nor a proper constitution, and its military regularly circumvents the decisions of its Supreme Court. It sits in violation of more UN resolutions than any other country on the planet. So we’re not talking about “the collapse of the nation-state paradigm,” we’re talking about the normalization of Israel within the accepted rules of how a country could act. And the one-state solution also wouldn’t entail any such collapse of the paradigm. It sounds like you’ve internalized some Zionist talking points on that score. “The world’s only Jewish state” is also the world’s only colonial, nuclear-powered rogue state. Religion really isn’t the question.
Israel actually promised it would have a constitution within five months of Truman’s recognition. There’s a reason why it still doesn’t have one. There’s a seminal conflict between it’s self identification and proclamation as a Jewish state and its proclamation simultaneously that equal rights would be had by all its citizens regardless of race, creed, or religion.
“My my, lunch with Richard Witty at the Veracruzana!? You’ve got to try their tacos al hasbara!”
This is SO funny!
former coMMenter –
Hm. Perhaps I didn’t actually articulate that point well. I was just sort of stuck it in there at the end. Let me clarify what I meant by the “collapse of the nation-state paradigm.” At the root of my anti-Zionism is the belief that all nation-states are inherently racist. Thus, even if we were actually hold Israel accountable to international law and stop the human rights abuses, we might have peace, but not necessarily justice. Even a Sovereign Palestine would most likely face issues with Israel, at least at the beginning. “Separate but equal” is never really equal. It was my understanding from the conference that this peace without justice is what J Street wants: two states that live in relative peace, which may include peace for Palestinians, but it is mainly a peace for Israel’s sake. In my silly radical idealist world, the end of Israel’s human rights abuses would also include a collapse of the ethnocracy and a bi-national state in which all are equal. And of course, in this silly radical idealist world, the rest of the world’s nation-states would follow suit and we’d all live in a happy equality-filled melting pot where racism is as distant as Greek mythology.
But that ain’t gonna happen, so I concede that a “separate but equal” two-state solution is probably the fastest way to end the violence.
Hi Elizabeth,
All nation-states aren’t racist to the degree that Israel is. I don’t think any are even close. But I see that you’re talking about a utopian notion of world citizenship or something like that. And I’m with you on that, great but not realistic in our lifetimes.
The thing about the “two-state solution is more practical” argument is that it assumes there can be peace without justice, particularly economic justice. That’s a big assumption, don’t you think? Even if the Palestinians have a state, if it’s noncontiguous and inviable, and Palestinians continue impoverished and crammed into the most densely populated areas on Earth, do you think that will resolve the conflict?
” It sounds like you’ve internalized some Zionist talking points on that score.”
Ziocaine is very well known for being passed through the placental membrane, and transmitted in breast milk.
Elisabeth, that is one of the cleverest explications of (with a back-double-twist and half-gainer) of No.4 (The Whole world Sucks) I have ever seen! Nicely done, clean entry, no splash, and you nailed the landing. I give it 8.5 with exttra points for that little bit of girlish ingenuousness which makes it all so cute.
Here, Elisabeth make it easy on yourself, you shouldn’t get stuck in a carpal tunnel:
http://jewssansfrontieres.blogspot.com/2008/07/how-to-make-case-for-israel-and-win.html
former coMMenter –
First, I think I would disagree that Israel is the most racist nation-state, I think its just the most confront with its racism because its “other” lives so much closer than in most cases.
But I do agree with your point on the two-state. But again, I feel the need to separate practicality with ideology, even a less radical ideology. The sad reality that we currently face is that unless the US mans up and attaches serious stipulations to the money in grants Israel (and is serious – deny Israel money if they spit in our face again! Why are we paying for their Occupation?!) , Israel will determine the rules of the peace agreement, not the PA. And Israel is going to cling to its right to a racist nation-state. So what is more important: the immediate cessation of violence, the removal of the apartheid wall, a removal of the Jewish settlements or at least a land swap with the Palestinians in return for the land the settlers stole, even if it comes with economic instability and a continuation of reliance on Israel to give Palestinians the bare minimum of water so the Jews can make the desert green? Or would we rather keep fighting for a peace that a single bi-national state, in which Arabs and Jews are giving equal voice in parliament, equal access to water, a single economy, even if that takes an extra 30 years, killing innumerable people (mostly Palestinians, probably) in the meantime?
Honestly, I am not sure of my own answer. That was why I wanted to be able to talk about it! There are so many complexities, that the idea that there is one easy fix in the “two-state solution” that J Street kept spouting was just too ludicrous.
Also Donald, please have more faith in Elizabeth. She is obviously a thoughtful and committed individual, intellectually courageous enough to dive into contradictions head on.
She’ll survive. I don’t think that she’ll end up deceived. She might end up after the conversation hating me and what I represent. She might end up inspired to continue her simultaneous spiritual, ethical and political efforts. She might end up with productive ideas how to proceed on her commitments.
To the wannabee Rabbi lady:
Re her: “I meant by the “collapse of the nation-state paradigm.” At the root of my anti-Zionism is the belief that all nation-states are inherently racist.”
I admit everything is a matter of degree, Elizabeth, but come on–have you never seen the concept of the “propositional nation” being applied? Not to mention, you should pay attention to the commenters here who tell you Israel is singular in many ways in this time and age as to its theo-ethnocracy. Don’t tell us about the arab states; they don’t make the same claim to be part of Western civilisation that Israel does; nor do they get the benefits (although their tribal rulers do at the expense of their citizens as a whole). Not do they get a blank check from the impoverished US taxpayer like Israel does.
Citizen – I maintain the point I made to former coMMenter.
Nationalism is racism. I was making no implications to the Arab states. As I said, I think they are too homogeneous to be confronted with that racism. But we saw it in Serbia, Rwanda, Germany… just because they are no longer staging genocides does not mean Israel is alone in it’s errors.
Of course there’s more to my anti-Zionism. There’s the actions of Israel that embarrass me as a Jew. There’s the fact that we were a Diasporic race, we were set apart, a light unto the nations. Christianity and Islam spread all over the world through Crusades and Missionaries, violence and forced conversions. Judaism was spread around the world because we were kicked out of every place, but in each new place we settled we survived, against the odds. Diaspora, aside from all the massacring of our people, was generally good for our people. Why would we need now to settle in the Holy Land, kick people out of their homes, starve them, shoot them? How is that a light unto the nations? Zionism is so fundamentally unJewish to me.
My Jewish beliefs aside, I still think that nationalism is racism. Bottom line.
Ah, I see my last comment would have fit in better here. Sorry about that.
“Diaspora, aside from all the massacring of our people, was generally good for our people. ”
Hey, that Holocaust was a bitch, too bad we lost a few million, but you can’t beat a Viennese strudel!
“Diaspora, aside from all the massacring of our people, was generally good for our people. ”
This line is also the best proof of how this stuff is really out of your league, Elizabeth, despite all the fanfare here around your writing. Growing up in a privileged Jewish American household, with no cultural or historical perspective other than spending your summers at the JCC, is really not enough to qualify you as a speaker on whether or not Jews in general have a right to a nation or not. Luckily, you’re also not the one deciding.
The Diaspora saved the Jews and made the Jews. Consider the fate of the Jews who weren’t expelled by the Romans – they’re now languishing in refugee camps in Gaza.
As long as the Jews continued to occupy Jerusalem, they did nothing but hang out in the den of thieves, slaughtering dumb beasts and running terrorist raids against the Romans, being slaughtered and crucified for it. If they had remained and kept it up, they would have suffered the fate of every other petty tribe ground under the hobnailed sandals – death, slavery and oblivion.
Fortunately for them, they were dispersed, dragged away to exile where they gave up terrorism and invented Judaism as a consolation. If it weren’t for the Diaspora, there would be no Jews today.
Carnas – I’m sorry if my comment upset you. I maintain Diaspora was good for us. I don’t think the Jewish people would have survived and flourished the way we have is we had been able to stay in the Holy Land since the return from Egypt, at the very least, we certainly wouldn’t have the rich diverse culture that each individual Jewish community brings to the greater community. I’m proud to be a Diasporic Jew.
Further, I am amazed at how quick the people reading this blog are to make assumptions. May I remind you, you have read two pages of my feelings regarding a conference I attended last week, and maybe some other comments here. You have no idea of my knowledge base, what I have seen with my own eyes, how privileged my household, etc.
Further, I never claimed that the Jews did or did not deserve a state. I merely states my ideologies, which are generally anti-Nationalism of any kind, and questioned the exclusivity of the “two-state solution” in American discourse.
