The other day I wrote a post on liberals and racism following from the J Street conference. I mentioned Bernard Avishai in the post, and he had this response. I respond to Avishai below. He goes first:
You write:
“The feeling that flowed through the J Street conference was: Two states is a lot better than one state because we’re Jews and we can’t trust what Palestinians would do if they were in charge. This theme was expressed in benevolent terms, as when Bernard Avishai spoke of the economic progress that Israel as a democracy "with a Jewish character" could make by teaming up with Palestine and Jordan. And it was expressed in frankly racist terms. Just read Sydney Levey’s post here, in which a J Street speaker crowed that four Palestinian children per family was a lot better than nine (which it used to be). If they said that in California, the guy would be out of a job….So liberal Jews routinely invoke a racist idea–the "demographic threat"–to justify the Jewish democracy.”
So wanting a democratic state with a Jewish character is racism, albeit expressed in benevolent terms. Really.
Look, nobody has dissociated himself more publicly from the “demographic argument” than I have, in Harper’s in 2005, in my book, and even at the J Street conference, when I pointedly rejected Haim Ramon’s use of it. Nor do I argue for a democratic state with a Jewish character because “we can’t trust what Palestinians would do if they were in charge” (though I am enough of an acolyte of Thomas Hobbes to ever trust any political arrangement that did not secure protections against violent, immoderate people on both sides).
No, the reason why I would like to live in a democratic state with a Jewish character is my attachment to the Hebrew language, the challenges of Jewish history, the grandeur of the Torah, the excitement of modern Israel poetry and popular culture—in other words, the same reasons why French Quebecers want a democratic province with a Quebecois character. If I had feelings of distance from most at the J Street conference, which was otherwise inspiring, it was because they tended to speak of Israel in purely political terms: as a place whose existence either inspired American Jews to a sense of ethical affiliation or did not. (You heard: “When I was young, Israel was so exciting; now it an embarrassment”—and on and on along these lines.) For me, Yehuda Amichai’s poetry is Israel’s justification. Imagine Swedish liberals who’ve heard of Abu Ghraib, but not Bruce Springsteen, deciding the worth of America. (Come to think of it, isn’t this the Nobel committee for literature?)
In other words, Israel’s right to exist is, finally, the counterpart to the fact that it does exist, that is, as a distinct, precious cultural life. We have to stop imagining that the only justifications for Israel were Andrei Gromyko’s in 1947. Could I be happy if Israel were in some larger federation, like Quebecers, or French citizens, for that matter. Yes. But could I ever be reconciled to a political arrangement in which the protections for Hebrew culture evaporated? Let’s just say it would be inhumane to ask this of anyone.
Weiss response:
Bernie, thanks for your thoughtful and serious note. It’s clear I should have gained a more nuanced understanding of your view of the demographic threat before posting, and I’m sorry for that. It’s been a while since I read your book, which I learned a lot from. I’ll get it out later.
But let me address a couple issues in your response. You suggest that Israeli culture is misrepresented in the international view of Israel as purely an occupier. (As the U.S. is misrepresented as solely the perpetrator of Abu Ghraib). And that it would be "inhumane" to overwhelm the grand achievements of Hebrew culture in undoing those political problems.
My response is that certain injustices in history cross a line and demand an international moral response. There was a lot to be said for Southern culture in the 1960s. I know that for a fact. But Jim Crow vitiated that larger understanding, as it should have. Similarly, whatever the achievements of South Africa in the 70s and 80s, they were undone suddenly by the world’s view of apartheid. To redeem the achievements of Hebrew culture now–and I don’t say that that’s impossible or unworthy–some vigorous political response would be demanded on the part of Americans/American Jews; more than what J Street has mustered. For me, the nightmare scenario of losing Hebrew culture is no justification for the actual nightmare: the living inhumanity that is perpetrated every day in the West Bank’s separate roadways or the blockade of Gaza.
Secondly: My post was written with an acknowledgment of my own racism. I grew up with it. I associate it with Jewish exceptionalism. And I struggle with it. Frankly, I bet you as a smart academic Jew have some of that attitude too. Your response to me is not at all introspective.
Let’s not talk about your heart, but your passport. According to your website and wikipedia, you grew up in Canada and now divide your time between in Israel and the U.S. As a worldly person myself, I identify with you. But I would say that yours is a very privileged position, as mine is. And when you say that you would like to live in a democratic state with a Hebrew character, isn’t this a partial truth? You seem to like living in the United States, too. I bet you have a great life in New England, as I have a great life in New York. And I am sure you experience Torah and Amichai’s poetry here too, as a minority. Your ability to move between societies is a reflection of the Law of Return, which of course many Palestinians who were born in Israel or the yishuv cannot exercise. So your privilege is bound up in inequality, and an inhumane one.
{ 2 trackbacks }
{ 87 comments… read them below or add one }
very true post phil. thanks.
You prove MY point Phil.
That is that reform is the order of the day.
Bernard is describing what constitutes the Nation of Israel, at root. It is solely a question of which is first, not a denial of the relevance of a/the state in the context of still harrassment and contempt.
The remedy to political abuse, is not a mirrored political abuse (a retaliation) but a healing, a love.
Love Israel more so that it has a basis of confidence and integrity, not shame Israel as is the solely punitive response.
I hope you also get the Avishai’s implication of the poverty of BDS on culture.
I hope you agree to disagree, rather disagree to war.
A nation of Israel is fine. Phil and I don’t object to Jewish-Israeli culture, or the existence of a large Jewish community in Israel/Palestine. We want a state that truly guarantees equal rights, which is not inconsistent with what Avishai loves about Israel. But such a state must be ethnically impartial, or at least offer the same protections for Jewish and Palestinian nationality.
I agree. That is the significance of reform based on respect for the dual nature of the Israeli basic law (Jewish haven AND democratic equal due process).
AND Palestinian haven. Do you think that would not be considered a fundamental change? Is this not often equated with the “destruction of Israel” doomsday?
There will be a Palestinian haven in Palestine, if they want one, with equal rights and due process for Jews there.
It will go far. Further than non-acceptance.
Are you asking the question, “Is a Zionist state necessary, rather than just Zionist settlement?”
If you are (and not just answering), my response will be for a very long time, until CONFIDENT, that a Zionist state remain necessary.
If you are interested in working towards conveying that confidence that the social conditions of Jewish culture would be facilitated (not just allowed) in a bi-national or single state, wonderful. So far, you are only complaining that Jews/Israelis don’t feel that confidence.
I consider that to be an utterly irrational attitude on your part, a responsibility that you neglect (to build the rational basis of confidence IN the factors that would make your argument possible, rather than just making the argument alone)
Richard, this is was Phil’s point in “Liberals and Racism”: whether or not Jews feel “confidence” in the ability of a binational or secular state to facilitate Jewish culture HAS NO BEARING on the OBLIGATION to respect the equal rights of Palestinians as people and as an indigenous nation. Equal rights have first priority, and nothing excuses the failure to provide them (on both counts).
A separate, smaller and weaker Palestinian state does not address that obligation. Those rights still apply in Israel proper.
Good point, Robin.
” … whether or not Jews feel “confidence” in the ability of a binational or secular state to facilitate Jewish culture HAS NO BEARING on the OBLIGATION to respect the equal rights of Palestinians as people and as an indigenous nation ….”
A point well stated and always worth repeating.
Phil’s response is right on target. I would also put it another way.
If Israel, after its 61 years of existence, collectively exemplifies “Jewish character,” that should be reason enough for trying something else that does not fit that description.
So true Jeffrey. I refuse to believe Israel today represents the best of “Jewish Character”, and no matter how much “brand Israel” factoids are thrown at me, it won’t matter. I think Phil Weiss, Max Blumenthal, Glenn Greenwald, Amy Goodman, Noam Chomsky, etc. etc. represent not only the VERY BEST in Jewish Character, but also human character and dignity.
