I spent much of the J Street policy conference last week struggling with the issue of racism in liberal Jewish life, including in my own thinking.
J Street set off this debate in my mind because it dispensed with two easily-dismissed rationales for the Jewish state that you hear everywhere at AIPAC: Israel is necessary because the antisemites are going to turn on us in the U.S., or it’s necessary because the bible gave us the land. J Street doesn’t go in for either argument. And yet it routinely invokes the necessity and goodness of Jewish democracy. I must have heard the words Jewish democracy a million times there. I’ve never seen a purple cow either.
But why is a Jewish democracy necessary?
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 Levy’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.
These ideas are familiar to me. They are what I was raised with, and am still engaged by. They surround Jewish feelings of superiority. We are chosen, we are smarter, we are irrigating the desert and building computers that will deliver a drop of water to every root of every artichoke bush, we have more Nobel prizes than all the Arab world combined. I’ve struggled with this idea of Jewish superiority all my life. It was in the warp and woof of my upbringing in an academic milieu, and I run into it in almost every argument I have with Zionists. It reminds me of schwarzer talk in the 1970s–talking about black people.
The elaboration of this attitude—which J Streeters seem to believe but don’t pound the table about, as the neocons do– is that Israel is a developed country while the Arab world is ignorant, that the Palestinians are peasants and Jews are urban people of the book, that the Arab world lacks basic freedoms. And so it would be a tragedy if the smart Jews of Israel had to share the government of their country, in one state, with the Palestinians. In a word, We don’t want to be governed by Arabs.
In fact, Ali Abunimah has observed that the two-state solution is the same deal the Afrikaaners tried to get under apartheid: they wanted to put the blacks in Bantustans and keep a majority of whites in the South African state, so that the whites wouldn’t have to be ruled by blacks. They probably said the same things about black Africa that Zionists say about the Arab world: Brutes.
I have to admit that I too worry about what will happen to the Jews if Israel becomes one state. I look at, for instance, this signature photograph of an Israeli Jew’s secluded garden (at the ethnocentric blog South Jerusalem) and it captures a whole lifestyle, and I identify. I think: That’s the way I would live in Israel/those people are having a good life/I have a life like those people here.
I went for a walk with my wife yesterday and told her about my confusion. We live in a beautiful part of New York. I said, “I’m going to test you. It’s 1987. We’re walking through the woods in the place we live, South Africa. We have a really good life. Yet we’ve been pushing against apartheid all our lives.
“But what is going to happen to our lives? Do we really want to be ruled by blacks? What would we have done?”
My wife didn’t have to think about it. “We would have fought apartheid."
"What about our lives?”
"It was inevitable. There was only one way that situation could go. There had to be freedom."
“But what’s happened to South Africa and those white people’s lives?”
“It hasn’t been great. Maybe it will take 50 years. But this is the way the world is going. I don’t see what the point is in fighting it.”
The conversation was helpful to me. I’m reminded that this is a simple story. The conflict won’t go away until the ideology of the white master, which permeates the Zionist story, is discussed openly in the United States, and we begin to see this as a story of dispossession and disfranchisement.
You can say anything you like about Palestinian peasantry, or women being covered in Gaza, or authoritarianism in Egypt, or Israeli technology. I share some of those political values. But none of these points is an argument for human bondage, let alone burning up children with white phosphorus or relying on powerful brethren in the U.S. to shut down the debate.
They are arguments that if Jews really want to be a light unto the nations, they must recognize that Israelis share a land with others, and they must work together to come up with a democratic ethos.
This idea goes before any political structure (one state, two states). Jerry Haber has said that if there is one thing American Jews can do it is "helping to transform the 1948 ethnocracy into a liberal democracy of all its citizens"–to work with organizations like Taayush to help other Jews imagine a conjoint future with Palestinians. I speak for myself when I say that a basic respect for the Other, which was lacking in my own background, is key to going forward.
About Philip Weiss
Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.
I oppose J Street because I believe it will seduce and coopt the liberal Jews who might otherwise come to understand that the attitudes you describe, the attitudes unlying J Street, are wrong. J Street will soothe them with lies of liberalism and democracy, calming their outrage and telling them that they are being as progressive on the issues as possible.
Jewish superiority? You must be kidding, Phil. Are we talking about the same people who laughed off the Ten Commandments, built and worshipped the Golden Calf, and ended up so disappointing God that He turned His face from us, pending further notice.
We screwed up so bad, from day 1, the the Almighty left us naked and defenseless against all the vicissitudes and hatreds of the world.
And then, to top it off, once God’s resolve to not save our sorry asses again has been tragically, horribly made plain, we go and claim a privilege (return to Zion) by violence and manipulation that should be solely in God’s bailiwick to grant and effect.
You call that superiority? Because some of us are clever with numbers?
Ah, I shouldn’t criticise, persecution can drive people crazy.
You one seriously cool guy, Mooser. I think I like you as much as Phil and Adam. Humility is an extraordinarily attractive quality; in anyone.
Of course, I say this only to flatter you since I need a bit of help here…I think “THE QUESTION” should be changed to “Is it good for the Italians”. I am just not sure how to bring this about. Any suggestions would be most appreciated.
Wha’ happenned? I write a post, and everybody gets it? I’ve had it with you people! I’m going home, where everybody misunderstands me.
You know, I once asked my wife, who is sort of a Bible scholar, what,( according to the Prophets) got God most pissed off about the Israelites. She didn’t even have to hesitate and replied “Adultery and whoring after false Gods!”
Mooser, I seem to agree with you here. Even the more-intelligent-than-other-tribes-meme ultimately has antisemitic roots.
Concerning superiority. Were I Phil, I would ask myself if I could misjudge my experience as specifically Jewish? How would you compare? I don’t think bias is something specifically Jewish.
Not that it matters much, but I sense a similarity to the use of nigger in the black community. Don’t forget the large shadows of the Holocaust. Cannot humiliation, degradation result in a feeling of superiority in a way? Black Americans adopted the word nigger, used it with pride.