My point stands – you feel you don’t need a Jewish state because you live in a specific environment in the US. Not everyone has that privilege, and so I would be very hesitant before I spoke on behalf of other Jews who aren’t (and weren’t) as lucky as you.
@carnas – Which Jews are you talking about, who weren’t as “fortunate” as Elizabeth, and desperately needed a Jewish state? Despised Holocaust survivors (sabonim – “soaps”) used as cannon fodder? Iraqi Jews forced by Israel to leave the communities they had built over thousands of years? Soviet “Jews” who sought better economic prospects (not a crime in itself)? Ethiopian Jews wrenched from their villages with false promises, their society and traditions destroyed (read Omri Tegamlak Avera’s Asterai, if you read Hebrew)? I spent most of my life in Israel, and Elizabeth has a more profound understanding of the situation than virtually all the Israelis I know. So what part of Israel do you live in, carnas, that gives you the right to pontificate? Or do you also lead a privileged life that gives you no insight whatsoever into the lives of Israelis, Palestinians or anyone else on this planet?
“Also Donald, please have more faith in Elizabeth.”
Whether I “have faith in Elizabeth” is of no importance to anyone. I think she’s an impressive person, from what little I’ve seen here. I was using her statement about you as a springboard to talk about the dangers of judging people based on their superficial appearance of reasonableness, not making any claim that Elizabeth is going to come back from her lunch with you with her mind reduced to New Age spouting zombie status. Over the years if you pay attention to political debates you notice how “niceness” can win respect and sympathy for people expressing views which are sometimes loathsome.
Thanks, Elizabeth. You know, part of the problem with anti-Zionism in an age of so much Zionist propaganda is that it requires some degree of cynicism, hardly a very attractive quality, but without it one can end up being played like a fool.
I understand you’re still deliberating on how to go forward. I think that’s great. I only meant to give you some food for thought.
One last observation on what you’ve written:
You decry nationalism as racist but the notion of a “Jewish people” is a construct of Jewish nationalism, or Zionism. And of course this is where the waters get kind of muddy about what “Jewish” means–Judaism, the religion, or Ashkenazi, the ethnicity, or some blend of the two, with the Sephardim thrown in for seasoning. It’s a very fluid definition that seems to change according to who’s asking and why. But it is very difficult for me to even accept the notion of a Jewish people, or any essentialist notion of any people, especially when such a concept is used primarily for discriminatory purposes.
Shmuel, spending most of your life in Israel smoking something doesn’t count. Or maybe you’re too old to remember.
Most immigrants go through the difficulties every immigrant goes through, in any country. I’m willing to bet you’ve never spoken to an Iraqi or Ethiopian Jew; the fact that you picked up one book or some story about them doesn’t make you an authority or give you the right to speak in their name.
Zionists! They’re so polite and delightful!
I can see why you left, Shmuel. With compatriots like these…
Carnas – I don’t know where you live or what you know about the immigrant experience. Personally, I’ve been an immigrant twice in my life. You asserted that there were Jews who (unlike Elizabeth) desperately needed a Jewish state. I gave examples of some of those Jews in whose name you were speaking, and who needed a Jewish state like they needed a hole in the head, to which you replied with the non sequitur that it’s rough being an immigrant. Your statement regarding my understanding of the Jewish-Iraqi and Jewish-Ethiopian experience are baseless of course. I’m betting you are the one who has never met an Ethiopian Jew. I happen to live with one. As for getting some of my knowledge from books, you should try it some time.
By the way, Carnas, if you do read Hebrew, Sami Michael’s latest novel, Aida gives some good background on the forced emigration of Iraqi Jews and who was to blame for it. He describes busloads of weeping Baghdadi Jews, singing ya biladi ya biladi on the way to the airport.
Elizabeth: “My Jewish beliefs aside, I still think that nationalism is racism. Bottom line.” OK, then please explain why you told us you were an American patriot. Isn’t the USA a nation?
“new age spouting zombieness”.
Odd name-calling for a change, and odd description of a person.
I think, I speculate, I probe, I construct, I work things out, I make some things happen and others don’t happen.
I interview people occassionally, and the theme question is always “What is important?” And, people have very varying ways of answering that question. Some speak in very personal terms, assessing what is really important to them.
Others speak in terms of tangible goals, research or political accomplishments.
Others speak in metaphysical, “semi-objective” terms of identifying criteria of conditions, rather than specific hard outcomes. (That is a description of those that weigh their assessments in terms of “absence of injustice”, the term injustice not clarified, not illustrated, but “known when I see it”.)
““new age spouting zombieness”.
Odd name-calling for a change, and odd description of a person. ”
The quote is wrong, but nevermind. I’m experimenting with new literary responses to your writing, Richard. The longwinded point-by-point rebuttal is wasted on you–you just ignore the points made by others, unless you can specifically refute them. So weird metaphors, poems (coMMenter wrote one), might be the way to go. I was thinking of writing some blank verse myself.
I would be more than willing to speak face to face. I email Phil, as suggested, though using a middle man felt so silly. I suppose he’ll be in touch with you, and then we can plan a meeting at Veracruzana?
Thanks.
I didn’t want to give my e-mail or phone number publicly.
Phil will give it to you.
Elizabeth – you do know the rules here are that if a lunch/dinner date is set up through Mondoweiss, we all get a rundown later, right?
Very curious bunch here….
Great comments BTW – I enjoyed reading your essay. Reminds a bit of what GazaMom – who also attended the bloggers reunion said when asked for her take. It’s like the palestinians don’t get to even star in the show about the injustice meted out to them. And while the erudite J streeter talk (and talk), gaza continues to burn. Don’t be too harsh on the commenters here – for the most part they all empathize, even if it’s not always easy to put into words. And some are truly concerned that in its infinite hubris, zionism – as the final and ultimate exercise in colonialism any of us are likely to see – is set to drug America down with it – along with the rest of the world. It’s a genuine worry and one that cause everyone – Jew and non jew, american and not – to feel like they have a dog in the fight.
“Drug” was a freudian slip. I meant Drag (or did I?)
Ohj great, Mondo wiess has become a Zionist meat market. Oh well, whatever helps defuse the Palestinian demographic time bomb!
Witty – of course I will try not to prejudge your viewpoints. But it is only natural to draw some conclusions based on your comments to previous posts.
Chaos – I also read your comments on a previous post, but the funny thing is, most of your comments that I saw were just an attack on Witty. So, thanks for the advice, but I feel much safer at lunch with a reasonable man whose politics a may not agree with, than a zealot whose politics I do agree with.
Marc B – I don’t believe that Witty invited himself anywhere. In fact, I believe the invite came from him to me for the purposes of discussing the issues I raise in this post, and the request to not be prejudged in more than reasonable.
“So, thanks for the advice, but I feel much safer at lunch with a reasonable man whose politics a may not agree with”
Oh lord. This is just what I worry about with Witty and others like him. I respond to him myself, quite frequently, in large part because of this.
A person can come across as “reasonable” if he speaks in a calm voice, never uses harsh language, and is unfailingly polite, all of which describes Witty most of the time. It also described Michael Oren with Gwen Ifill on the Lehrer News Hour when they had him on right after Richard Goldstone. And he spent the time trashing Goldstone, but he did it politely. If you can master the art of acting like this you can say darn near anything, use fallacious arguments, be evasive, tell outright lies, and it can go down smoothly so long as you do it smoothly.
Richard is the most evasive debater I have ever seen, with the possible exception of a creationist friend of mine. He’ll type out a post, long or short, and someone (sometimes me) will take the trouble to refute it, in detail, with facts and arguments. How does Richard respond? Most of the time he simply walks away and makes the same points he made before, in a different thread, sometimes to the same person whose response he just ignored. If he does respond in the same thread, again he totally ignores what was just said, or erects a strawman and responds to that.
I’ve been at blogs where they set a high standard of civility, for better or worse (and I’m not always sure it is for the better) and I have never seen anyone be as evasive as Richard. Maybe we are too rowdy at this blog, but no civilly conducted debate forum would allow what Richard pulls without someone calling him on it. Probably a lot of “someones”. You can stay within the limits of what is allowed at a given forum and still be a troll.
Donald,
Can you point to an example where you responded to my comments respectfully?
I’ll try to go back and answer them if I missed them.
I’m accused of being here all day, then when I’m not here I’m accused of not answering everything.