I think Avishai is looking at Israel though some very strange lenses that filter out the great lumps of ugly in the Israeli national character, in its culture. The Israeli school system, producing class after class of ignorant, bullying louts, stands as an indictment of this culture.
Speaking of great lumps of ugly, see this from Richard Silverstein’s blog , on Dr. Dan Schueftan.
Cr*p. Failed to proofread again. The last sentence, “A country that puts an ugly racist “academic” like this in “influential circles” and considers him a man with “expertise” on Palestinians has very serious and basic flaws in its national culture. ”
was mine, not a quote from elsewhere.
Thanks, tree, for this link to R. Silverstein’s blog. As quoted there, Dr. Menachem Klein, of the political science department at Bar-Ilan University, has this to say about Dr. Schueftan’s statements:
“He says that kind of thing at conferences, so I’m not surprised. What is surprising is that he says it in classes, because there you have to be more careful. Schueftan belongs to the Israeli neoconservative school, those that were in the Labour movement and saw the light. That school says what he says, though much less forcefully. The tendency towards extremism is making Schueftan popular.”
(…)
“That triumphalist attitude is very characteristic of the neoconservatives. Such generalizations are not appropriate. Cairo has a subway; Tel Aviv does not. Damascus has become a centre for the translation of Israeli works into Arabic. It is illegal to import those translations into this country. So who here is the enlightened one here and who is the backward one? Who here is the suspicious one and who is more open? Arab culture goes back to the seventh century. It interpreted philosophy and took poetry to new heights. Not everything is measured on the basis of technological sophistication. Scientific achievements entail elements of anonymity and lack of compassion. There is a lot less alienation in Arab society than there is in technological societies. His words reveal more about him than about them. But the problem is not Dan Schueftan the person but rather Dan Schueftan the phenomenon. There is a public atmosphere that expects and wants to hear such things. There is a certain degree of obliviousness towards Arabs and the sufferings of others in Israeli society. Against that background, statements like those become possible. I would not be surprised if statements like that are also heard in other universities [in Israel] from the lips of others who belong to that school.”
It’s good to know there are still a few more reasonable voices in Israel.
“If Israel, after its 61 years of existence, collectively exemplifies “Jewish character,”…
Then we are shit-sure sunk, baby!
Bernard Avishai wrote:
“Look, nobody has dissociated himself more publicly from the “demographic argument” than I have….”
… and then
“the reason why I would like to live in a democratic state with a Jewish character is….”
An unsquareable circle, Mr. Avishai.
Moreover, as Zionist myself, I can hardly think of a argument for a Zionist state more likely to be greeted with derision and indeed anger from non-jews than yours: “the reason why I would like to live in a democratic state with a Jewish character is my attachment to the Hebrew language, the challenges of Jewish history, the grandeur of the Torah.”
And of course the reason for the derision and anger—especially in the West, with an “I told you so” from the arabs—is because for instance whenever anyone in any country in the West has said something along those same lines as to why they want to live in a state with a *Christian* character they have been met with the most sustained abuse imaginable from jewish quarters.
Of course to goodly degree Zionism is based on a separate standard from which the West at least has been told it must adhere. You however are not even bothering to base your belief in that double standard on anything other than your perception of the superiority of “the jewish character,” and all I can say is good luck with that argument because in my mind at least there’s no better way to make former Zionists into anti-zionists, and maybe even anti-semites too.
Sin Nombre, I am a Zionist, too! As a Jew, I believe that someday, on His own schedule, at a time of His choosing, God will transport us all through the air to the Holy Land, and institute a new era of justice and peace, and the dry cleaners will never screw up my lapels. It could happen.
Good letter, by the way Nombre! Where do you find the patience, to explain without getting worked up, what is so painfully obvious?
An inability to forget my own blindnesses.
MY COMMENT – This particular issue (1 vs 2 states) might well be moot.
FROM JUAN COLE 11/05/09 – “I think the whole thing is over with. I can’t see a viable Palestinian state in the West Bank as it is now configured, and I can’t imagine the Netanyahu government halting settlements.”
SOURCE – http://www.juancole.com/2009/11/erekat-sees-one-state-solution-if.html
ALSO SEE – John V. Whitbeck: “Moment of Truth”, CounterPunch, 11/06/09
(excerpt) …The Palestinian leadership, with or without Mahmoud Abbas, should now announce its willingness to resume negotiations with Israel but only on the express and irrevocable understanding that, if a definitive peace agreement on a “two-state basis” has not been reached and signed by the end of 2010, the Palestinian people will have no choice but to seek justice and freedom through democracy — through full rights of citizenship in a single state in all of Israel/Palestine, free of any discrimination based on race or religion and with equal rights for all who live there, as in any true democracy.
The Arab League should then publicly state that the very generous Arab Peace Initiative, which, since March 2002, has offered Israel permanent peace and normal diplomatic and economic relations in return for Israel’s compliance with international law, will expire and be “off the table” if a definitive Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement has not been signed by the end of 2010.
At this point — but not before — serious and meaningful negotiations can begin. It may already be too late to achieve a decent two-state solution (as opposed to an indecent, less-than-a-Bantustan one), but a decent two-state solution would never have a better chance of being achieved. If it is, indeed, too late, then Israelis, Palestinians and the world will know and can thereafter focus their minds and efforts constructively on the only other decent alternative….
ENTIRE ARTICLE – http://www.counterpunch.org/whitbeck11062009.html
thanks for the link: I already read the Juan Cole piece, but I always love reading about Palestine issues on counterpunch.
“Imagine Swedish liberals who’ve heard of Abu Ghraib, but not Bruce Springsteen, deciding the worth of America”
What a sick man! A million Iraqis is worth “Born in the USA”? Sure, Ho-kay.
Si I guess Citizen’s and America First’s contentions about American culture are correct. How many lives is it worth to get the Jews out of it?
Not sure why you drag in my “contentions about American culture.” Please clarify.
I certainly never voted any Bush; I especially protested Shrub’s invasion of Iraq; I think the neocon elite should be tried for war crimes. I was never inspired by Bruce Springsteen, his music, his flag waving; yes, we murdered at least a million Iraqis. Most American don’t even know to this day that most of the 9-11 hijackers
were natives of Saudi Arabia and that Saudi Arabia has a more oppressive culture than Iran. Etc.
“For me, the nightmare scenario of losing Hebrew culture is no justification for the actual nightmare: the living inhumanity that is perpetrated every day in the West Bank’s separate roadways or the blockade of Gaza”
Good God, just the fact that it can be discussed on this basis! Sick, sick!
But it does open my world view a whole lot. I have a lot more sympathy for the Nazis now. After all, German culture! Bach (moosie loves, his whole life) Mozart, Beethoven, Goethe, Schiller. Imagine all that, screwed up by Jews!
Yes, it was unpleasant, but they did what they had to do!
Great post, and your remarks are on the money.
_______________________
Mr. Avishai: I want to clear up your reference to Québec et la culture Québecois lest anyone here think it’s some circumscribed garden in Canada that doesn’t have roots across the country, that the assimilation isn’t far, far greater than you assume. I heard this story from a French Canadian.
A few years ago (meaning since 2000), as an experiment, a young separatist leader within the student Parti (Bloc?) Québecois at L’Université du Laval, who was a particularly virulent piece of business, was exchanged with an Albertan (Edmonton) student political science student for about six months. (If you’re going to go into politics in Canada, you must be able to speak French.) The Edmonton kid was thrown in with the Québecer’s buddies. Ditto the scenario in Edmonton. These kids were 21, 22.