You say we are useless, we tell you we are the best, the most clever, the most beautiful.
One of the things I’ve noted about the whole Israel-Palestine issue is, generally, anything that the Palestinians get accused of doing either A) has a Zionist antecedent (e.g. King David Hotel) and it only becomes wrong when someone else is doing it; or B) is something that the Israelis themselves are doing, not the Palestinians (e.g. human shields)
If I recall correctly, the guys at Massada fought the Roman occupiers fair and square, regardless of what one may think of their mass suicide (a subject endlessly debated by Zionist youth groups when I was a lad). The Sicarii (also known as the Biryonim) on the other hand, were indeed terrorists, who specialised in eliminating other Jews whom they felt were too conciliatory toward the Romans. One of their best-known “operations” (as recounted in the Talmud and Josephus) was the burning of Jerusalem’s ample grain stores, in order to bring the Roman siege to a head and, they hoped, force the people to fight. Although condemned in Jewish tradition, a couple of modern-day Zionist terrorist groups (Brit Habiryonim, Sikarikim) have drawn inspiration from them.
The Zionist use of the Massada story/myth is a fascinating subject in itself.
exactly, ethnocentric Jews and Zionists are not the only people who do this though
it’s Europeans as well in general.
just think of all those movies where a hero goes insane, kills lots of people, but is redeemed in the end and everyone loves him (anakin skywalker).
i mean, it’s not even the fight to the death idea it’s the redemption for a psychopath idea
for all the technological accomplishments a person or nation or people can have – it says NOTHING about their morality
someone who is ethnocentric s ethnocentric – that’s the first word. what Zionism should teach people is how ordinary ethnocentric Jews are from other ethnocentric ‘peoples’
the same kind of hate and racism and the same kind of lies and mythology utilized to keep the ideology afloat transcends race and religion
Another terrific, probing, honest post. Phil is the best writer in America on this issue, barnone.
I have a close friend from South Africa and his parents’ garden looks the same if not better today, under black rule, as it did under white. So maybe it’s a bit irrational to think that the quality of life or certain cultural characteristics will inevitably change if Palestinians get to have a say in a democracy. Frankly I think it’s yet another case of Jewish/Zionist projection–having imposed so heavily on the Palestinians, they imagine the Palestinians doing the same to them. Nothing of the sort has happened in South Africa, as far as I can tell. The whites aren’t required to wear African fabrics and speak Bantu and live like the African population. And they don’t.
Owning up to the superiority complex is such an important part of addressing Western imperialism — beit in the form of Zionism or American military aggression in Afghanistan/Pakistan/Iraq. It’s not just a Jewish thing, though that is a valid specific context Phil’s qualified to talk about, but an American and Western thing. We think we are the greatest civilization since humans fell out of the trees, despite the fact we are constantly at war, our economic system generates massive poverty and endless debt, and we are driving the planet toward ecocide. Some serious self-reflection is in order.
But our Zionist friends would rather that we look down on the Arabs (and bomb them).
That is bullshit analysis. I’m certain there are many that exhibit feelings of superiority and express it institutionally.
The reason for Zionism currently is identity, not a dismissable construct of identity, but identity itself.
If you wish to question literally every basis of association by any, go ahead, but you will then end up questioning, “why am I associated with my brothers and sisters, I should disassociate, we have a vanity, and that is proof that we are guilty of something”.
Or, journalists. “Why do I have the superior rights of a journalist, who is immune from having to say “I”"?
Or, urbanites, or educated, or living on the earth, or 21st century.
Question the flow, the precedents of your identities. Go ahead, dive deep.
But, do not EVER seek to destroy the basis of others’ identity, apparently archaic or not, rhetorically “racist” or not.
Our Zionist friends, the ones that are my friends, would rather that we reconcile with the Arabs and befriend them, but as Jews, not as pariahs.
You published this one Phil. This is the poster child of a popular slogan that you and I resent.
Even on the question of “being governed by Arabs”, the basis of any acceptability of that is the characteristics that others can rely to be fairly and considerately governed.
There are MANY Arab individuals that deserve the status of that level of leadership, because of their individual characteristics (whether endemic to Arab communities, or exceptions). They don’t deserve it because they are Arabs though.
They deserve for their individual characteristics to be seen, to be respected, so that there is the option to choose to say, “I respect this individual. I trust his judgement. I empower him/her to governance.”
You are now advocating for ethnically profiled prohibitions from association, from leadership, from responsibility, based on your “inquiry”.
Holy cow are you ever getting desperate, Witty. I’m sorry, but you’re not going to be able to build straw men faster than they’re going to catch fire, here.
But Richard, as I frequently note, Israeli governing coalitions routinely exclude Arab parties from their negotiations. So Barak formed a liberal government in ’99 without Arab parties/Knesset members, and had to call on rightwing religious factions to do so. And again this year, Netanyahu formed his governing coalition without Arab parties. So it’s not like they say, Some Palestinians are good, some are bad. No: they say, out of our government!
Also are you saying you never heard any of this stuff about Jews being smarter when we were young? It’s in Commentary every month. I think many Jews believe we’re smarter. And certainly our record of intellectual achievement is astonishing. Netanyahu uses this record of achievement to say, Forget about the occupation, Israel is vital to the world. That seems superior to me. Phil
“The elaboration of this attitude—which J Streeters seem to believe “Your thesis is NOT about Israeli actions, it is about Jewish identity, about the right to associate. I personally don’t give a shit if you met individuals that did express some Jewish chauvinism in some form, or that you detected what you suspected/imagined was some common theme, and that that was the same theme that you are intimately grappling with in your efforts to “remove racism” from your pallette.
When you generalize, and exagerate about those imagined racial characteristics, you indulge IN racism.
You express some shame that your mother said to you personally, “You are a special person. You are entitled to a good life.” (And part of that was expressed as “You are part of a great people. Your ancestors struggled to survive.” And then further, “We were suppressed for tens of generations. Your success will prove that we are capable individuals, that the lies told about us for generations, are lies.”)