My references are to emphasize what I believe has the prospect of accomplishing peaceful relations between the people and peoples. There is MUCH, and much detail, that is not that from Israeli, Palestinians and their solidarities, so I tend to not want to get bogged down in details, especially on material that is so difficult to get confidently accurate and complete information.
If you retain a predisposition to respond to me charitably, please remind me of questions that you think are important, rather than condemn me.
Well, I don’t want to get bogged down in semantics and the personality parade, but these are my observations: 1. What was once a Witty-less meal is now not so much, as he has invited himself somewhere he would not otherwise be. 2. It is presumptuous, and more than a bit condescending, to suggest that you are incapable of objective thought without prior instruction.
In any event, your contribution here is appreciated, and I look forward to future posts.
“Can you point to an example where you responded to my comments respectfully?”
Yeah, I could, if I thought it made the slightest bit of difference. I’ve responded to you on numerous occasions where I focused on the issues–in fact, those have been the majority of my responses to you. The Bernstein issue is one and there’ve been others, including issues like the Gaza blockade, the number of civilian deaths reported, and others. You don’t respond when someone pins you down on issues and you do respond when you have facts on your side. The pattern has been on display far too long to be accidental.
Let someone else try engaging you as though you were willing to have a serious discussion and I’ll watch from the sidelines. As I’ve said, for a time I thought we could meet on some common ground, but disillusionment set in pretty fast.
Donald,
Please bother. Otherwise there is really only angry assertion, not description.
“Otherwise there is really only angry assertion, not description.”
Assertion is your specialty and it does save time. I’ve done the long detailed refutation route with you — not once have I received a detailed reply that engaged my points. So short assertive statements are starting to look pretty good.
Holy crap, you want Witty at his finest, go look up the posts from Phil when Phil went to Gaza! Witty said, and in so many words, that Phil was owned by the Gazans, that he sold himself for a plate of Hummus.
Witty made the most serious charge anyone can make about a journalist, he said Phil was “brainwashed” or influenced, not honest.
And then that particular ziocaine high wore off, and Witty forgot all about it.
Phil, to his credit, treated the accusation with all the seriousness its source merited; he completely ignored it.
But that’s Witty, made the most serious accusation he could, never substantiated it, and then kvetchs when people won’t take him seriously. What a guy.
Richard, if you want an example of your typical foggy approach to substantive issues and why people lose their tempers when interacting with you, here’s a thread on the Bernstein editorial trashing HRW. Let me correct that. I think you know perfectly well how you behave–this is just for the record.
link
That, recall, was when Bernstein used his clout as a founder of HRW to trash his organization for reporting Israel’s war crimes. You defended Bernstein, but with fog and mush, your typical approach when you have nothing substantive to say. (I have repeatedly seen you write clear cogent posts when the facts do support your position.) I am not “respectful” of you by this stage, but make numerous points (seven of them in one of the posts), none of which you respond to in any substantive way. You do respond, but your position seems to be that you are a liberal and therefore open and goodhearted and the rest of us are bad dissenters and this means HRW should be trashed, though not for any errors in its reporting.
In a later thread it turns out you knew virtually nothing about what all the major human rights groups had said about the Gaza War (which is that the majority of the Palestinian deaths were of civilians). Yet here you were, in your state of near-total ignorance, passionately defending Bernstein’s critique as worthwhile.
This is the kind of behavior, repeatedly demonstrated, which infuriates me and I’m only writing this for lurkers because I think you’re a lost cause, until or unless you decide to change. Yes, some liberals feel as you do. I suspect the vast majority have been misled on the facts and those who do know the facts are not people with good intentions. It is a mistake trying to win that sub-segment over. What gives me some slight hope is that articles like that of Lawrence Wright in the current issue of the New Yorker (a genuine liberal who really does feel compassion for both sides) might start to inform goodhearted but misguided liberals, who will start to realize that much that they have been told about Israel’s behavior has been lies. Your stance, as often as not, is to side with those people like Bernstein who are desperately trying to prevent the ugly truth from coming out and you seem to do this on the grounds that if the truth is ugly it can’t be supported by “liberals” like you, since it only gives ammunition to the hotheads (the dreaded “far left”) that frequent the comment section here.
And speaking of Lawrence Wright, I’m a little perplexed that Phil hasn’t written about his current New Yorker piece, which is superb. Has he mentioned it somewhere and I missed it?
Donald,
I didn’t get your criticisms, but I did get your venting.
Was there a question in there?
Did you feel that you understood what I was saying in the various posts?
Bet that lunch conversation is going to go juuuust great, huh.
“I didn’t get your criticisms, but I did get your venting.
Was there a question in there?
Did you feel that you understood what I was saying in the various posts?”
Okay, that last sentence is a masterpiece. Absolutely priceless.
Pretty much the evasion I expected, though I wasn’t sure what the details would be. You asked for an example where you ignored my points, I provide a thread regarding Bernstein where I make a large number of points ignored by you, and you come back with a question about whether I understood you, all very patronizing, as befitting the eastern master dispensing wisdom to the unenlightened.
Sitting back and looking at it objectively, there’s a certain mad narcissistic genius about it all. My hat off to you, sir–I honestly don’t think I could pull off what you do day after day, seemingly without end. You don’t have to concede error on a topic where you don’t want to. You want to support Bernstein’s substance-free assault on HRW, you can do so knowing nothing about the issue and without replying to any detailed rebuttal or acknowledging any inconvenient facts. Just sit back and turn it into a morality play with you as the dispenser of wisdom and when others express annoyance, remain calm and continue to recite fortune cookie aphorisms. There are sitcom episodes with plots like this.
In the Bernstein discussion, I actually thought that I was clear that was I was saying that Bernstein was an informed party, and deserved to be taken seriously rather than dismissed. Similarly to Goldstone, his history of personal commitment to human rights, carried weight enough to consider his statements and not through a prejudicial litmus test.
You conflated that to “Richard attacks all human rights organizations, in unequivocal rejection”, which was an innaccurate summary of both Bernstein and myself.
As someone that has made judgements of an investigation (audits, not judicial), I know of the varying RELATIVE layers of confidence in conclusions, and how that degree of confidence is assessed and improved.
I consistently stated that Goldstone’s report for example was information, and that his legally mandated remedy of genuine Israeli internal investigation and of genuine Hamas investigation were appropriate, doable, good for all parties.
Goldstone himself declared the limits of assurance in his report, that the report was compelling information to be followed up on, but NOT judgement itself.
Bernstein wrote of the presence and appearance of bias in the methodology and judgements of Human Rights Watch which diminished its veracity, its credibility. I supported that, also limited, contention.
Goldstone was saying to Hamas and Israel, “do a better job, a more lawful job”. Bernstein was saying to Human Rights Watch, “do a better job”.
You were saying, “Bernstein reduces the veracity of the organization that I rely on for authority.”
Reform.
Donald,
Another element of Bernstein’s critique.
That is that if the world is not confident of the basis of conclusions, or manner of presentation of those conclusions by human rights organizations, then they are objectively not as effective or their conclusions as compelling as if they are trusted.
Even if Bernstein’s critique was an attack on their appearance, and not on anything substantive at all, my comments were oriented to suggesting that Human Rights Watch take his criticisms seriously enough TO improve and/or demonstrate that their process led to a HIGH level of confidence in every aspect of their performance, so that their work could be relied on (for information) without a gamble.
In the audit field, with the lapses in methodology by Arthur Anderson (formerly the third largest accounting firm, very reputable at the time) associated with audits of Enron, Global Crossing, others, led to its audits everywhere being untrustable and they were shut down and then bankrupted. The financial world was better when Arthur Anderson’s methodology was reliable in substance and in appearance.
Scolding Ode to Human Rights Watch
To pine for rights is not the thing to do
One dares to judge a people for their deeds?
When such reflects a stain upon the Jews
Who bomb and gas and maim for what they need
Mere goats and trees and goys there earned their due
With simple structures pastures fields and seed
Why can’t the chosen people move there too
And build a wall secure within their breed?
If some should try to force them to a fight
Or stay where Jews would like to put a home
Defense is called for, clearly apt and just.
The question never has been what is right
But what secures the right to kill and roam:
Prevent the witness gaining any trust.
“In the Bernstein discussion, I actually thought that I was clear that was I was saying that Bernstein was an informed party, and deserved to be taken seriously rather than dismissed.”
You were very clear. That’s what I was arguing against.
“Bernstein wrote of the presence and appearance of bias in the methodology and judgements of Human Rights Watch which diminished its veracity, its credibility. I supported that, also limited, contention.