The upshot: the Edmonton kid was taunted and intellectually mauled to the point that he returned home screaming ‘let them separate’. He came away hating his experience and anything to do with Québec; they wouldn’t listen to his side of things, refused to believe what he tried to tell them about the vibrant, and old, French life in Alberta. The experience turned him against Québec forever, I was told.
The Laval kid started out rough. He thought his experience was being manufactured for him. (The easterners believe, because they are told repeatedly, that people in Alberta are white rednecks with nothing redeemable about them, and they only speak English.) They took him to a local Cabane a Sucre festival (annual French Canadian run-off ritual with maple syrup and snow) where French Canadians show up en masse to eat the stuff. They showed him businesses where only French is spoken, introduced him to French communities; he heard the French radio stations and watched French TV. He wasn’t satisfied. So one day they just plunked him in the car, and drove out to all the cities and towns outside of Edmonton: Beaumont, Vegreville, Morinville, etc. They let him walk and talk. He saw French spoken exclusively, French business signs, and met with people, young and old, who said their families had been there since the late 1700s, and that the exercise of their culture was never an issue. They were completely assimilated into the province, free to stay exclusively French, and saw no reason to separate from Canada. What shocked him, apparently, was the size of the French culture, and the amiable existence it held within an otherwise English-speaking world. The French Canadian who told me the story said that the experience completely changed him, and what did it especially was that the French he met outside of Edmonton laughed at him, and chided him gently to get a grip and not see the world through such small eyes… and no, they held no hatred of the English. He returned to Laval to reverse his political stance and argue for Québec to stay within the confederation.
I’m telling you this long-winded story to underscore that no one loses their culture unless they want to. It can exist anywhere. And compromise does not mean you give it up; it means you include and add to what you’ve got.
So well said. Bravo.
Political protections may be necessary to protect culture. But they involve the assurance of equality, not supremacy. Don’t conflate the achievements of Israeli culture with an ethnocratic form of state. The society that produced them will be just as vibrant, probably more so, within a state that protects the equality of all.
I’m telling you this long-winded story to underscore that no one loses their culture unless they want to. It can exist anywhere. And compromise does not mean you give it up; it means you include and add to what you’ve got.
That reflects my opinion on the subject, too.
Additionally, I feel that since globalization has been thrust upon nation after nation around the globe, now is a good a time as any to become citizens of the world, to shed the shackles of race, ethnicity, religion and language that bound us.
Surely, isn’t that what Avishai likes and enjoys as he lives in one region or another, whether it’s the US, Canada or Israel?
Very well said, MRW. Political domination is not a sine qua non for thriving culture – even minority culture. Israeli Jewish culture (annd Jewish culture in general) can only gain from giving up its paranoia and protectionism (worth reading what Jerry Haber has to say on the subject). Besides, increased contact with Palestinian culture could help Israelis explore their Semitic (as opposed to European) side. The cultural possibilities are staggering.
I was also wondering about something else. Avishai advocates partition, in order to preserve the Jewish character of the part of Palestine that is now predominantly Jewish, and says that he rejects the “demographic argument”. But what happens if and when the demographics shift, and Jews become a minority in the Jewish state? What then? Minority rule? A further partition?
MRW:
Great stuff!
Shmuel:
When I read this line that you wrote,
“Besides, increased contact with Palestinian culture could help Israelis explore their Semitic (as opposed to European) side. The cultural possibilities are staggering. “,
I immediately associated it with comments that Judge Goldstone made during the Q&A segment of his “debate” with Dore Gold at Brandeis U. It’s worth watching.
He reported his nervousness about going into Hamas controlled Gaza as a Jew, the bad dream he had about being taken hostage, and finally his surprise at the friendliness and the humanity of the Palestinians in Gaza. But what he said that your comment reminded me of was that he noticed many cultural similarities between the people in Gaza and many Jews in Israel. You should look at Dore Gold’s face while Goldstone makes those comments: priceless.
FPM
FPM, I’ll try to watch the debate, although i’ll have to load up on antihistamines first. I’ve got a really bad allergy to Dore Gold. The cultural similarities between Israelis and Palestinians are certainly there, but there is a barrier that prevents Israelis from exploring those similarities as well as the vast contribution of Arabic and Arab culture to Jewish culture. For example, the systematic description of Hebrew grammar is based entirely on Arabic grammar, and was devised by Arabic-speaking Jewish scholars. Some of the greatest works of Jewish literature were originally written in Arabic (eg. Maimonides’ Guide for the Perplexed or Commentary on the Mishnah), and many of those written in Hebrew (especially poetry) cannot be fully appreciated without a knowledge of Arabic. There is also the suppressed culture of Arab Jews, that if properly explored and appreciated could enrich Jewish and Israeli culture no end. Isolation and protectionism are bad for culture in general, but when two cultures that were once so close (and still have a great deal in common) have the opportunity to get back together and compare notes, as it were, the possibilities are even more exciting.
But why bother, Shmuel. I mean there are 8 million Québecois or French in Canada. That represents approximately 25% of the Canadian population, and except for the Québecois making it a cause célebre in Québec proper, Francophone communities throughout Canada thrive without all that bullshit.I mean, the street signs in some Alberta towns and small cities are all in French, there’s not an English word to be found. Nobody gives a shit. The English manage, that’s all. Ditto the French communities in Saskatchewan and Manitoba, B.C. and the Northwest Territories. BFD. And then there are the Acadians (French) in the east of Canada that the Louisianans are descended from. There are French pockets throughout the country doing what they do best: speaking and living their French lives, no matter what you hear reported.
Correction: there may be way more than 8 million. I think there are 8 million in Québec. Certainly, there are way more outside of Québec. But the big issue in Canada now is the fact that’s its become UN-Central. Canada needs bodies. It’s fertility rate is in the tank. So now you see women wearing saris, or muslim scarfs (one of their hit shows is called Little Mosque on the Prairies) and there has been a gigantic influx of people from Asia, Africa, Latin America, and ’supposedly’ third-world countries. It has certainly turned the country into a foodie heaven. :-)
But Canada would cease to exist by 2030 without its generous immigration policy, and that’s the federal government talking, not me.
And for those of you who intend to visit Montreal in the near future, a bunch of Orthodox Jews make the best goddam bagels evah in North America on a wood fire. Just ask anyone for directions. People line up for blocks to pick them up. The best. The best. The best.
I don’t understand your question, MRW. I was agreeing that there is no point in bothering, that that’s not the way healthy culture works. In a single state in Palestine, Jews would be about half the population (5-6 million), and later, a significant minority, with their own language and thriving culture. Discriminatory laws are unnecessary and counterproductive. Let go, I say. Cultural Zionism has a lot to offer Jews and the world.
And you’re absolutely right about those Montreal bagels too!
Yeah, Shmuel, we’re saying the same thing. My poor use of language at fault.
I see Bernard Avishai is a disciple of David Duke. Their arguments are identical. Both scholars too, ha?
Imagine Swedish liberals who’ve heard of Abu Ghraib, but not Bruce Springsteen, deciding the worth of America.
Imagine French socialists who’ve heard of the murder of Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner, but not Pat Boone, deciding the worth of America.
Could someone have said this with a straight face? And if they could, would their commentary have been met with an editorial riposte, or would they have been scooped up in an oversize bird net?
Phil Weiss has an attachment and a sense of loyalty to the likes of Avishai. I don’t. I only have a superficial knowledge of his positions, but if Avishai’s commentary here is representative of his core beliefs, he is completely a repugnant character. Any positive movement on the IP conflict will come in spite of him.
Both Phil and Bernard Avishai are missing the real issue.
The Importance of Nuremberg Tribunal Law
International Law functions like an ordinary legal system in international telecommunications and some other international regimes, but with regard to practices of war, it is mostly political and often victor’s or imperialist law.