Or, even that the Jewish people passed down a story of “God chosing them” in some trivial meaning of the term, rather than the feeling of a loved child that feels special because of the love, and general feeling of thankfulness over his/her individual or collective life (“We thank you for choosing us, to watch over us, to demand of us even.”)
Two rabbi friends of mine told the same story publicly over years. They probably heard it from some common source. That was of a Jew objecting to coming to shul, to praying some literal prayer together (rather than flexible and private), maybe of the peer pressure to put on a prayer shawl that they didn’t initiate. And, the Jew told the rabbi of his/her objections. “How can I believe in a God that does …..” To which the rabbi stated, “That God that you don’t believe in. I don’t believe in that God too.”
That is my attitude about the form of the interpretation of “chosen people” that some that you could call chauvenistic adopt. I LOVE the form of that that is primarily thankfulness. You can call that an exception if you like.
I encountered it in the metaphor of Krishna dancing with the cowherd girls, as a description of the intimacy of God with EVERY soul, including me, not an abstraction, not a thought, an intimacy.
Even the notion that Jews deserve a small slice of “God’s green earth” contrasts only with “Jews DON’T deserve any place on the planet to be comfortable”. If there is any either/or, that is it.
Yes or no? Should the Jewish people, which is a people, have any safe haven anywhere, any site of self-governance? Yes is Zionism. No is anti-Zionism. Only two choices. (Assimilation is an entirely different question. That is a question of how does a Jew survive during the conclusion “no, Jews don’t have a right to any safe haven”)
There is a next question from that, which is “what form should that take? What law, what policy, what behavior should be done?” And, to that I assert democratic. And, if the actual practice is less than that fully democratic, then dissent oriented to reform is rational, needed, supported.
But, the instant that urge to reform shifts to an urge to suppress, to answer “no” to the question “should Jews be able to self-govern, to voluntarily associate in sufficient critical mass to require state scale institutions, and safely”, then we are in DIFFERENT territory.
We are then not in “live and let live”, but in “I live, you die” (in the name of opposing suppression).
So, when you open a criticism of J Street, with in some form “it is another form of Jewish chauvenism” for simultaneously asserting the right of Jews to self-associate and the obligation to do so humanely, I cringe literally.
It is not a question of which political interpretation to derive from the observation of suffering (which I’m sure made you cringe. You are a compassionate human being.)
I get, and hope that I would too ask, “how could my people do this?”
And, the next question, “how can I get this to stop?” And, “Don’t our shared attitudes contribute to this?”
Those are the SAME questions that I ask routinely, and search for answers.
But, I search for those answers only within the pallette of “how can I make change in a manner that does not amplify suffering, short and long term?”
I NEVER go to theses that veil, or endorse in any way, a suppression of Jewish right to self-associate. I will NEVER adopt the view, “Zionism is racism”, EVER. I definitely will enthusiastically criticize forms of Zionism as inhumane, racist.
Jews have self-governed for 60 years as Jews (in a state) of the last 2000. It is still a humble exercise ultimately. Those two generations are new ones. Any conclusions or generalizations of “that is what will inevitably occur” are projections, changing depending on the conditions and leadership to make humane qualitative change.
I LOVE the dual nature of the Israeli basic laws. And I LOVE the dual nature of J Streets stated agenda. (Universalism in place, in community) (Not, no community, no place, only universalism).
Witty, you really gotta watch it with that “safe haven” stuff, you know? I mean, thanks to Albert Einstein, there is no “safe haven” anywhere for anybody. But anyway, as far as the “safe haven” goes, I find your faith in the Goldenah Medina quite touching. You know they could turn on us at any time!
Richard: The right to associate? That has nothing to do with what Israel is: a Jewish STATE, constructed (through violence) on the land of the Palestinians (and I mean that in the sense that it can also be the land of the Jews), and imposed on the Palestinian people. Regardless of the post-ethnic-cleansing “demographics”, that is so fundamentally wrong, and yes, racist. We shouldn’t even need to have this discussion.
Richard: do you understand what a state is? Maybe that is the problem here. The standard definition is Max Weber’s: “an entity which possesses a monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force”.
So when we talk about a Jewish state, we’re talking about the monopolized force of a state being wielded on behalf of a single ethnic group, rather than on behalf of the ruled (all equally). This is plainly a racist arrangement.
Part of the problem here is the laws, charters, and institutions of the state of Israel, which define it as belonging to Jews. Part of it is the ideology, which places the first priority on Jewish control of force, rather than on universal justice or any other value. Hence we have the discussions in Israeli politics about “transfer” of Palestinians, the “demographic threat” of their birthrates, and the unthinkability of allowing the return of refugees (a basic human right) or the enfranchisement of Palestinians under occupation (real democracy pending separation). Not to mention the Nakba, an intentional act of ethnic cleansing.
Because of this fixation on maintaining Jewish control over force, Israel is not properly a democracy, even a flawed one. It is an ethnocracy, an apartheid regime. A democracy grants either the vote, or independence to all its subjects. It can’t have it both ways, and deny both to some (based on ethnic preferences). Israel has had it both ways for over 40 years. That’s not an accident, and it’s certainly not democracy. It’s apartheid.
States never govern within ethnic borders. They rule over territory. And no territory is ever ethnically homogeneous. Jews have a right to political enfranchisement, everywhere. All people do. That does not at all mean a Jewish state.
I am so strongly in favor of Jews’ right to live in Israel/Palestine, to be politically enfranchised there, and to have their human rights protected. The same for Palestinians. A Jewish state is not consistent with those rights, for Palestinians. It is a racist construct, and a colonial imposition on the Palestinian people.
Israel is defined in its basic laws as Jewish AND democratic, meaning Jewish haven in which minorities are to be guaranteed equal rights and equal due process under the law.
That is Zionism. Its a very good design. Possible, but difficult to live up to. Worthy of the attention of reform, not an attack on its identity.
The Palestinian right of return is not proposed to the descendants of Jews that resided in Palestine, but only to “real Palestinians”. Ethnic.