Goldstone was saying to Hamas and Israel, “do a better job, a more lawful job”. Bernstein was saying to Human Rights Watch, “do a better job”.”
That’s not what Bernstein said, not in anything like that tone. He was attacking HRW’s credibility, accusing them of bias against Israel, proclaiming that there is no moral equivalence between dictatorships and democracies and in general repeating exactly the criticisms the Reagan people (like Elliot Abrams, who is still around) made of HRW when it criticized El Salvador’s record in the 80’s. His mission was to destroy the credibility of their critique of Israel’s war crimes and that is obvious to anyone who reads the column.
It’s exhausting debating you, because I made all these points and others in the linked thread and you totally ignore them and write about a Bernstein piece that only exists in your head. It’s why I lose my temper with you. It really is exactly like arguing with my creationist friend about evolution (something I have finally learned to stop doing).
Your following comment at least starts from a basis in reality, though you don’t acknowledge it as such. And the answer there is that it simply isn’t the job of any human rights organization to please people with ideological motivations for rejecting what they find. HRW is criticized by some on the pro-Palestinian side for being biased in favor of Israel–their argument, though wrong on ethics, at least starts from a correct factual premise–HRW tends to balance every report criticizing Israel with a report criticizing its enemies. They did this with the 2006 Lebanon War and they did it with Gaza, balancing criticisms of Israel with criticisms of Hamas and Hezbollah. That’s as it should be–that’s their job. The pro-Palestinian side thinks that because Israel kills far more people and is, in their view, the overall villain, so to speak, HRW should focus most of its attention on Israel. Now if they took that advice, it really would detract from their credibility. But at least they criticize HRW for what they actually do–the criticisms are grounded in fact, but come to a wrong conclusion because they want HRW to share their commitment, which is not the job of a human rights organization. But criticism from Bernstein means nothing, because his accusations were false and were clearly motivated by a desire to discredit HRW, which had the temerity to report on IDF crimes.
My impression of the Bernstein article was that he was urging them to improve the performance, not demean them.
In follow up articles, Bernstein describes his admiration for HRW as a whole historically, though clearly less in the present. Even Phil’s reponse post (with exagerated headline) of Aryeh Neier, Bernstein’s successor is critical of Bernstein’s analysis but not dismissive and not insulting, as in “slop”.
Read the article again.
As, I take Goldstone’s report as an urging for the IDF to improve their performance, not to demean their mission or credit that they do deserve.
Some take Goldstone’s report as an attack on Israel, rather than a statement of opinion and information with which to improve.
I prefer the more charitable interpretation.
Elizabeth, Witty is anti-BDS, and is not prone to discussing Israel’s hypocrisies, much less identifying them. He seems to be of the mind that if the Palestinians will come to Israel in peace and reconciliation, then Israel will sit down with the Palestinians and construct a just peace.
[Note that it was the Gazans who had withheld rockets into Israel for four months, zero, none -- check out the BBC and Channel 4 reports -- when Israel broke that peace on Nov 4, 2008, our election night, and killed six Palestinians. The Gaza response to those needless murders was used in December as the provocation to start Operation Cast Lead. Witty only acknowledges the last part.]
They will gwet along fine. Elisabeth has already told us that all it takes to silence her is a look from an older Jewish person. If that’s the depth of her moral courage and resolve at her age, Witty and her should get along fine. Besides, Witty will pick up the check, and that always encourages amiability. Any religious minister knows the price of a free meal, Rabbis are no different.
In fact, Witty likes to descibe the Hamas response to the Nobermber 4th raid as an escalation of the war, though omits to explain how Hamas could escalate a war they had no started. Escalation implies a prior act of war, which was actually perpeptraed by Israel when they imposed the blockade, but Richard has explained to us on many an occasion, Palestinians are to blame for what Israel does to them.
A misrepresentation.
I described the November 4 events as originating in an unknown. The original raid on the asserted tunnel could have been an accurate assessment or innaccurate, it could have been an individual’s misjudgement of strategy (attacking an asserted origination point rather than find a tunnel exit point), it could have been intentional provocation initiated from the top.
I don’t know. I will not adopt an Orwellian shift to accept “its been proven” until it has been proven in fact. So far, I’ve only seen assertions that look to me more political puffery, forceful, than convincing.
I do know that for about two weeks, the skirmishes escalated, both sides contributing, then at some point there was a recognition that the cease-fire itself was more important, and both sides stopped active shelling. Hamas shifted its position though from enforcing the cease-fire on all parties, to only holding Hamas people to the cease-fire, requesting other factions to retain the cease-fire but accepting Islamic Jihad, PFLP as free to choose to or not.
The BIG shift was after the formal cease-fire ended, in which Hamas shifted to first open acceptance of others’ firing, then “warning” firing into the desert, then escalation to shell Sderot, then Ashkelon, and then Beersheba, before Israel responded to militarily.
In that escalation, Hamas itself created a situation of active war from one of deferred conflict. It gave permission to Israel to undertake military efforts, I believe to the point of insisting that Israel respond militarily.
“I described the November 4 events as originating in an unknown”
Wow, Witty. You’re the first “liberal” I’ve seen that has actually taken up Donald Rumsfeld’s famous “unknown unknowns” explanation.
MRW, you sure laid out Israel’s mendacity and pure calculation concisely. Thanks.
A very thoughtful essay, Elizabeth. As someone quite a bit older than you, I am more experienced but must confess that I am no wiser than you already are. I know many, many fellow Jews whom I respect and even love whose deeply-held feelings about Israel make it almost impossible for me to have a rational discussion that does not disintegrate rapidly into unpleasantness. From my experience, I can only tell you that things are improving, that more and more people, even Jewish people, are beginning to understand the horrendous injustices Israel forces upon the Palestinians and even the inherent contradictions of a “Jewish democratic state.” You already have displayed a good deal of courage in publishing this under your own name, and it appears that you have freely expressed your views in the past. Good for you, especially since you must be aware that your views may have an adverse effect on your chosen career path. If you wish to collaborate with other Jewish dissenters, there are plenty of organizations to choose from, and plenty of Jews in non-Jewish organizations as well. Who knows – even J Street might be pressured from its rank-and-file to be more of a departure from AIPAC. In the meantime, if I could give you any advice in dealing with fellow Jews who simply cannot tolerate your questioning the prevalent orthodoxy, it would be to stress your belief that Israeli Jews deserve peace and security, but that they must accept freedom and equality for non-Jewish people whose roots in the land are just as deep (well, obviously deeper in most instances). Israel does not allow Palestinians the freedom and equality that should be considered universal principles, and no solution can be permanent without it. Good luck.
Nice and very thoughtful comment to Elizabeth, David Samel. Very wise. It reeks of frustration. You are not alone here.
” impossible for me to have a rational discussion that does not disintegrate rapidly into unpleasantness.”
And what are lives, children’s lives at that, compared to “unpleasantness”? Case closed.
“I am more experienced but must confess that I am no wiser than you already are.”
To paraphrase whoever-it-was, ‘nothing can make a man understand what his inheritance depends on his not understanding’.
And is the continued “unpleasantness” going to save childrens’ lives? The question that Elizabeth and David Samel are discussing is not how to avoid ever having unpleasant conversations. The easy answer to that is to never have a conversation about Israel’s defects. But that’s not what they are doing, nor is it what they are comfortable with. No, what they are struggling with is how to have those conversations and get their friends and community to listen (and change) instead of shutting down dissent.
Mooser, you seem somewhat nasty today, as tree already has pointed out. You know, we all make choices. You spend a lot of time on your computer expressing your valuable thoughts while children are dying of malaria. Why aren’t you trying to save them, even a few of them, instead of sitting at your computer? Because you would find it unpleasant? You have chosen to be anonymous in your comments while I have not. I am not criticizing you for that decision, and find it completely reasonable, but your attack on me for some sort of cowardice where children’s lives are at stake is hypocritical. Obviously, I have engaged in such conversations, but find them unpleasant, an experience it is natural to avoid. I empathize with Elizabeth’s quandary, and in fact she has shown a good deal more moxie than you have. Frankly, at this point, I’d rather have lunch with Witty than with you, just to avoid the unpleasantness.
Prefer lunch with….? Let’s not go crazy here. Though Marcb makes a good point below on free meals. One can always zone out on the conversation, so long as the food is good.
But otherwise, David Samel, I agree completely.
‘nothing can make a man understand what his inheritance depends on his not understanding’.
OR:
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.”