Nevertheless, the ongoing political struggle in the United States against the Zionist plutocracy and intelligentsia, which are poisoning the US political system, cannot be won if pro-America or anti-Israel activists fail to point out
that just like any robber under ordinary criminal codes, the State of Israel has no right of self-defense under International Law andthat that the Nuremberg Tribunal judges took precisely this position in their decisions.The Palestine-Israel conflict is primarily a domestic issue for Americans. The associated politics only looks international in nature because the Zionist imperial system, which is looting the USA and putting decent, loyal, patriotic Arab and Muslim Americans in jail, works through corrupt Jewish Zionist social networks founded on commitment to subjecting Palestine to the control of the “Jewish People.”
The Zionist concept of the Jewish people is a 19th century reinterpretation of the Jewish meta-population that had formerly been united by social networks based in common faith and in obedience to Jewish sacred law serving as a sort of uniform commercial code among Jews.
Both the traditional Jewish networks of trust and the new Jewish Zionist social networks gave and give Jews non-transparent advantages in their dealings with non-Jews.
Martillo’s Second Hypothesis
Nineteenth century Jews inherited a superior form of social networking from the international Jewish trade networks of the Middle Ages.
Even though pre-modern forms of Jewish business activity were in decline since the late 18th century, the associated Jewish networks of trust increased in size and cohesiveness with the development of international telecommunications technology and the growth of the associated international media industries in the 19th century.
At the same time, (1) because Jewish population was growing rapidly, (2) because many traditional Jewish economic niches had become obsolete, and (3) because more non-Jews had begun to enter traditionally Jewish types of business, Jewish social networks were becoming more aggressive and often tried to establish effectively exclusive claim to new economic sectors .
Increasing numbers of non-Jews began to view Jews as economic cheaters, and despite self-serving Jewish efforts to blame Christianity for rising hostility toward Jews (in an era of declining religious belief!), classic late 19th anti-Semitism was really a response to the growing effectiveness of Jewish social networking and can be primarily attributed to antisocial Jewish behavior associated with certain aspects of economic modernization and technological innovation that advantaged the Jewish meta-population.
Connection to the Present
Today, all Americans and the entire world in fact are threatened by the power of Jewish Zionist social networking of which the State of Israel is both the most visible expression and the keystone or linchpin.
The first step to neutralizing Jewish Zionist networks of trust is the complete delegitimization of Israel within the framework of International Law.
Nuremberg Law, which is so intimately associated with the Holocaust, makes it possible to use the entire edifice of Holocaust and anti-Nazi discourse against the State of Israel without explicitly equating Zionism with German Nazism and without directly accusing Israel of perpetrating a Holocaust against Palestinians.
Example Nuremberg Law Application
The Nuremberg indictment of the German Nationalist Socialist Government charges (International Military Tribunal, vol. 1, p. 63):
“In certain occupied territories purportedly annexed to Germany the defendants methodically and pursuant to plan endeavored to assimilate these territories politically, culturally, socially, and economically into the German Reich. They endeavored to obliterate the former national character of these territories. In pursuance of their plans, the defendants forcibly deported inhabitants who were predominantly non-German and replaced them by thousands of German colonists.”
If State of Israel replaces Germany, Zionist State replaces German Reich, and Jewish replaces German, this count applies to Zionist goals from the start of the Zionist movement until the present day.
The continued existence of the State of Israel is simply incompatible with constructing the sort of world all human beings — except for racist murderous genocidal Jewish Zionists — want to live.
Excellent reasoning re the Nuremberg Law Application.
Have you shared this with anyone who is in a position to act on it?
Please use blockquotes or at least italics to indicate interpolated material, please?
Makes it much easier. The HTML is at the bottom of the comment box.
Okay, we’re going all the way to the top here, no holds barred, the world-wide Jewish Conspiracy to take over, world-wide! I gotta say, from everything I have learned, that is the way to go. Look as we saw in the other thread, this type of stuff has been very effective against Muslims, and it’s well, you could almost call it traditional with Jews. So go for it! I see know reason why Jews shouldn’t be entitled to everything the Muslims got after 9-11. Plus in this case you have a long established tradition of a fear of Jewish takeover of the world-wide world. With the Muslims it was like, you know “The Muslims? Those people ain’t taking over anything, they can’t even build an airplane?” But with the Jews, nobody doubts their abilities. It must be sort of boring, cause you are going over the same old ground, the Jews-taking-over-the-world bit, but it’s paid dividends before, and it very well might work again. At any rate, you can’t say we don’t have it coming, in a lot of ways, if Zionists and Jews are indeed at the center of the shit storm of anti-Muslim prejudice which has overtaken the US.
You go, Galen. And if the rest of us have to suffer for the elites and the Zionists sins, well, what the hell, we’re used to it!
I mean, everything we are all shrieking about the Israelis doing is no more than the US does svery day in Iraq and Afghanistan and nobody seems to excersised about that. So it’s not as if the atrocities and colonialism and all that is really gonna bother anybody. But if they saw Israel’s and the Zionist’s actions as part of a world-wide Jewish attempt to take over the world-wide world, like they do every night, well, then they might get upset about it.
Anotherwords, today it’s Israel, and tomorrow they marry my daughter. Or something like that, I guess.
I say go for it, Galen Sword, you know, it couldn’t hurt.
Oh, I see, you just copied and pasted the whole blog article. And I guess that’s the topper isn’t it, getting your “Help Fight Judonia” blog reproduced on Phil Wiess’s blog! My, that’s gotta tickle.
Moreover, I get a funny feeling that the things the article presents as damning indictments against Judaism (Martillo’s Hypothesses) are what Witty considers its finest features! Good frickin lord, what a nuthouse this place is sometimes.
Anyway, Galen, best to you. As I said, I see know reason to deprive the Jews of anything they give to the Muslims. Quote-mine that old Talmud as hard as you can!
I love watching Mooser lose it when a commenter hits on issues that he sees as threatening “the Jews” as a whole rather than “those Jews” who the moose sees fit to criticize. A diatribe of unreflected reactionary prose ensues that fluctuates between barely concealed comedy and snowballing paranoia. An interesting issue here is that the moose frequently makes posts in which he predicts and seems resigned to a wave of anti-semitism against all “the Jews” in America because of the actions of “those Jews”; it’s one of his most interesting contributions to this blog, besides his comedy and wit, and the green buds of course. Moose, a question for you: if you see the tide of antisemitism against “all Jews” coming because of the actions of “those Jews”, why don’t you focus more on fighting “those Jews” than on attacking commenters whose views on “those Jews” in many ways mirror your own?
FPM
Moose,
You even used old Hasbara number 4 there. (The whole world sucks!) I never would have thought you would stoop (does a moose stoop, or bend its knees?) to using any of the famous hasbara 4, points that you use to disdain others on this site so often, but I guess when the criticism aims as some form of organized Jewry of a more global nature (not “the Jews”, mind you – Joachim never says it’s “the Jews” as a whole) working in conjunction with and to protect Israel at the expense of the non-Jews in their respective countries, I guess your principles kind of fly out the door and you become the hunted. What gives there?
FPM
Martillo’s Second Hypothesis re: social networking relates back to the emancipation of the Jews. It was expected that if restrictions on Jews were lifted, they would give up their tribalism and become patriotic citizens of the states in which they lived: Frenchmen, for example, “of the Jewish faith.” This was what the Sanhedrin promised Napoleon. That never happened, and now the source of Jewish power is that the rest of the West has given up its tribalisms but not Jews. Add to that that Jews (Frankfurt School) have been the strongest critics of tribalism in others. Harold Cruse asks why Jews insist on integrating everyone but themselves. It’s an effective strategy, or at least it has been.