What are you talking about? The law of return of applies to all Jews. I’m not opposing that, given an equal right of return for Palestinians.
If the state is going to privilege or even acknowledge ethnicity, it is racist not to also acknowledge the other indigenous group of that territory. Why shouldn’t Israel be a Jewish and Palestinian haven?
And what should Israel do when a Jewish majority is threatened by peaceful processes (such as birthrates, or repatriation)? Is it not racist for the “demographic balance” to even be a consideration in politics, as it is so fundamentally in Israel? Doesn’t that always direct policy toward some form of ethnic cleansing? And if the concern is more with power than demographics, toward the disenfranchisement of minorities?
Even if Palestinians were perpetual minorities, not a threat to the “demographic balance”, don’t basic laws identifying the state with Jewish ethnicity prejudice the ability of that state to provide truly equal rights and protections under the law? The answer of course is yes. It always has done so in practice! When Israelis make policy that privileges Jews over Palestinians, they point to the “Jewish character” of the state as justification. Just as we point to “all men are created equal” and other basic doctrines of our government institutions to justify policies and proposals.And that’s why you would never want the United States to become a White democracy, or a democratic state of the Hispanic people.
Robin,
There is definitely a tension associated with “simultaneously Jewish AND democratic”, as there is a tension between any component AND democratic.
As MANY have stated about American democracy, it is an obligation of a citizen to vigilantly pursue reform towards democracy. That is true in Israel.
My comment was about the 5% of pre-1948 Palestine that was Jewish, that have not been offered a right of return to Palestine. Palestinian nationalism is very similarly ethnic (in the manner that you object to), not geographic.
Again, a prohibition against a people choosing the basis of their association and self-governance is a racially/ethnically screened prohibition, an arbitrary one.
People choose to be a coherent self-governing community for a wide variety of motivations, and then evolve/devolve from there. Again, Israel is Jewish as France is French. There are large minorities in France with full civil rights, that are not French-speaking or originating in French ancestry. But France is still French, not only civil, BOTH.
Try again. Jews have full equality in France, non-Jews are second-class citizens in Israel. Here’s the Jewish pressure group which fights for policies in France that Jews consider suicidal in Israel:
Richard, again, “Israel is Jewish as France is French,” is an incorrect analogy. The proper comparison would be “Israel is Israeli as France is French”. You are comparing a nationality with a religion or ethnicity. Any citizen of France is French, regardless of religion or ethnicity. A large minority of citizens of Israel are NOT Jewish, and thus are left wanting in a country that defines itself by the ethnicity or religion of its majority. And in fact, Israel, which covets the occupied territories, denies citizenship of those who were ethnically cleansed within the green line and of those whom Israel rules over in the West Bank and Gaza, based solely on their ethnicity and religion. That is not democracy, it is ethnocracy.
Witty, the difference is that a kid with a Brooklyn accent or a Russian who changes his name to something Jewish-sounding can’t go to France, be fast-tracked to citizenship and then get subsidized to live in a home built on land taken from the natives by military force.
“The dual nature of nationality and democracy are not oil and water.”
Again, Richard. “Jewish” is not a nationality. The nationality is Israeli. “Jewish” is a religious or ethnic descriptor. Just as either “Christian” (religious) or “white” (ethnic) would be. Do you understand that if the US legally described itself as the nation of all whites that it would cease to be a democracy and instead be an ethnocracy?
The parallel between European nationalism and Zionism is an accurate one. Its been criticized as anachronistic, on the assertion that the world has moved more towards the US version of democracy. But, Europe is still nationalist by definition.
Its not for everybody. I don’t live there. I live in commercial America, and want to live in ecological America (which I am working on).
The usage of the term “nation” is that the Jews were/are a people (self-identifying as Jews, and often also as Germans, or French, or Polish), and following the “last straw” of pogroms culminating in the holocaust, NEEDED to coalesce for refreshment of our survival and identity. And, to do that (among the European diaspora, and later formerly Arab diaspora), they required an actual state with borders and international recognition.
The late 20th century was more the era of establishment of national states, than the era of dissolution of nationalism.
Israel was earlier than the nationalization of Eastern Europe.
Again, Jewish and democratic are soluble, if Israelis and others accept that identity. Otherwise, Israel goes to war, with war mentality (now becoming permanent). The war mentality motivating the far less democratic sentiments, and features.
Palestinian nationalism whether two or one-state, of any flavor, do not offer Jews/Israelis anywhere near the degree of safety and identity that is needed (not just desired).
“The parallel between European nationalism and Zionism is an accurate one. “
Only in terms of “romantic” or “ethnic nationalism”, as practiced, for one, in Nazi Germany. Hence the common parallels between Nazi Germany and present day Israel.
“The usage of the term “nation” is that the Jews were/are a people (self-identifying as Jews, and often also as Germans, or French, or Polish)…”
Self-identifying as a Jew, or as a Christian, or a Hindu or a Buddhist, does not constitute nationhood, nor does it give one the right to expel other people from land you covet, put them under occupation, nor does it give one the right to “self-govern” at the expense of the rights of those not belonging to your favored identity group. That is not democracy and is not compatible with democracy. I self-identify as a woman. Does that give me the right to come take your home and treat you as a second-class citizen with the excuse that I am doing so as my right to ‘self-govern” as a woman?
Again, Jewish and democratic are soluble, if Israelis and others accept that identity. Otherwise, Israel goes to war, with war mentality (now becoming permanent). The war mentality motivating the far less democratic sentiments, and features.
Palestinian nationalism whether two or one-state, of any flavor, do not offer Jews/Israelis anywhere near the degree of safety and identity that is needed (not just desired).
Again, a perfect example of your hypocrisy. “Jewish nationalism”, in your view, is OK and will protect the non-Jewish minority even though it has epically failed at that protection for over one hundred years. “Palestinian nationalism”, which has yet to be tried, is already judged by you to be incapable of that protection, even though “Palestinian” does not necessarily preclude “Jewish” as a part of the nation, whereas “Jewish” precludes anyone non-Jewish from being part of the nation. And further, you only mention concerns about safety and identity for Jews, when it is the Palestinians who face daily threats to their safety and identity in and from Jewish Israel.