Upton Sinclair I believe.
Great comment Dan Kelly. We do need to survive first, simply to think about our place in the world, both in terms of what we inheirated and what we make of ourselves on our own–and how all that affects are actions and ommisions impacting others. I’d like to read the aphorism Mooser paraphrases, but I think we get his drift. It’s actually very pithy.
“Those comments still boggle my mind. “
Oh, you are so ready to be a Rabbi, you were born for the job!
“Frankly, at this point, I’d rather have lunch with Witty than with you, just to avoid the unpleasantness.”
Oh, nonsense! Once you scarfed down on my very own Italian-sausage and mixed (green, gold, and red)peppers with okra saute, followed by a Moosehall custard (made with our own hen’s eggs, incredibly rich) you would be mine for life.
Not to mention that with just a little encouragement (that is, if nobody sits on my) I would play Hammond organ arrangements of classic pop tunes in my patented soul-klezmer style, for an apres buffet entertainment. Plus, we would smoke up a storm.
If you call that “unpleasant” you might as well move to Israel.
Mooser, I’d still rather dine with Witty. But perhaps you could cater.
“A very thoughtful essay, Elizabeth. As someone quite a bit older than you, I am more experienced “
Oh, give it a rest, Dave, Witty has already got her booked up for lunch. “Mondowiess, the J-dating service for the Zionistically perplexed”
Elizabeth,
Could you explain your buddy’s statement:
buddy from Viet Nam who more or less told my father I’d be more useful lying under a bulldozer.
Is this a common derogatory remark in your community and why do you suppose he chose these words?
I’d guess the buddy meant words have not made a dent all these years; time to do something more. Maybe the buddy met the Corrie family?
NO, I think it was meant as derogatory. “Better off dead than (well-)read”, to twist a phrase.
I’m not sure the two interpretations are inconsistent.
First, I would like to clarify that he is not my buddy. He is my father’s buddy, and despite his anti-Viet Nam War activism in the ‘60’s, he’s now a raving right wing Zionist (for the record, my father remains anti-war and anti-Occupation). And yes, the old ‘Nam buddy’s words were meant to be derogatory. I believe his actual statement was something to the affect that I may end up like that “useful idiot Rachel Corrie,” yes, the implication being better dead than (well)-read. Those comments still boggle my mind. It figures, though, he’s anti-war in the 1960’swhen he’s the one overseas fighting. But from his safe space in the US, in his ripe old age, with no fears of being sent to combat, its all well and good to support military Occupation.
Well, the anti-vietnam war theory was that it was another colonial, imperialist war (Jane Fonda POV) , rather than one of confronting communism under the domino theory. Measrsheimer has recently come out against it having been wrought although he had a big piece of past life invested in it. Merasheimer now condudes it was a total waste of US and foreign lives and money. For we who fought in it here in the USA it has even longer lasting impact. And I’m sure it’s so over there. So, Elizabeth, why do you think your dad’s old anti-vietnam war buddy now takes the right-wing position he railed against in the 1960’s when it comes to Israel and it’s USA enabling regimes, one after the other? How does the buddy distingish between the two? It’s actually an important question, given the two wars the USA is now fighting for 8 years, and the one being drummed up against Iran.
You’re completely right, it is a really important question, one which my father has confronted him with, and his response was, “if you’re not a liberal when you’re young, you have no heart. If you’re still one when you’re old, you have no head.” I maintain that its because he doesn’t have to fight for Israel. But probably that’s just me being bitter and assuming the worst of him. Bitterness aside, I know he’s also a member of the Jewish War Veterans Association, so I think maybe he has some complex over fighting an unjust for that wasn’t for him, at a time when this country still had anti-Semitic tendencies. So its easier for him to support the state of Israel blind him because he feels it better represents him, protects his interests.
Personally, since the man has never addressed with me to me, I have no interest in picking a fight with him, particularly after the “useful idiot” comment.
Also, I’ve been corrected. The WORMS buddy did move to Israel and serve in the Israeli military after getting out of the US air force. So I take back my accusation of him being a passive war-monger.
“Better off dead than (well-)read”
I must suggest that as a slogan for the haredi!
Its already the unspoken slogan for Zionist propagandists.
And so here we are, right back at the beginning, where Jewish family unpleasantness outweighs Zionism’s crimes and murders. Oh well, it’s been a nice journey, and I don’t mind being a little dizzy from going in circles. It reminds me of a ziocaine high!
Mooser, you are a boor. Your feeble attempts at humor are at best pathetic. You do seem to have an interesting POV but I am often glossing on your entries. Are you over the age of 18?
jimby – Mooser needs to be handled with care, that’s all. His brand of brittle humor does too lighten up this board to the no-ending envy of all other blogs, surely. Yes, he steps over the line at times, but so do we all, and based on what he writes, I believe his feelings of exasperation are as genuine as those of the rest of us. You do know what they say about clowns, right?
BTW, one of the most melancholy people I ever met was a pretty successful, local stand-up comic.
That’s me, Danaa, you got me in one! I’m strictly Pagliacci-ing my way through life.
And my japes and jest are so brittle, because they are FRESH! Not like those old Capn Billy’s Whiz-Bang stuff so stale it’s limp.
Oh, and jimby, not reading my comments is, as I’m sure you’re aware, a felony. Don’t say you weren’t warned. But I bet you read all my comments and steal both my jokes and POV. Like people wouldn’t know the difference.
Imagine the family gatherings among border state families just before the American civil war. Many brothers actually fought brothers in that war. How about a family gathering for a holiday in a Hatfield or McCoy family when some strays on either side had played romeo and juliet?
I get your point about family unpleasantries, compared to the continued crimes of Israel. You’ve heard it all before. She seems young and scared to make a conflict with her family. Why is that? This is light material, and where’s her enthusiasm for dissent? This is often a blog for complaining. Show me some action Jackson, please. Do we need to know the narrative of someone pondering the idea that their ready to jump from the nest? Maybe your nest isn’t the best place to perch. It’s probably time she spread’s her wings and jumps.
Jumps? She’s gonna plotz. Anyway, it’s nice to know that the same kinds of things which affect my non-Jewish neighbors religiously also take place among Jews. What a country the Goldenah Medina is.
I think Elisabeth should get herself over to “Failed Messiah .com” It might change her so-called life!
So, Chu, before you join Mooser’s “lets make assumptions about Elizabeth” train, let me tell you all some more about me. Mooser, maybe you should read this more carefully than you read the actual post, as I maintain you did not read it. Or else you did not understand it. Or else you are just being ridiculous and you know it and you’re just one of those people that takes great amusement and watching strangers get mad when they don’t really know what they’re getting mad at.
Anyway, this issue for me is not about my family. It is about my community. As mentioned, I was not raised a Zionist, nor was I raised to be an anti-Zionist. As mentioned, my father was a part of a group of Vietnam draft soldiers who called themselves WORMS (We Openly Resist Military Stupidity). As mentioned, he is still anti-war and anti-Occupation. I can talk about this with my family. When I participated in a peace rally staged at Kibbutz Yotvata in response to the air raids on Gaza this December – that’s right participated, how’s that for action, Jackson – I took a lot of pictures, sent them to my parents with the label, “WORMS: Israel.”
The issue is, when I leave the comfort of my family or the Arava family (if you don’t know what that is, I suggest you look it up), how do I continue to be able to talk about this? How do I look the Zionists in the eye, particularly those who come from more traditional backgrounds are already judging me for being a female with a kippa, a female with the audacity to study for the rabbinate, how do I bring the conversation to them? The issue is, I thought Progressive Zionism would be the stepping stone, and maybe it still could be, but in that conference I felt so, so alone. Direct action is well and good, but mostly I think it just pisses off those on the right, and is often unproductive. We need political action, and as Americans, let’s push it from the American government. But how do we do that if we can’t even talk about the complexities? If its already been decided for us the being “Pro-Peace” doesn’t necessarily include being “Pro-Palestinian”? It’s already been decided for us that the “two-state solution” (no, no, we don’t need details. Two states? Good enough), is the only solution?
Maybe instead of trying to rip apart my narrative because you all think that I’m some young, naive, maybe idealistic, in Mooser’s case Zionist (again, proof he hasn’t actually read what I’ve written here), maybe you should offer some solutions to this painful lack of dialogue.
Rereading Elizabeth’s piece made me reread this line….perhaps it was not meant as deragatory but as Citizen suggests….frustration that regular organizing, going to J Street, working on BDS will get no where…..that this is just continued “Wittyesqe talk” while Israel/U.S. Congress continue to “Madoff” us?