Interesting article:
Napoleon and the Jews
By Ben Weider, CM, PhD
http://www.napoleon-series.org/ins/weider/c_jews.html
Yes, either the Nuremberg trials initiated new official international principles of law–limits on the sovereignty of any state, or they were nothing but victor’s justice, as Goering claimed. And the economic role of Jews as classical middleman
between the ruling Gentile elites and the masses of Gentiles ruled; trade, finance,
banking, land managers, etc, coupled with their dispersion across the diaspora and ever more advanced means of communications–social networking, was, is
historical fact. Marx viewed this historical fact as a reason to attack the negative operations of capitalism. This cannot be reduced to the anti-semitic canard of a Jewish conspiracy to take over the world. Socio-economic blending and networking
has become more fluid in contemporary times–more people have been given
(more or less) equal opportunity across the globe. And like W & M said, lobbies are as kosher as apple pie. Money talks, equal representation walks (away). The overriding direction should be that all men are created equal (that is with equal opportunity) and with the inalienable “natural” right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happines. The government and the form of it that most guarantees this goal is the best model.
All is not well within Quebec culture.
http://www.nativeweb.org/pages/legal/cree.html
Emphasis is mine. There are some rough patches between Francophone culture and native populations in the province. I can’t help but think that Bernard Avishai is dreaming of the worst that Francophone culture can offer.
Francophone culture may not be well understood by people outside of Canada, let alone in Canada. It was in part born from long standing systemic racism against French speakers – racism that made them servants and factory workers to the English speaking minority. Just as English culture lacked tolerance and fairness, so too, Francophone culture has found itself struggling at times with concepts like equality and freedom in the face of the desire to keep their own language and culture – that was so threatened by the English speakers. I don’t think I’d take much comfort in Bernard Avishai’s vision if I were Palestinian.
For the record, Edwin, je sais donc d’où je parle. Et je parle la joual, aussi. :-) The Francophone culture inside Québec is far more politicized and rigid and insular than you find outside of it. I mean, it is a closed society. Hell, joual (the Québec slang) was devised or invented to form a barrier against those Anglois who bothered to learn French, to keep them out. The French, or rather les Québecois, could give a shit about the Indians or indigenous people; they only care about their own. But at least things have changed somewhat since 1996, when this letter was written; there are more federal protections in place.
In revolutionary France, speaking Parisian gutter slang increased your lifespan. Quebec wasn’t much affected by the terror, thus the French spoken there tends towards pre-revolutionary French.
It is a mistake to dismiss Avishi. I have read his work over the past year and have concluded that he has much to offer in the debate going on here in the US, especially the debate that is happening among American Jews. He works in Israel and has an understanding of their politics. He is trying to describe how far to the right that the average Israeli has moved. He has explained that Israel itself in incapable of agreeing to a just political accommodation with the Palestinians. He is saying something that American Jews do not understand — namely Israel has become a deeply racist society. He wants the US to force the Israelis to accept a just peace.
I support him in his efforts for if the Americans really understood how racist Israel has become I think it might finally be possible for the US to withdraw her support for Israel’s perpetual war against her Palestinian and Arab neighbors.
This does not mean that we should accept Avishai’s proposed solutions, because they are not practical. He suffers from the same same problem that any progressive Zionist faces — namely how to reconcile the notion of a Jewish state with a state that treats all of its citizens as equal.
For God’s sake, syvanen, this is the US you are talking about. You expect us to get famischt because Israel is a “deeply racist society”? Nah gonna happen.
No, the best way to change the relationship is to give the Israelis the same treatment we give the Muslims. And it shouldn’t be all that hard, what with Madoff and all the Jewish guys in the media and Wall Street.
Really folks, it’s not to late to give anti-Semitism a try! Considering how well bigotry has worked to shape American attitudes towards Muslims, I see no reason why it should not be the centerpiece of the anti-Israel effort.
Don’t even mention what Israelis, excuse me, Jews, are doing in Israel to the Palestinians. Why make Americans admire them? Concentrate on “the Jews” taking over America and imposing Talmud law, or something. Talk about their strange ways, their extralegal networks and communications. How each is primed to kill and steal bagels. (It’s Sunday morning, I’m hungry)
Damn it, we know what works, why on earth do you insist on restricting your self to what is known not to work? Are you secretly working for Israel?
Famischt? Would this be like “famished”?
Say, Mooser, can you recommend a good Yiddish-English dictionary?
CMI,
Farmishen (Mooser dropped the ‘r’, Brooklyn-style) – v. To mix, confuse. Farmisht – confused, in a state of nervous excitement.
I’m afraid I’m not familiar with Yiddish-English dictionaries. I use my zeyde’s (zeyde – grandfather) Moderner Yiddish-Hebreish Verterbuch (Pardes Publishing Company, New York, 1947), but I’m guessing your Hebrew is not nearly as good as your Yiddish ;-)
A very incomplete Yiddish-English dictionary can be found online at: http://www.yiddishdictionaryonline.com/
There’s a huge difference between justification and right. A right is enforceable against someone else. I see no reason why Palestinains should suffer or Iran attacked in order to preserve Jewish poetry, let alone why I should be sucked into any of it.
Also, Avishai’s distinction between culture and demographics is not at all convincing. The example of Springsteen is especially misleading. I think he would view his music as universal. (Ironically, in my time, he was huge on college campuses among budding yuppies, far from his own working class roots.) As Phil implies, it’s just more Jewish exceptionalism for someone like Avishai to expect to mix freely in a pluralistic multicultural society like the US, yet demand for his own people a society in Israel in which culture is based on blood.
AF, that’s a good distinction. It’s very true that a right (as further distinguished from a privilege) is enforceable against some else. In American law theory at least, all rights come with obligations. Alas, between the ideal and real falls the shadow.
Sometimes, whether thinking about domestic or foreign policy, it seems to me that the exceptions to general law (applicable to everyone) have increasingly chewed up the general law, both legislatively, judicially, by executive order or memo, and overall in de facto practice.
Citizen wrote:
“In American law theory at least, all rights come with obligations.”
Not to quibble Citizen, and of course it can depend on one’s definitions, but in the normal way one thinks of things I don’t think this is true so I don’t know what exactly you are thinking of here.
For instance you have no obligation at all to ensure you many if not all of the things designated as rights in the Constitution such as the right against self-incrimination. And even if you are a convicted felon—whereby one can construe that you have as far as possible defaulted on any “obligations” you had, you still have certain rights: for instance the right to be free of cruel and unusual punishment. Indeed in theory at least I don’t even see that a person has the ability to waive that right. (Although of course not challenging the application of same would have the same effect as a waiver.)
Then there are other similar things too that come to mind: The right to a republican form of government (also constitutional), and I suspect there are simply tons of statutorily granted rights that one would indeed regard as true rights and are not dependent on any obligations: Lots of prisoner lawsuits deal with these, and are won, showing that again even felons enjoy at least some of same.
In brief I do think that in American law theory there is a clear recognition of the difference between a right (or at least a “true” right or some “rights”) and a privilege.
Ah well, Sin, I said it was a theory. Of course there’s a difference between what Lincoln and those who wrote the Declaration Of Independence mean by inalienable rights under the theory of natural law or God, and those rights, sometimes overlapping with them via legislative action. Legal Jurisprudence as taught in USA law schools leaves something to be desire. It is especially true, as I tried to suggest (not so well I guess) that “statutorily granted rights that one would indeed regard as true rights and are not dependent on any obligations.”
I guess, though at least it’s implied that one not scam the system. Many do, both the rich and the poor.
The E street Band is very, very good. You should hear them backing Gary “US” Bonds on the wonderful “Daddy’s Home” album. There is a version of “The Pretender” which should make Jackson Browne swell with pride because he wrote it, but totally ashamed that he ever tried to sing it.
Bruce Springsteen hisself really isn’t much, and he write crappy, quickly fogotten songs. And his voice, yecch. That band is too good for him.
C’mon guys! Gary “US” Bonds! “Quarter to Three” was the name of his big hit.