Richard, to the extent that Palestinian nationalism really is that way (seeking an ethnocracy), it is problematic. But Palestinian nationalism is beside the point: it is not properly in power (so not only is its inequity mostly hypothetical, but there is no definitive and realized idea of the state to point to, so you can’t even talk about it as “ethnocratic” or “not ethnocratic”), and it’s not beholden to massive U.S. support. And furthermore Israel, by its example and the framework it directly pushes on Palestinians, encourages Palestinians not to think beyond ethnocratic nationalism.
For so many reasons, the issue is Israel–its very basic failure to recognize the rights and legitimate wishes of its indigenous Palestinians. A “Jewish State” says to them: you have no power or respect in your own land. It is both a symptom and a cause of Palestinian disenfranchisement. Precisely because it ignores their wishes, it had to be imposed by force with mass ethnic cleansing (and you call it a good!).
Equality is the only possible result of a negotiation free of coercion. One-state or two, an overarching politics that fundamentally affirms both peoples’ right to live and be protected and be represented politically in all of Israel/Palestine. That’s still a Jewish haven, the motivation for which is understandable.
And, I would like to hear you respond to my question about the consideration of a “demographic balance” as a concern of politics. Is there any way in which that does not point toward ethnic cleansing in some form (except arguably in immigration policy, though of course Palestinians are not immigrants to Palestine)?
Again, similar to France, Israel is both Jewish and democratic (at least in basic law), with need for reform to achieve it.
The issue of Palestinian nationalism is by no means irrelevant. Thats if you are seeking democracy in fact in the region.
It is the key to democracy either in a single-state, bi-national state, or two-state.
In the currently only likely prospect, a two-state, it is the characteristic that enables peace to come to pass, the prospect of two democracies living side by side. To the extent that there are interlocking minorities in the two democratic states, there is then the possibility of some evolution to bi-nationalism. To the extent that minorities in each are excluded or suppressed, there is no possibility of bi-nationalism.
Its odd that any advocate for single-state or bi-national state would ignore that, and instead pursue a punitive approach, also based on or triggered by ethnicity.
It is true that Virginians at one point thought of themselves as Virginians, and morphed into Americans. Maybe similar is possible to Israelis and Palestinians.
It is not true with any party’s formula, intent, to remove the other. Its not true with likud, and not true with Hamas.
Only the moderate mutual acceptance view, is democratic.
The anti-Zionist view, as in active opposition to the desire to self-associate for Jews, is a racism.
Also — “similar to France?” Really, Witty? So if France is a Jewish AND democratic state, what purpose does Israel serve? You know, just for the sake of argument.
Did you read what I wrote, Richard? I called for a:
“politics that fundamentally affirms both peoples’ right to live and be protected and be represented politically in all of Israel/Palestine.”
Israel is the single largest inconsistency with that ideal. I would describe any philosophy or institution opposed to that ideal as being bigoted. Would you?
If you intend to keep trying to engage RW, you must learn, grasshopper, that this is the wrong question. A better question would be “Does it make any difference at all what I write?” The best question of all, however, is “Why am I wasting my time with this guy?”
When you learn to ask that question, then you are on the path that leads to enlightenment. Plus fewer encounters with trolls.
Robin,
Its a good goal. The notion of a Jewish nation, with the features of a state protecting that Jewish nation, is still relevant.
The Jewish basic law defining Israel as Jewish AND democratic is an excellent model, not a model to be ashamed of, or conflicts with democracy at all.
It takes commitment AND respect to realize.
Again and again, the single-state approach does NOT represent a prospect for safe haven status for Jews in the foreseeable future, not without intentional efforts to reconcile at a social and attitudinal level.
That conflicts with the mode of political dissent which insists that Israelis are to be shamed for their desire to self-govern. BDS is a component of that, especially if BDS is imprecise and punitive in spirit.
Criticism of policy and behavior, especially if related to the increase in the weight of “democratic” in Jewish AND democratic.
Israel is not the US. The people are different, with different history, formative ideological experiences, in a different part of the world. Any projection of our part onto to Israel is that, a projection. The attention that you bring to review your attitudes against prejudices towards Arabs, are also needed in consideration of Israel.
There are MANY Israelis still that do reflect philosophically towards a humane and democratic balance. And, it is true that many of them are migrating to the US, that Israel is keeping the more right-wing, and some of the more liberal Israelis are moving to the US. Avraham Burg, Bernard Avishai, others.
But, also, MANY progressive Israelis remain, insistently Zionist, patriotic, and dissenting simultaneously.
Donald,
If you think of this site as solely a left and left-right thinking site, or a rallying site only (for the purpose of uniting the dissenting politically correct position), then practice academic or cultural boycott is called for.
If Phil, or others, regard actual dialog with liberals as relevant (and not with some radical badge of participation), then respectfully considering how one could rationally hold the views that I and others do, is a more relevant manner of discussion.
You sadly describe a failure to organize around goals, instead establishing a litmus test of organizing around reactions and interpretations of events.
It is NOT an effective strategy for developing anything close to any mass movement, especially if you rant at and insult your allies.
“would rather that we reconcile with the Arabs and befriend them, but as Jews, not as pariahs.”
Don’t worry Richard, under a one-state solution only those Israelis convicted of war crimes or crimes against humanity will be piriahs. I mean, you can’t have anthing against prosecuting criminal, can you? I’m sure the great majority of Israelis have nothing to fear.
And Richard, nobody is proposing doing anything to “Jews”, just Israelis, who are criminals.
“The reason for Zionism currently is identity, not a dismissable construct of identity, but identity itself.”
Witty, even someone as ignorant as I knows that political Zionism is not essential to Jewish identity. It was originally, and still is currently, an overlay onto Jewish identity – especially for American Jews.