Elizabeth says:
The shock I see from people when I state my concern for the Palestinian people over the ideology of a Zionist state often threatens to push me back into silence, particularly when it comes from the aunt who told my parents I clearly wasn’t raised correctly, or the WORMS (We Openly Resist Military Stupidity) buddy from Viet Nam who more or less told my father I’d be more useful lying under a bulldozer. Well, I wasn’t raised one way or another when it comes to Israel, and I certainly have no intent to martyr myself for the cause,
I still don’t understand what that paragraph is trying to impart.
She seems very career-orientated; perhaps she’s really saying she does not have a sufficient finger to the wind to feel confident she will prosper at this tack or that? I think that was what Mooser intuited from her words–I’d be willing to listen to more views, for sure.
She seems very career-orientated; perhaps she’s really saying she does not have a sufficient finger to the wind to feel confident she will prosper at this tack or that? I think that was what Mooser intuited from her words–I’d be willing to listen to more views, for sure.
She seems very career-orientated; perhaps she’s really saying she does not have a sufficient finger to the wind to feel confident she will prosper at this tack or that? I think that was what Mooser intuited from her words–I’d be willing to listen to more views, for sure.
I have no clue why my comment repeated itself. Sorry.
“I have no clue why my comment repeated itself. Sorry”
Some guys got all the luck! Citizen, only about one-quarter or less of my comments ever appear on the thread.
But if they’re going to give you all that space, why repeat yourself?
I’m sorry if that was inarticulate. What I meant was I often feel silenced voicing even the most cautious of my criticisms of Israel, even by the very shock on people’s faces at the idea that I would value the lives of Palestinians over the ideology of Zionists. But if the shock I see on the faces of the nameless members of my wider community pushes me into silence, it is nothing compared to the shutting down I feel in response to the hurtful comments made by someone close to me, as well as more violent comments made by someone not so close to me, but neither to my face! Both my aunt and the WORMS buddy directed these comments to my parents. That is the ultimate prevention of dialogue!
Thanks EAG. I understand.
Elizabeth (is that a Jewish name? Hmm, seems fishy to me), don’t ever give up on being a Rabbi (Rabbiess? Rabbiette? Sorry, I don’t know the correct Hebrew term). You were made for the job.
See, I never could have been a Rabbi. As Jimby says, I’m a boor, and when I want to say that there’s only one way to take land and homes away from people, the old fashioned way (you kill them or chase them away) when I was your age, not even the shocked looks on the bubbe’s faces would stop me. You have a sensitivity which will serve you well in your chosen career.
Geez, Mooser, you’re getting as bad as Witty. Every thread must be made to be all about you. Give it up, will ya? Or maybe you and Witty can get a room and bask in your mutual narcissism.
Mooser- I still don’t understand you. You’re comments are scathing, but you never seem to make a point, and you’re consistently flat-out wrong about who I am.
But, alright.
No, I suppose Elizabeth is not a particularly Jewish name, though I do know multiple other Jews name Elizabeth. Is that important to you? And thanks for the support, I won’t ever give up on being a Rabbi. It’s been my plan since 5 years, and now I’m only a year away from application. Exciting stuff.
Hm. I’m sorry that you are a boor, as Jimby says, and that your bubbe made faces at you for being a racist. I’m sure she’s proud of you now, for your great critical reading skills and ability to hang around some internet site all day. It looks like you’ve done real well for yourself with ordination.
Mooser, I have a niece named Elizabeth and her mother is Jewish–her name is Loren. Are they fishy too?
Mooser- I still don’t understand you. You’re comments are scathing, but you never seem to make a point, and you’re consistently flat-out wrong about who I am.
But, alright.
No, I suppose Elizabeth is not a particularly Jewish name, though I do know multiple other Jews name Elizabeth. Is that important to you? And thanks for the support, I won’t ever give up on being a Rabbi. It’s been my plan since 5 years, and now I’m only a year away from application. Exciting stuff.
Hm. I’m sorry that you are a boor, as Jimby says, and that your bubbe made faces at you for being a racist. I’m sure she’s proud of you now, for your great critical reading skills and ability to hang around some internet site all day. It looks like you’ve done real well for yourself without ordination.
“It looks like you’ve done real well for yourself without ordination.”
Feh! I can’t kick, really. It’s better in the summer when my rheumitism goes away.
And for your information girlie, all the Jewish girls I’ve slept wi… I mean was aquainted with spelled it “Elisabeth” With an “S”. But go ahead, spell your name like a Gentile, I don’t care. Maybe it’ll help you to meet a nice Jewish guy and get married.
I mean, c’mon, you don’t think that “z” is just a little, I don’t know, just a little too, much? I don’t even like to think what the old ladies in Hester St. would say to that “z”.
What’s wrong with a good old fashioned Jewish “s”?
Mooser, you’re now straying well into sexual harassment territory. In fact, you’re getting pretty close to the “report abuse” point, if not well past it.
Ah, it’s alright, my shiksa girlfriend doesn’t mind the “z”.
As soon as I posted that, I felt bad. I just wanted to play the “lets be as obnoxious as possible” game with Mooser, but actually, I really hate the word shiksa.
My non-Jewish girlfriend doesn’t mind the “z”. And the ladies on Hester St had enough trouble getting used to her that they don’t notice the z anymore either.
EAG, your contribution is much appreciated, especially by those of us for whom college is a distant memory. And, please, don’t be intimidated by the sharp rhetorical elbows. As you have already found out, your ability to navigate treacherous waters will be a valuable skill in your chosen profession. Lastly, despite Mooser’s dismissive snark (fer f*ck sakes, Mooser, you have already characterized her as irredeemable, and she has just crashed the two decade barrier), he indirectly makes a point: Zionism is not an exclusively Jewish problem. I know this sounds self-evident, given Gaza and Lebanon and such. But while American Jews may be the strongest supporters of Israel, American support is also contingent upon the silent complicity of the majority. Aside from J Street’s oxymoronic embrace of a ‘Jewish democratic state’, what I find most objectionable about the organization is its narrow identification as a ‘Jewish’ organization, a position that is both ignorant and short-sighted.
PS I have been studying (informally) the water issue a great deal of late, and hope that you will link your thesis when it’s completed.
PPS I’d take Witty up on his offer, so long as he is picking up the tab. Just keep your mouth full, chew and nod as he dishes his avuncular advice. A free meal is a free meal.
Yes, she’s young. And the water issue is huge. It speaks well of her that she chose it as a topic for academic credentials–it is more evidence she is really trying to look reality in the face. OTH, I never did agree with the advice that “a free meal is a free meal” although enough people have so advised me over the years. Lots of times I rather eat saltines alone.
Elizabeth: This is a great post, and super encouraging. I think it takes tremendous courage to speak out, and act, partly because I suspect your choice of profession could put you under greater than normal pressure. I wish my erstwhile acquaintances in the mainstream press could read what you say, and be a little ashamed of their decades of weaseling. But I suspect they stay away from Mondoweiss because it would make them uncomfortable.
P.S. I would definitely meet with Richard Witty, and if I lived in western Mass I would invite myself along as well. I know something about Palestine/Israel, but I think I could learn a lot from you.
Understatement of the year: “But I suspect they stay away from Mondoweiss because it would make them uncomfortable.”
Did you see Berman faced with Code Pink in the hallway?
Elizabeth, If you get to D.C. again you might stop at the Israeli Embassy and ask to see the huge photograph they have on one of their conference room walls. I saw it several years ago and it passes through my mind occasionally because we conversed with the official about it and I believe he told us it was of a desalinization project and that they were especially proud of it – but I honestly cannot remember if this is correct. I just know the photo was massive (whole wall size) so it impressed me with its prominence.
I spoke to a geologist once about the desalinization projects off the Gulf Coast and he stated that there were a number of very troubling problems with them and the destruction they cause. He also stated that without a doubt to him, water was the number one issue in the Mideast and worldwide.
I truly appreciate your thoughts and your work. Thank you.
Yep; you can lead an Arabian horse to water but you can’t make him drink–especially if there’s no potable water, or indeed, any at all. I hope Elizabeth studies
the impact of swimming pools over there too.
While extracting Palestinian water from aquifers from under Palestinian feet in the occupied territories, Israel often expresses impatience and disbelief that West Bank and Gaza do not take them up on their offer to build them, with third party money, a desalination plant in the occupied territories.