You don’t remember, do you?
Yep, I remember it. It was BIG. And yes, the band is bigger than Bruce.
It appears to me that unless individuals here and quite frankly throughout the world, come to an understanding that governments are merely a franchise of an elite for the most part, you will be doomed to these perpetual conversations that produce little to nothing of consequence. Either you recognize this obvious fact, or continue to bash whatever expression of it elsewhere, and remain shackled by you’re own by you’re own selective blindness.
No matter where you poke your finger into the fabric of history you find this same sad condition. The late Dr. Edward Said in his book On Late Style pulled this observation from Gramsci in regard to Italy –
“What the unification of Italy did to places like Sicily,
Naples, and Sardinia was to arrest and distort, then
to isolate them in their lopsided social, economic,
and certainly political actualities. To Gramsci, then, the
south appears, he says memorably, like a vast social
disintegration: a large mass of destitute and oppressed
peasants are preyed on by a class of parasitic
intermediaries (priests, teachers, tax collectors) on
behalf of a small group of land owners.”
Dr, Edward W. Said, On Late Style, pg. 101
Mere observation is just the beginning, identification of such alone just becomes repetitive frustration without action. So either you address these co-mingling systems as a whole (that means you’re “favorite,” or face the prospects of nothing but futility and failure for the people – everywhere. If you harbor the delusion that things are not going to get worse on this current course, all you have to do is wait and do nothing until you are swallowed whole.
v… wrote:
“It appears to me that unless individuals here and quite frankly throughout the world, come to an understanding that governments are merely a franchise of an elite for the most part, you will be doomed to these perpetual conversations that produce little to nothing of consequence.”
And …
“If you harbor the delusion that things are not going to get worse on this current course, all you have to do is wait and do nothing until you are swallowed whole.”
Of course things can always get worse v…, but don’t you think you are (understandably) being overly influenced by the short perspective that our short little lives gives us?
In the first place you’re right of course that one can always see government as the mere franchise of some “elites”—if by “elites” you merely mean people who have chosen to get involved in government.
(Really pointing the way, it seems to me, that the focus should be on how open gov’t is to *non*-elites getting involved, such as, say, Obama.)
But even accepting that you meant something more substantial and evil/wrong by your “elites,” and even accepting that you are correct and that’s been invariably historically true (which I doubt), nonetheless are you really arguing for no government? Are you really saying that, on the whole, in terms of the governance of the great majority of the people on the planet things have not gotten better over, say, the last 100, 200, 500 years? Or 1000? Do you really deny that, at least so far, the trajectory in terms of human society and more virtuous government has been on the whole positive? Especially theoretically (a leading indicator), and especially in the West?
And if not, and you do admit the need for some government, how can any such government work, almost no matter how limited it is, if the reigning theory of the populace is that it is invariably, ineluctably a corrupt thing run by elites, for elites?
Or are you just saying there is no answer and no hope?
“In the first place you’re right of course that one can always see government as the mere franchise of some “elites”—if by “elites” you merely mean people who have chosen to get involved in government.”
No, that is not what I am saying. If you look at the USA for instance, even at the very beginning, all of the so-called “founding fathers” stood behind what Madison (the “father” of the Constitution) said – loosely “government is here to protect the propertied, and the uneven apparatus for gaining property, against those who have no property – to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority common man.” That government is to be left to the “responsible class,” the men of means. In other words, what some call the best of government is just more of the same since the beginning of time –
AMERICA IS NOT A DEMOCRACY
So I don’t mean to rain on anyone’s parade but even what is considered by many the “best among them” is complete horse shit. What I mean by “elites” is those that are moneyed, they call the shots – so if you think you have some sort of a meaningful voice why don’t you raise it and see what you get?
No, I do not think the world is getting better, there are more in poverty now than ever before in world history, there is more unrest and wars than ever before, both allowed to have some coverage in the MSM and the majority that are not. All I am saying, and it has been proven to me on this site by numerous response and by the content of the discussions that many have no idea what they are facing. That essentially what you have presently taking place is an entire franchise of the few across the world, with different faces, raising a number of billionaires while the people languish. In the United States you have a government in the service of the few that runs amok in the world to service the few while others ignorantly carp about a rapidly receding democratic landscape, and those with a little left support this system like ignoramus who are nothing but the fat around the midsection of the few –
HOW TO CREATE BILLIONAIRES AND MASSIVE POVERTY
The only hope there is comes from decentralizing the power, all over the world. Placing the countries back in the hands of the people, and in any systemic endeavor at governance to ensure that the people are in charge. So Nombre, you can balk all you like, but at the end of the day I take reality of what is currently happening in the world –
WHAT WE FACE
You cannot do you’re part if you do not know or continue to ignore what is painfully apparent. The focal point has ALWAYS been whether a government will serve the people or the few, America and the majority of the rest fail the test of time – they are the franchise of an elite, nations which uphold the privileges of the few to the destruction of the many, and deserve a response commensurate with their damnable activity –
DOING OUR PART
It matter little what you think of me, I could not care less, but what no one is able to do is gainsay the truth.
One of the links seems to be cut off, so here it is again –
WHAT WE FACE
v… wrote:
“It matter [sic] little what you think of me….”
No no v…, you mistook my words. I wasn’t passing any judgment on you whatsoever; merely inquiring about how what you had previously written addressed some additional questions. And I appreciate your response; thanks.
Perhaps another way of addressing it, would be by looking at the “foreign policy” element, because it has a little more application to the current discussion here in regard to Israel. Essentially nothing has changed, nothing, no matter how many people take to the streets and chant, burn candles, demonstrate, etc. That is the foreign policy in regard to war, or the support of others to continue war, colonization, robbery of peoples property, land, resources both naturl and human. It can be encapsulated in a statement made by Woodrow Wilson –
In 1907 listen to what Woodrow Wilson said: “Since trade ignores national boundaries, and the manufacturer insists on having the world as a market – the flag of the nation must follow him, and the doors which are closed against him must be battered down. Concessions gained by finance must be safeguarded by ministers of state. Even if the sovereignty of the nations are outraged in the process. Colonies must be obtained and planted in order that no useful corner of the world may be overlooked or unused.”
Take along with this probably one of the most honest statements of General Smedley Butler of the USMC (War Is A Racket):
“I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.”
Virtually nothing has changed, and I can say unequivocally that nothing has changed since the beginning – NOTHING:
EMPIRE AS AMERICAN AS APPLE PIE
Post swift, right after the revolution in 1776, the elite when full bore after empire, unabashedly and with gusto. It enriched the few than, and it does the same thing now. That is because the concept of empire is always the enrichment of the few, and it is always pursued to the detriment of the people. When it cannot be had any longer in the international arena the elite begin to devour their own people at record pace.
I have posted this here before, some may not like the venue because the man speaks in a sort of street language, very plainly and has the tendency to relate it primarily to the black people, but it is pretty generic because now they are after everyone, we are all in the same boat.
BARACK OBAMA, WHITE POWER IN BLACK FACE
In the old days they expected less, and got little; now they expect more, and relatively, get little. It remains that a rising tide doesn’t lift all boats; instead, it drowns many, and most of the boats it lifts rather than capsizes, are yachts.
In the old days they expected less, and got little; now they expect more, and relatively, get little. It remains that a rising tide doesn’t lift all boats; instead, it drowns many, and most of the boats it lifts rather than capsizes, are yachts.
Sorry for the duplicate; I only hit the reply button once.