“Witty, even someone as ignorant as I knows that political Zionism is not essential to Jewish identity”
Actually, it’s more important to know that Judaism is not essential to Zionism. Not at all. It could have been done under any rubric, anything that would hook the rubes. Now, it is true that the persecutions of Jews in Europe created Jewish “raw material” for the Zionists. Apart from that, the way in which it was done was common to many other schemes. There was nothing “Jewish” about it. Does a guy rob a bank in a “Jewish” way? If you want to replace people in lands they think of as theirs, you gotta kill ‘em, or scare them away, or both. Doesn’t matter if you light candles on Friday, that’s what you gotta do.
And now the Zionists want to make the Jewish religion just one big apologetic for and celebration of colonial dispossession and expansionist war.
I ask you this: If the people wishing to put a Western colony in Palestine were not Jewish , and based their colonial appeal on something else (re-claiming the Holy Land for Christ, plus great beaches?) would their actions have been any different. Would they not first, have appealed to and dickered with the reigning colonial power, and then tried, at whatever cost, to establish the facts on the ground to their perceived advantage? What could they possibly do any different?
Time and time again, you’ve shown that you’re no liberal in any functional sense of the word, Witty. I would appreciate it if you stopped stealing the appellation.
“I speak for myself when I say that a basic respect for the Other, which was lacking in my own background, is key to going forward.”
Good point. I request that you consider the ways that you also regard the Jewish community as “other”, so you don’t indulge in any reverse racism in fact.
Witty seems to have a big advantaghe over me, I’ll admit it! Knowing the world as I do, I’m sure someone who considers Judaism or Jewishness a mitigating factor in crimes would have a much greater scope for accomplishment than one who considers his Judaism or Jewishness a reason to not be criminal. There’s just so many more things he can do!
Too many forget the racial part of anti-Semitism in history. WWI era cartoons of swarthy complexioned Eastern European Jews with angry scowls, scraggly beards, and big hooked noses, regularly appear in the US media though now invariably dressed as Middle-Eastern mullahs. In spite of the fact that it may be Jews in the media who draw such cartoons or okay their publication, it is absurd to categorize these updated images as anything but anti-Semitic.
White racists cheerfully endorse the mutual extermination of Israeli Jews and Palestinians by each other. The extermination of Christian Palestinians is fine with those racists because they are not white. Is it believable that the racism they express for Israeli Jews is anti-Semitic but the racism they express for Palestinians is a different kind of racism? Though her brother-in-law is a Lebanese Catholic, is Erica Jong’s “Arabs and other animals” reference anti-Christian or is it a racist anti-Semitic one? Young drunken racist American Jews in Israel captured in Max Blumenthal’s videos are intended to remind us that too many Jews are so assured of their whiteness that they are comfortable with their racism.
The distinction between Persian and Arab is a cultural one. No such distinction is made with the images of Middle-Eastern mullahs, which are purely racial, anti-Semitic, to be specific. What happens when young defenseless children see these images in our media no matter that they are Jewish, Arab, Persian, Christian, Moslem? Should we care?
We should, but so long as there is oil over there, we will do whatever to keep Arabs and Muslims looking like animals.
They will be treated as such and in the meantime we’ll get 100 movies every year about the Holocaust and subtle humanized imagery of Jews (propaganda in the context of the comparison between Jews and Arabs and in light of the fact that Hollywood is Zionist).
Life isn’t fair already. It doesn’t have to touch the I-P conflict. But once it does, it’s not only fair, it’s oppressive. I mean, we’re always hearing even Leftist Jews soft peddle Israeli crimes because they want reconciliation.
This imagery is bad enough. But the reality is worse and it’s daily. The occupation is daily. Think of how often people have stupid debates about anti-Jewish attitudes. Or how many times we have to see a Jew and Arab hold hands like this is all a misunderstanding when it has nothing to do with that.
It’s only because this is the WORST case of identity politics EVER in modern times. By ‘worst’ I mean, most effective for dishonest and IMO evil reasons.
Jews are not only humanized, but their identity constitutes a social pressure and taboo.
So even if a Jew kills an Arab (happens ALL the time) – they get away with it. Always. And no one says anything. If they do, they are Jewish and that’s meaningless. When Arabs in this country are able to muster something more than a worthless 70K to mobilize people to the TRUTH (not a cause, the goddamn TRUTH!) then we’ve made progress and we can finally not just overcome Zionism but also the intellectually dishonest imagery of identity politics.
Lies, endless lies spun by ethnocentric Jews in our intelligentsia. And they will continue lying. They’ll write their memoirs. They’ll end up at distinguished Universities. They’ll be awarded Presidential Medals of “freedom”. It’s all a big joke.
I can’t imagine how this dishonesty can last. I hope the Arabs keep fighting. Never give up.
Israel is a developed country while the Arab world is ignorant, that the Palestinians are peasants and Jews are urban people of the book, that the Arab world lacks basic freedoms.
Yeah, that’s the mental pitter-patter that’s being peddled, and because most Americans lack a basic education in world history, they buy this shit, Jews included.
The fact of the matter is the polar opposite. Read How Eurocentric Is Your Day? by M. Shahid Alam link to z.pe for a quick look at what most Americans dont know about what they use today. The great Arabic cultures produced our math, chemistry, optics, astronomy, and sciences. They perfected architecture and poetry. (The first poem ever was written by an Iraqi woman around 5,000 BC.) They invented the university, long before one was parked in England. Jews dont have this history; they were stuck in shtels for 1500 years unless they escaped the system that didn’t allow you to question the Rabbi or think for yourself, and went to a country where they were allowed intellectual freedom.