Israel would magnanimously allow Palestinians to pipe salt water from Mediterranean Sea, while having the option to cut it off at any time, sell them the enormous amounts of electricity to make it work, while (am I repeating myself?) having the option to cut it off at any time, and give them the privilege to irredeemably damage the top soil with toxic waste products of such desalination, causing numerous health problems to the population in the surrounding areas.
The argument in commonly presented that Palestinians can’t complain that they have water stolen by settlements and Israel proper to “make the desert bloom” as they obviously cannot need water if they don’t jump at magnanimous desalination plant idea.
Thanks, Eva; I hope Elizabeth is reading this thread following her post via Phil and Adam.
Thanks, Eva; I hope Elizabeth is reading this thread following her post via Phil and Adam.
Thanks, Eva; I hope Elizabeth is reading this thread following her post via Phil and Adam.
Very interesting, Eva. There’s also another aspect to this:
Whereas the pastoral culture of tending olive orchards and herding goats, without a young nationalism’s demand for hyper-growth, allowed Palestine’s arid climate to provide for a sustainable human inhabitation for several millennia, the Western technological hubris involved in “making the desert bloom” and installing a modern industrial/agricultural economy through feats of irrigation has actually caused rampant desertification in Israel.
What this means in the context of I/P debate is that even while first-rate universities exist in Israel to develop technological solutions to ecological problems for instance, the expressed need of Zionism to fill the land with Jews as quickly as possible has led Israel to the point of ecological disaster.
Citizen – I couldn’t figure out what you meant about Elizabeth following this thread, so I read it again – still no luck. But the third time was a charm. Got it!
David, what do you mean? Sorry, perhaps I am having a meltdown.
David, what do you mean? Sorry, perhaps I am having a meltdown.
broken record here, and off-topic at that.
Qom is Iran’s holy city, a kind of Islamic Vatican. It’s surrounded by desert. After Khomeini came to power post-1979 Iranian revolution, mullahs acquired enough political capital to divert water from area mountain streams and channel it to irrigate a vast swath of desert land around Qom, to “make the desert bloom.” The area is now lush and green, with prosperous farms that bring great wealth to some, and a sustaining income to many.
70 million is a lot of mouths to feed in a desert-and-mountain ecology. It takes a great deal of power to power to keep the irrigation system functioning, and a lot of people’s livelihoods, not to mention daily bread, depends on the flow of water to sustain the crops.
Several thousand years ago, Iranians began the system of qants — hand-dug deep wells connected by underground channels — that is still maintained today. In earlier days, the persons who maintained the qants were wrapped in white shrouds as they descended to their work, for their workplace was as a tomb, which it frequently became. Needless to say, a modernizing Iran is applying its intellectual energy to the problem of irrigating the desert to feed its people without having to bury the people who make irrigation possible.
That’s where the nuclear facility at Qom comes in: Iran is attempting to husband its energy resources and use nuclear technology to, among other things, provide energy to run facilities to keep the fields around Qom watered and productive.
Nuclear energy at Qom to ‘make the desert bloom.’
Perhaps Israel could take a few notes from Iran, and instead of banishing the Bedouin from the Negev, put Israel’s nuclear arsenal to work at sustaining life, including the Bedouin and their herds, rather than threatening it.
Pg, I have noticed a number of times that you seem to have a strong interest in Iran. (More power to you!) Would it be an indiscretion if I asked if you live, or have lived, in Iran? Perhaps it would be, though.
No, I do not live in Iran, I have travelled there, one of relatively few non-Iranian Americans who has had that great opportunity. I had the enormous good fortune to have travelled with a relative of Richard Frye, an American who spent most of his long and fruitful career studying, preserving, and disseminating the proud history of Persia and the ways that western culture has borrowed from it.
The American view of Iran is seriously skewed by (imo) the deliberate effort of Israelis and Israel’s American ‘advocates’ to demonize Iran out of fear that a US relationship with Iran will disadvantage Israel economically and geopolitically.
Several years ago I received a message from dear Jewish friends announcing an upcoming speech by Patrick Clawson, sponsored by AIPAC, UJF, and half-a-dozen other Jewish groups. The flier had a picture of a reddened cloud of smoke against a black ground, with the bold letters: “Iran: A Threat to Humanity.” I was appalled. I attended the event and was even more distressed by Clawson’s hideously distorted version of Iran, the reactions of the audience, and the actions of the sponsors — when my friend, who is Jewish and a retired physician, challenged one of Clawson’s claims, a UJF ‘gatekeeper’ told him to be quiet or he would be removed by Security.
That event changed my life. I could not and will not let such a situation stand.
I’ve attempted to ‘arm’ myself, with knowledge and networks, to push back against that demonization campaign in every instance where I encounter it, and to advance the positive view of Iran that more accurately reflects that state, its people, history, and culture.
I’ve hear debates with Patrick Clawson, and for someoen who claims to be knowledgable about Iran, he’s a shameless and bald faced liar. Liek most neocons, he simply an Islamophobe.
In one debate, he began with the debunked lie that Iran have threatened to wipe Israel off the map.
When corrected, he then argued that Iran is a threat becuase Amadinejad denies the Holocaust.
He then argued that the Iranian mullahs are religious fanatics believers in the 12th Imam and thus welcome the destion of their country so long as they take Israel down with them. When it was pointed out to him that George Bush told Haaretz that Gold told hiw to attack Iraq, he pretended that he couldn’t knwo for sure becasue he didn’t know Bush personally, yet he had never met Iran’s leaders either.
He made the lame argument that Iran should never be allowed to acquire a bomb, but refused to discuss Israel’s 200 nukes, most of which are aimed at Tehran.
Thanks for the post, Elizabeth, and good luck. There are a lot of rabbis and cantors who take a principled stand on Palestine. It’s not the path of least resistance, but that doesn’t seem to be what you’re after anyway. J Street may not be what we hoped for (probably unrealistically), but I think we’re beginning to see a shift in Jewish views on Israel and Palestine. The limits of “acceptable discourse” have expanded considerably in recent years, and the more blatant and shameless Israel’s actions, the more Jews are going to get fed up.
Schmuel, you’re right. Rome was not built in a day; neither was the Chinese Wall, or even Israel’s “security fence.” And like the Berlin Wall, they don’t get torn down in a day either. Did you ever read Mending Wall? An old Yankee rendition of the phenomena of walls constructed by humans, the custom, the weaknesses, etc. Phil’s wife probably read it as a kid. Of what import is it that property rights depend on at least invisible walls enforced by courts? Wasn’t the original version of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” rendered as “life, liberty, and the pursuit of property?” Anyone still tuned into what’s going on along the border of Mexico? And what’s going on along the respective borders as you travel south through S America, as to each passing border? Do we end up with Ayn Rand? Should we ignore she was from the upper class in her original homeland, or not? Do we then get down to the bootstrap or lack of them, the assumptions of typical two-party rhetoric diversity in the USA? And the further, as to what is implied in the biblical question, Am I my brother’s keeper? Turn, around, what, song is now playing?
Elizabeth, thanks for the earlier clarification…..your description helped me to understand. Follows is an invitation to a Sabeel Conference in Seattle. The speakers come from a different perspective than J Street but it sounds like a great conference and one in which many of us might thrive:
alert for all Friends of Sabeel!
SEATTLE, Washington (November 9, 2009) – This February, Seattle will host the premiere event of Sabeel – Puget Sound, a nonprofit working with and on behalf of Palestinian Christians to promote justice through nonviolence in the Holy Land. Featuring internationally-acclaimed speakers and a vibrant array of activist voices, this conference will explore the situation in Israel and Palestine today, the experience of occupation, the role of U.S. policy and nonviolent strategies for peace.
“The United States, Israel and Palestine: What Does Justice Require of US?” will be held at Saint Mark’s Cathedral (1245 Tenth Avenue East) on February 19th & 20th and will include several notable speakers as well as informative, provocative workshops lead by local activists. The keynote address will be delivered on the 19th by the founder and leader of Sabeel, the Rev. Naim Ateek. Speaking from his unique perspective as an Arab-Israeli citizen, Ateek has been called the ‘Bishop Tutu of Palestine’ and is the respected author of many books and articles including Justice and Only Justice: A Palestinian Theology of Liberation and A Palestinian Christian Cry for Reconciliation.