Jewish exceptionalism means concentration camps for others:
Israel proposes work camps for illegal migrants
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1126057.html
I see Avishai as one in a category of upstanding people such as Gershom Gorenberg, Haim Watzman (South Jerusalem blog), journalists such as Ari Shavit – and sometimes, even activist-writers like Uri Avnery. Seduced by the romance of cultural fervor and sophisticated lifestyles that accrue to those having one foot in Israel and another in the global culture, they fail to process just how narrow their comfort zone is in the land they profess to so cherish, and how great are the casualties that made the culture possible in the first place. Their own politics may be that of the enlightened left with its romanticized universalist, intellectual, forward looking tributaries. But they can live and breathe the left “culture” bubble BECAUSE its charm shields them from seeing the chasm opening up all around them. Surrounded by like minded deep thinkers, literary types of all stripes, artists and academics who share their views and aspirations, the Israeli-globalist intelligentsia looks out from the bubble, see mostly a vibrant culture worth promoting and preserving – because that culture is the world they inhabit. In reality Avishai’s is a willful act of projection – the Hebrew culture he dots on is used by the powers that be to dress up a harsh, drab, culturally impoverished reality hell bent on amassing the accouterments of the “good life” as they seek to deny a natural broadening of the culture to include the “others” (be they jewish-derived, jewish identified or not)
Put more simply, in America we call it putting lipstick on a pig. It’s the role of the nationalist intelligentsia from time immemorial. Just think Athens and Rome – concentrate on the finer things in life, ignoring the growing coarse, violent reality spreading all around, a reality that whether they choose to see it or not, props up the very lifestyle and the civilized discourse they so cherish. There’s bread and entertainment for the insensitive dumb masses – but poetry, creativity and entrepeneurship for the privileged few. Who then provide the rationale for the empire they seemingly criticize, while the empire uses the culture’s existence to brandish an “openness brand” they would never feign to extend to others whom they deliberately exclude. brilliant really – as long as you can get in on the deal.
I am sorry to lump Avishai (whose writings I am quite partial to) with others so I can refer to them as collective “they”. But I do see him as part of a phenomenon that goes beyond individuals, and Phil has aptly put his finger on it- as did some of the excellent and perceptive commenters above: in their zeal to preserve a culture of which they are an integral part, they become trapped in the very narrowness of it, blinded by the unbearable lightness of the unicorns they are so keen on cultivating. That’s how some of the best and brightest end up serving as the most insidious apologists for the zealots intent on driving the entire culture-producing enterprise into an abyss. All the while, the larger populous for whom the experience of that much lauded culture is entirely vicarious, slowly but surely coalesces around zealotry for which culture is but a convenient public relations tool (Toronto film festival anyone?).
My apologies for being so other worldly and wordily abstract. Please feel free to spike with specifics (or run screaming into the gentle breeze, swearing to kick off the mondoweiss habit for at least a day!)
Danaa:
On the contrary. An excellent and very this-worldy, concise and concrete analysis.
Avishai is a spineless coward. He sounded like a child who forgot to study for a test – bullshitting on an essay question. Or someone auditioning for ‘The Real World’.
Jews aren’t going to save the Palestinians. Surely not the fucking gatekeepers on the Left who are always prominent in the ‘movement’ because of their superficial credibility SIMPLY by being Jews.
When our intellectual culture moves beyond identity politics and becomes honest for once – then perhaps the Palestinians will have some justice.
I see no difference between Neoconservatism and Zionism. No difference in the mechanism by which Jews on the Left and Zionists, function – self-righteousness, moral superiority, identity politics, etc.
People like Rachel Corrie, who had no political capital in a meaningful sense (bland, white, everyday person, the type who goes off and dies in wars for the Establishment) are the real heroes.
A Jew can be completely mediocre but get spotlight because our intellectual culture is so bankrupt and shallow that we have to frame all of this hysteria in a Jew vs Arab tragedy.
It’s just so goddamn pretentious. If people can’t learn anything from this conflict they will never EVER overcome the ideological rigidity in our political culture. It’s just NOT going to happen.
If we can’t overcome the social taboos and gatekeepers, then we’ll constantly have to work within this dishonest framework.
I mean, all that stuff you wrote Danaa is just the kind of over intellectualized claptrap that Avishai is symbolic of. It’s kind of plain to see – he wants his Jewish country club.
I mean, just for one second try to understand why our collective social consciousness changes. Why? Through struggle against injustice.
When will the antisemite, Holocaust, Nazi, etc. memes be finally overcome? When? When will Arabs be seen as EQUAL HUMAN BEINGS and not just ‘clay of Jewish humanism’?
This is MUCH worse than ‘White Man’s Burden’ – because WHITE identity is meaningless. It does not function in the same way as Jewish identity and it does no have a fraction of the political capital.
This blog takes 2 steps forward and 1 step back. The constant shelter it grants to complete hacks like Avishai or that rabbinical student.
Cliff, while as a non-Jew I certainly could not hold the same views as Avishai, I don’t agree that he is a “spineless coward” or “complete hack”. For COMPLETE hacks, you should go to the likes of Max Boot or Marty Peretz.
Avishai is a Zionist, but as anyone who has read his “The Tragedy of Zionism” must know, he is not in the same league with those guys. We need to try to encourage learned Jews like Avishai, deeply imbued with Jewish ethnocentrism while at the same time aspiring to a universalist worldview, to make a clean break from the right-wing Zionist Power Structure and to confront the realities of Israel-Palestine in a constructive manner.
Cliff – you are being way too harsh on Avishai, IMO. If you read him (and please take a look at the latest entry on his blog) you’ll notice that he more than laments israel’s policies towards the palestinians. Yes, it can come across as patronizing, but in all fairness, can anything any Israeli – or jewish person – does be anything but? even groups like Break the Silence – brave as they are – can do no more than unveil the full evil of the mechanics of occupation. They have little power to stop it. In all fairness, no one seems to have that power right now (including the palestinians themselves) – or you, or any of us here – but everyone who cares does what they can. If you have a magic formula for getting through to the larger israeli public so they can change the fatally flawed, racially and/or religousely charged direction of their government, please let us know.
Avishai does indeed want his “jewish” country club. Except it’s not really Jewish but Israeli – meaning it’s mostly European with an arabic/arameic derived language (see Shmuel’s comment) and some highly selective jewish undertones, which, BTW, threw any vestiges of Yiddish or Middle eastern Jewish flavor under the bus . He personally is probably quite willing to enlarge the culture (after all, he IS a universalist) but my critique had to do with the fact that as much as he criticizes Israel and it’s policies he remains strangely oblivious of just how far removed he and his privileged life and his enlightened views are from those of the larger israeli public. He can see them all running off the cliff, but then goes on about his business as if he does not know what the final plan is. I do recognize the imperative of bringing justice into the conversation. And I do too understand that high falutin’ discussions of “culture’ seem totally removed from the unbearable day to day reality of the palestinians lives under the occupation. It’s just that I hope to ultimately have the likes of Avishai on the side of angels because he has a good tool kit and we shouldn’t despise that. Perhaps you are too busy counting the demons to round up some angels. To each their own….
As for your critique of my intellectual clap-trap – it may well be deserved – up to a point – though I won’t hold it against you if you gave up third (or fifth) of the way through the missive. Besides, I was born that way – think of it as a disability masquerading as an ability. maybe I can get a decal for a good parking spot?
You want justice or reconciliation?
The only reason we’re here giving so much space to Jewish this and that, is because Jewish identity is not simply humanized but it constitutes a social pressure which everyday uninformed people will not dare to question. If they do, the Jewish Thought Police clamp down on them.
It’s kind of like Borat – you have people who mock antisemitism – then you have A. Dershowitz – someone who straw mans arguments exposing Zionist Jew’s manipulation of identity politics and tactics such as emotional blackmail and ‘point-scoring’ rhetoric – and finally you have people like yourself, who over intellectualize simple truths.
And this all works due to the same mechanism. Jewish identity is not simply humanized. It is a supremacist identity that can at once play victim as well. Jews are a WHITE minority (European Jews are the focus here). So you combine nationalism and all it’s attributes, you combine the general ignorance and intellectual laziness of the masses (whomever), you combine the victim-hood mentality and the ideological rally points (Holocaust Holocaust Holocaust), and finally you combine the religious element (’chosen’-ness).