Why dont we know about all this? Many of the Arabic cultures that were ruled by kings destroyed all history of the previous King’s history in order to rewrite how the new one was appointed by god, and his divine whatever. The only record, in some instances, of previous kings is coinage (entire depts at the U. of Chicago are devoted to this). The Arabs were always the intellectuals of the world; ditto the Persians. They excelled in medicine, literature, government, and commerce. But we dont know that because we uneducated Americans only know one fucking language, and can read no other. We can’t read source documents. We are the ignoramuses. So many buy these tall tales that Israeli Jews are smarter than any other, that their culture represents some new standard, when the truth is they were such peasants that they didn’t even know there were enlightened nation states to copy other than the badly mangled and mismanaged Eastern European ones around them in the lands they came from. I’ll say it again: they were the Boys from Bialystock, no more enlightened than Avigdor Lieberman. Crude, vulgar, always ready to pick fight, lacking in philosophical finesse, education and statesmanship, and use neanderthal violence to get their way. The urbane, intelligent, and memorable Jews of the past 1800 years were the ones who escaped the prison of their religious edicts and made their mark in assimilated societies. But to discover that, you have to read a lot of history.
Regarding Arab society’s alleged backwardness- this is not disproved by ancient history. No one disputes the great contributions that Arab society gave to the world between the death of Mohammed and being conquered by the Mongols in 1250. But what have they produced lately? (759 years) It seems to me- not much. They might have invented the university, but name one world class university in the Arab world today. Where do they go to get a decent education- to the West. What are the number of books translated from other languages into Arabic?
I base my opinions on a cursory reading of headlines referring to the UN Development program. If I am wrong, enlighten me.
There is some validity to the lack of progress of Jews who reacted to modernity by shunning it, but there were some Jews who did not totally assimilate and brought modernity to their societies.
“Crude, vulgar, always ready to pick fight, lacking in philosophical finesse, education and statesmanship, and use neanderthal violence to get their way. The urbane, intelligent, and memorable Jews of the past 1800 years were the ones who escaped the prison of their religious edicts and made their mark in assimilated societies.”
This is a crude vulgar assertion lacking historical finesse and attributing everything to assimilation and nothing to Jewish values. The Jewish value of books and learning was transferred from the Talmud to other courses of study. It is true that the stars for the most part escaped religious edicts, but who can deny that iconoclastic tendencies, modes of logical and even illogical thought and bookish propensities were not the keys to their success as well. And where did those tendencies come from?
My definition of racism has to do with genetics, rather than culture. It seems rather clear that certain cultures are in a state of stasis or decay and others are not.
I don’t think that makes me racist.
WJ, I actually thought that quote (from MRW) was by some 19th century German Jew writing about the Ostjüden!
I agree with some of your points, except I’d add that the US and Israel have consistently thwarted any attempt by middle eastern states to develop. We bomb them if they get too strong (Lebanon, Iraq…now Iran?) or else install and support corrupt leaders who will serve our interests.
Gosh, wondering Jew, if we are so cool, why did God turn His face from us? Remember, He even stopped the sun in its tracks to help us win a battle. And then he dropped us, and let the Romans shit all over us. What happened, smartie? Was the Roman Empire more powerful than God? I really doubt it.
You know pal, you can’t just pick and choose the parts you like. Why don’t you man up and face up to what your spiritual condition is, as a Jew. I know it’s more fun to be in a priapic land-fetish cult, but you gotta resist that whoring-after-false-Gods thing, you know?
Chaos with the “racist” card once again. And, as if explaining to a five-year-old, we have to repeat: there’s nothing racist in pointing out statistics you can find in a UN report. If I note that African-Americans make less than their white counterparts, that’s not racist! You’re like the undergrad who answers all the questions on his exam using the same incorrect logic, and still doesn’t get it even when someone points out his mistake.
What’s racist, carnas, is using those statistics to prove that another group is intellectually, culturally or morally deficient.
How come you guys are always nasty? Like, always? Unfailingly? I mean at least most white people where I live are polite racists. How come Zionists are cruel as well as racist? I mean, you guys are even vicious to other Jews.
wj did not try to “prove that another group is intellectually, culturally or morally deficient”. The point was that Arab society, in its current makeup, does not encourage intellectual development – this is not an inherent property of Arabs, it’s something about the way they currently run things. Obviously, things were different in the past and might be different in the future.
So instead of calling him a racist, it would do more good to think about what could encourage reform in the Arab world, although the Arabs will have to do the work, if they want to.
Oh, yes, indeed, carnas. The so-called “white man’s burden,” huh.
You Zionist supremacists make me sick. Not just that you think you’re better than the Arabs — it’s that your little country wouldn’t exist except that it’s a charity case for the Western world. That without the American taxpayer’s teat to suckle, you’d be just another cult of cultural supremacists living on the margins.
But Carnas, didn’t you see my post? It does not suit the interests of the US or Israel for the Arab/Muslim world to reform, and we make sure it doesn’t happen.
If we can’t install a compliant dictator, we destroy the country. Israel took care of Lebanon, we took care of Iraq, and apparently Iran is next (although it isn’t really Arab, it tends to be lumped in).
Who to believe: the CEO of Google or an uneducated, ignorant poster on Mondoweiss?
“JG: Go to one final thing, something that struck me when I was reading this book. You have a boycott movement in Europe, but in the U.S., too, you have forces that want to delegitimize Israel. I realized in reading this that it would be quite something to go tell Intel or Google or IBM to divest from Israel.
DS: They’ll never do it. I mean, it’s impossible. What various companies told us is that if they had to shut down operations in India tomorrow, they could survive because it’s basically a lot of outsourcing and a lot of call centers. They said if we had to shut down our operations in Ireland, we could survive. But what one person after another told us is that the one place in the world that would devastating for them to have shut down would be Israel, because they put so much of their mission-critical work and R&D in Israel. The Intel story we tell is amazing, this key chip that was central to Intel taking off was designed and then manufactured in Israel, so it would be devastating to these companies to lose Israel. And one more thing — the most interesting data point on all of this is that European venture capitalists invest more in Israel than they do in any single European economy.
JG: Is that true?