Speakers will include senior lecturer on Politics and Government at Ben Gurion University and author of Israel’s Occupation Neve Gordon, The Evergreen State College professor of International Politics and Middle East Studies Steve Niva, and war crimes investigator/co-founder of Americans United for Palestinian Human Rights Tom Nelson. Jewish-American author of Fatal Embrace: Christians, Jews, and the Search for Peace in the Holy Land Mark Braverman will focus on the role of religious beliefs and theology in the current discourse on Israel/Palestine and will speak about the future of interfaith relations. 2006 Nobel Prize nominee and coordinator of the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions (ICAHD) Jeff Halper is also slated to speak at the conference.
Parents of Rachel Corrie and founders of the Rachel Corrie Foundation for Peace and Justice, Cindy and Craig Corrie, will present a talk and also lead a workshop on activism. Insight from former CIA members will be provided by Kathleen and Bill Christison; Kathleen a former CIA political analyst with 35 years of experience with Middle East issues, the author of Perceptions of Palestine and The Wound of Dispossession and co-author, (with Bill), of Palestine in Pieces: Graphic Perspectives on the Israeli Occupation.
Co-sponsors to date include the Palestine Concerns Task Force of the Church Council of Greater Seattle, the Middle East Focus Group of Saint Mark’s Cathedral, the Episcopal Bishop’s Committee for Israel/Palestine, American Jews for a Just Peace, the Rachel Corrie Foundation for Peace and Justice, Jewish Voice for Peace, American Muslims of Puget Sound, Middle East Peace Builders, and the Rauschenbusch Center for Spirit and Action.
All friends of Sabeel are receiving this early notification and are encouraged to take advantage of the limited number of reservations by acquiring theirs early! Space is limited! Reservations may be made by calling Brown Paper Tickets at 1-800-838-3006 or through http://www.brownpapertickets.com. For more information, find us on Facebook or see the Friends of Sabeel website: http://www.FOSNA.org
Contact:
BrittaLisa Gess, Communications Director
brittalisa@gmail.com
Thanks for this notification, Cheryl; it’s good to know that this is happening (helps a bit in warding off the discouragement). If I still lived in Seattle I would certainly try to be there.
I think the way to look at J Street is the same way as viewing Obama. We know that it’s essentially centrist; it’s really just a question of whether it can be moved to adopt more progressive policies. Don’t expect much or lose much sleep over either. You won’t be disappointed.
Jeff Halper recounts how he met with five rabbis in a road restaurant, somewhere in the US. They didn’t dare to speak to him in public but they wanted him to tell them what to do. It’s on youtube I think, a speech in Oregon.
This confuses me:I understand that the collapse of the nation-state paradigm is not going to begin with the world’s one Jewish state, and as such, the two-state solution probably is more viable than a bi-national state.Zionism is not about having a state but about having an ethnic state. I don’t see how moving from an ethnocracy to a state of its citizens challenges the idea of a nation-state. The binational state is a state with a high degree of federalization which makes it in some ways single state and in other ways two states. So maybe it isn’t a clean case but neither are the US or Germany.
Tuyzenfloot, what she said was that Israel will fail when all the rest of the nation states fail and we all move into a new world order of universal niceness.
It’s just a nicer and more lady-like way of saying :”When Hell freezes over…”
When I was Elisabeths age, I knew that Zionism is murder. If you can’t figure out that simple fact, you will make a hell of a good Rabbi.
Here here Mooser, actually a really adept call, which was also sealed by a “choice” that makes what you said apparent.
elizabeth, you ask some great questions and i appreciate your sharing your views here with us… i hope you can find some answers to these questions at the end of your article…. in the meantime i think israel is really making things worse for itself in its actions… j st isn’t perfect, but it is better then only aipac which seems essentially fanatical…
“What are the alternatives to Boycotts and Divestments, promised but not delivered by the panel on the first day of the conference? Or more importantly, why do we need such alternatives? Why should US money continue to go to Israel, if Israel’s settlement building is going to continue, spitting in the face of President Obama and Special Envoy Mitchell? Where do I get to talk about Israel’s hypocrisies with other Jews?
“Why should US money continue to go to Israel, if Israel’s settlement building is going to continue, spitting in the face of President Obama and Special Envoy Mitchell?”
One thing I hate doing is unearthing others peoples impressions when they are not ready for it yet. So … it is not just you that has brought this up, but others who have posted here. The answer is that Obama and Mitchell are not being spat at, in fact, they agree or go along with what Israel is doing – if they do not agree and go along with it, they would have devised a way to get Israel’s attention.
It is a big game, a big political game – just like the other issues Obama said he was going to handle, and all that was done was a choice speech or two. The cruel punch line to this joke are the American people and worse the Palestinians. Now, you can either think Obama is tremendously disturbed by this (just like he is about everything else that he did not do, so he can say “I tried,” plausible denial), or you can wake up and see that you have been had – which is it? The remedy is to address this countries ills as well as Israel’s, that are dancing a dance of death over both American and Palestinian bodies.
Sorry for the typo’s and grammar but I am busy
v – your view is much the same as my own, but people do need to have these questions put before them and consider the answers as best they can… thanks for your comments…
You know, as a relatively new reader of this blog, I have to say that the comments are more often than not more interesting and entertaining than the actual posts!
“The idea of a three to four day confer ence (depending on personal choice of attendance) solely devoted to the “Voice of the American Jewish Left” sounded inspiring.” (Goldstein)
What is really needed is a four-day conference devoted to the “Voice of the American Left (Non-Jews Welcome). Only then will progress begin to be made in combating the Zionist agenda in Palestine and the rest of the Middle East. How long must this country wait before that happens? Regardless, you can bet that it will happen – with or without Jews on the Left.
At Antiwar.com, Philip Giraldi has an article proposing what he calls “X Street”, a non-ethnic, non-Zionist, broad-based foreign policy lobby which has a lot of similarities to what I had in mind with the “A Street” organization I outlined on this blog several days ago. Says Giraldi:
“Membership in X Street will be open to all American citizens of every race, national origin, and religious belief. It will be guided by a unifying principle, that preservation of the liberties defined in the constitution and support of the national interest of the United States should be the sole objectives of any and all foreign policy.”
Among other foreign policy principles, Giraldi stipulates:
“X Street recognizes that America’s lopsided support of the state of Israel has made the United States a target of terrorism, has weakened the US’s international standing and damaged its reputation, and has negatively impacted on the American economy. The United States will advise Israel that its settlement policy is in violation of numerous UN resolutions and that it opposes on principle the continuing denial of any rights to West Bank and Gazan Palestinians. Washington will no longer use its veto power to protect Israeli interests in the UN and other international bodies. As Israel is now the twenty-ninth wealthiest nation in the world per capita, all US economic and military assistance will cease immediately. The United States will publicly declare its knowledge that Israel has a nuclear arsenal and will ask the Israeli government to join the NPT regime and subject its program to IAEA inspection. The purpose is not to punish Israel but to make it like every other country vis-à-vis the United States – a friend and a trading partner, but there will be no free ride and no presumption of a “special relationship.” There will be no special relationships with anyone.”
Giraldi’s article, “A Manifesto for X Street”, is found here:
http://original.antiwar.com/giraldi/2009/11/04/a-manifesto-for-x-street/
Thank you so much, CMI, for the url reference. I couldn’t agree with it more. But there will be no X Street; why? Check out what happened to the USS Liberty back in 1967–that’s when the US government turned over control to expansionist Israel and actual dead Americans really don’t matter, nor do those slowly taxed to death for Israel.
Same here! If anything has a snowball’s chance in hell of saving the US from itself, this X Street concept is it.
X-Street sounds a whole lot better than J-Street.
Elizabeth,
I just want to say that you are a breath of fresh air and I’ve enjoyed your post and this thread immensely. You brought out the best in everyone. I’m still recovering from a stictch from laughing, which is saying somethgin, given how morbid and miserable this typically is.
Perhaps Elizabeth and commenters and lurkers here might want to consider June 1967 and its aftermath we here all are so concerned about now:
http://www.alanhart.net/the-liberty-affair-and-the-problem-with-the-truth-of-history/
Before Elizabeth has lunch at Witty’s expense, I suggest she read up on Witty’s mentor, starting here–but don’t let that end it before scurrying out for your free tacos:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Rosenberg
Before Elizabeth has lunch at Witty’s expense, I suggest she read up on Witty’s mentor, starting here–but don’t let that end it before scurrying out for your free tacos:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Rosenberg
Before Elizabeth has lunch at Witty’s expense, I suggest she read up on Witty’s mentor, starting here–but don’t let that end it before scurrying out for your free tacos:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Rosenberg
Comments on this entry are closed.