That’s why we’re here, wasting so much time about Jewish this and Jewish that when we should be in total solidarity with the victims.
There is an arc to this conflict. And the Palestinians have been overwhelmingly victimized – not simply physically – but intellectually by both Jews on the far right and then so-called humanists like Chomsky and this ass-clown, Avishai. Who dumb down any debate on Jewish power (as a cultural and sociological phenomena – not RACIAL!) as well as prop up Jewish exceptionalism.
I mean, as a side-note: Chomsky was once on the Buckley show, The Firing Line or something – dunno the name exactly.
He was describing the Vietnamese resistance (ARMED!) as ‘heroic’ – I believe. Now, Buckley challenged him, and began talking about their brutality. Chomsky then countered but he didn’t explain why he still supported the Vietnamese resistance in spite of this brutality.
Now I do not support Hamas, but I support resistance to Zionism and imperialism. I don’t give a shit if some IDF soldier dies or some Israeli colonist dies – but that doesn’t mean I wana see kids blown up on buses/etc.
Now, I have NEVER once heard or read Chomsky attribute the same adjectives to Hamas for example. He has complimented the non-violent resistance. Never the armed within the same context as he did so or the Vietnamese resistance.
Thats important. He could do so w/ the former, cuz they were killing bland, WHITE people. Not ‘Jews’. I know Chomsky isnt stupid enough to fall for the line ‘killing Jews’ – which is emotional blackmail and intellectually dishonest. It’s like saying car crashes are antisemitic cuz they kill ‘the Juice’ as well.
But he showed no fear and no hesitation in saying ‘absolutely heroic’ BECAUSE the opponent was White America.
People don’t do the same when it comes to Israel cuz it’s the JEWISH State.
And until people stop giving Jews a pass to do whatever the hell they want, none of you over-socialized spittle will do anything. It’s purely academic.
Let’s all take stock of what our ramblings do for the Palestinians. Absolutely nothing! But at least, convey that you give a shit about them. Do you? Or do you wana have another seminar on New Antisemitism or about poor misunderstood Zionist Avishai and his longing for the Jewish country club.
Its hilarious how you bring up the US as an example of cultural whatever – all these ‘free’ European States and their offspring all but exterminated and enslaved the dark-skinned indigenous inhabitants. IT was only AFTER those dark-skinned people became a part of the society – an immovable part – that anything fucking changed.
I mean, it’s not like it changed for purely moral reasons. It was plenty of stuff. Economic, etc.
Israel can move Palestinians. They are not an immovable part of Israeli society. They can be pushed out w/ ease cuz Jews can get away with that and no one does a goddamn thing about it.
So the most EFFICIENT course of actions would be to stop trying to endear yourself to fascists. You should undermine them and expose them for being fascists.
I mean what is YOUR plan, Danaa? Like I said earlier. Reconciliation? Or Justice. You can’t have both. Because you’re going to have to CONFRONT the simple fact that most Zionists in any MEANINGFUL sense are J E W S.
I touched on this earlier and I think Mooser has alluded to it – amongst his stupid jokes – that whatever catharsis we reach in this conflict will not be pretty.
You cannot navigate around these ideological roadblocks. We’re going to crash right into them.
I think people respect that Israel is both Jewish and democratic. The majority of the world recognizes that there are many bases by which people self-associate, and they just accept that basis as real and valid.
I believe that the attempt to shame that association is a form of racism as well.
I have many simultaneous associations and characteristics. I am good at math and I feel that I write well (when I take the time to proofread). Some consider the two mutually exclusive.
The way to influence the world for the better is on the positive side, to emphasize the democratic portion of the identity of Israel (Jewish AND democratic), not to condemn the Jewish portion of it.
Of course, you do, Witty. Because if you do, you can deflect attention from your racism and weaken the meaning of the word as well, the same way you weaken the notions of “international law,” or “cease fire.”
Cliff,
As unjust as the racist white regime in South Africa was, nothing would have changed without the cooperation of liberal whites (except perhaps through all-out violent revolution, which would have has its own drawbacks and far from certain results). Not all of these liberals were completely committed to a multiracial democratic society, but many such “imperfect” liberals, contributed heavily (and at personal risk) to bringing about change.
Avishai is not perfect. He still clings to a number of Zionist ideals inconsistent with his liberalism, but his voice is crucial in changing minds – especially liberal minds (Jewish and non-Jewish) – about Israel and Zionism. Cruise around his blog a little (http://bernardavishai.blogspot.com/). I’m sure you’ll find a lot of good stuff, along with some stuff that will really piss you off.
Getting angry is essential, BDS is essential, holding Israel and Zionists accountable is essential, but a variety of tactics, allies and points of view must be used if anything is ever going to change.
Now back to that making a living thing.
Danaa: Impressive. I thoroughly enjoyed your post. Thought you hit a lot of points others have missed.
Shmuel – thanks – that hook was getting mighty uncomfortable. I obviously agree with your take above (I wrote my little spiele before I saw your comment or I would have weaved it in fer sure) – Hebrew culture can only improve by relaxing the rules of admission into this exclusive club. I keep thinking about the gift that black culture brought into america. Can we even imagine an america without the unique contribution of jazz? or rock? or soul? or rap? or comedy? all these were brought in by people who developed their own culture with little formal training and a truly tragic history. Yet, all benefitted in the end, somehow (I don’t mean to be callous about the history). IMO, one of America’s greatest gifts to the world is to demonstrate what can be done with a bit of cultural flexibility (and before Cliff says anything I don’t mean to imply that it was “worth” slavery or the dispossession of the Indians. It’s not about relative worth, but about redemption). Be that Israel – with similar heterogenous population – learnt the lesson. I agree that it is a bloody shame that no sooner they carved Hebrew out of bits of bible and bits of arabic, that they chose to erect impenetrable barriers to influences that could be highly enriching. It may not be too late for making amends and welcoming Arabic culture (though, in Israel those are considered oxymoronic) but it is for Yiddish culture that Avishai’s prized hebrew one all but killed. And for that last one, the entire world of culture has been impoverished.
MRW – I rather liked your Quebec story and take on Canada too. Something to learn here on Mondoweiss everyday. No wonder we all seem to be a bit addicted. Maybe Phil should add a disclaimer and warning about side effects at the top of his site.
Danaa:
It is true that Zionism waged all out war against Yiddish and Yiddish culture, and was ruthlessly successful in that endeavour. I am reading a book at the moment however, by Ghil’ad Zuckermann – Israeli, A Beautiful Language: Hebrew as a Myth (Heb.) – which claims that Israeli Hebrew (Zuckermann calls it simply Israeli) in fact owes far more to Yiddish, Russian, Polish, etc. than to biblical Hebrew. I’m not convinced yet, but I’ve only read a few chapters so far. There is a caveat in the introduction that no political inferences should be made from his thesis. Like hell :-)
Danaa:
I’d go a little further (although I too have respect for Avishai and think he has a important role to play – which I hope to explain below, if making a living doesn’t get in the way today), and say that Avishai advocates cultural protectionism for others, while exempting himself from it, as one of the elite. Ironically (or revealingly), he cites Amichai (b. Ludwig Pfeuffer), as the crowning glory of this preserve of Jewish culture, yet Amichai was the product of his German birth and Orthodox Jewish education, his Palestinian upbringing, his British military service, his time in California and general exposure to international culture (as a member of the elite) – as well as the time he spent living, studying and working among Israeli Jews. Is Avishai trying to imply that had there been no Jewish state or Jewish-dominated state, there would have been no Jewish-Palestinian Amichai/Pfeuffer?
You must log in to post a comment.