DS: Yes and, to me, that says it all. For all the ranting from Europe about boycotts and attempts at boycotts, that’s not what European capital is doing. In terms of the U.S., this is even more true. I don’t want to oversimplify, but who do think is more important to Barack Obama: The head of J Street or Eric Schmidt at Google? And if Eric Schmidt said that his company would be devastated if Israel came off-line — and we interviewed Schmidt and he talked about the importance of Israel — then I think I know the answer. “
Of course CEOs making piles of money in Israel don’t like BDS and will take every opportunity to tell us how impossible it is and how it’ll never happen. They did the same with SA. Pols don’t like boycotts either. It is up to grassroots to create the momentum. I can’t say whether it will ever work, but I certainly won’t take a CEO with vested interests’ word for it.
Oooh, a Jeffrey Goldberg interview with Dan Senor! Now there’s two objective sources on Israel! One’s American and fought for the IDF, the other’s an AIPACer and worked for Bush! Both thought invading Iraq was a brilliant idea! These are two guys Americans can really trust!
Besides the Goldbergian staple of pretending that Zionism has been a victimless crime (Goldberg: “They’ve written a book that doesn’t examine Israel through the prism of its conflict with the Arabs”! Woohoo!), the two also get right into the Jewish superiority thing that Phil just wrote about, despite falling all over themselves to pretend they harbor nothing of the sort:
JG: One thing about the book that’s interesting to me is that it seems that you’re trying very hard not to say, ‘Well, of course if you put a bunch of Jews in a room, that weird Jewish brain will create something.”
DS: We were very self-conscious about that.
JG: Because it’s wrong? Because it’s stereotypical? Because you don’t believe it?
DS: We believe that there are lessons that developing and developed economies can learn from Israel, and that there are prescriptions for the U.S. that can be taken from Israel, and if it is simply about the fact that Jews are smart, well-educated and good at business, it completely undermines the notion that there is anything transferable. We really believe that. We’re not naïve; there are certain dynamics that are unique to Israel that cannot be, and should never be, tried elsewhere.
Chaos, sometimes I wonder if the carnas phenomenon isn’t just one thoroughly nasty guy with a few hundred internet handles, who spends all day and night leaving a trail of bile and malice. Because they all sound exactly alike.
And if Eric Schmidt said that his company would be devastated if Israel came off-line — and we interviewed Schmidt and he talked about the importance of Israel — then I think I know the answer.
This is truly laughable nonsense. The vast majority of high-tech ‘capital’ is human. Buying a new building somewhere else and relocating a few thousand employees and their families is hardly beyond the means of large profitable companies like Google. This is what will eventually happen as Israel slides deeper into reviled apartheid.
If the Israeli branch of an corporation’s operations are so critical to its continued existence, much less something like mere profitability, does anyone think its shareholders (Google for example is a publicly traded company; its management at least in theory serve at the pleasure of shareholders), who want profits, not biblical entitlement frippery, are going to let their massive investments slide down the toilet by not relocating and safeguarding essential assets? Which is more likely when Israel becomes an unacceptably risky place to do business, Google successfully intervening to convince the rest of the planet that ethnic cleansing and colonization really are ok, or Google pulling out to save their company?
A lot of good arguments can be made for Israeli contributions to the world. However, I feel embarrassed for the poor fools who try the ‘you just can’t do without us’ spiel. I hate to break it to you exceptionalists, but we can indeed do without you. No one is vital. The world will keep going when you are gone. The world will keep going when I am gone. The world will keep going when Google, Intel, and Microsoft are gone. No individual, company, or government lasts forever. As long as there is money to be made and human intellect in need of spiritual gratification from the pursuit of excellence, someone will step up to the plate to meet needs. I’d close by saying ‘get over yourselves’, but I suspect this bizarre attitude stems more from insecurity than arrogance.
Once again, Shmuel at November 6, 2009 at 8:44 am has the proper response. Who the hell is Dan Senor? He’s all over TV right now publicizing his book and acting as if he owns the networks. Cocky as hell. Claiming the ridiculous things that AIPAC did in the exhibits at its last convention, things like Israel invented the cell phone. Jesus! These people must think that no one knows how to use google. (Dr. Martin Cooper created the first cell phone using the new packet network and proved it on the streets of Manhattan around 1973 or 1974. Remember those Motorola cellphone bricks that everyone used for a decade? Dr. Martin Cooper. Not Israel.)
Scroll down to the section State More Important Than Jews and start reading from there. link to z.pe And dont ignore the section Little Understanding of Free Societies .
Mooser – The morality of the Jewish position in I/P vis a vis the Palestinians at this point in time is not something that I was commenting on. I was commenting on a few specific lines typed by MRW.
My position is that there is a bridge that is halfway built between war and peace and that bridge is called the Clinton parameters or the Geneva “Accord” and to neglect that halfway built bridge because it is lacking in justice for the Palestinians will result in continued warfare. I am not a land fetishist, although I think it is unreasonable to expect the Israelis to give up sovereignty over the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem and over the Western Wall. I recognize the Jewish history that has led the Jewish people to this point of time and I cannot dismiss it with a wave of my hand and suggest that my concept of God and religion replace the concept of God and religion that others possess.
I think that the intifadeh was meant to scare the Jews into packing their suitcases and leaving and those who didn’t pack their suitcases are not interested in leaving and most of those who talk about a one state solution would be perfectly happy if nine tenths of the Jews left Israel Palestine. I think the genocide of the Jewish people in Europe ripped a pretty large hole in the Jewish heart and Zionism was “meant” to cure that tear, but it is essentially a failure in that regard.
I think that a reading of the Jewish prayerbook indicates the central aspect that Jerusalem played in the Jewish imagination throughout the last two thousand years and to ignore that because it strikes one as a land fetish, is to define the Jewish religion in one’s own image rather than in the image of those who composed the prayer book. I think the Jewish people are in crisis and your rhetoric might make you feel better but it is self righteous and does not serve the purpose of dialogue with those who disagree with you.
Are you forgetting, WJ, that all through the Accords, Israel accelerated colonization of the West Bank? And then continued it indiscriminately thereafter? So basically they broke their word? And that’s your example of Israeli moral superiority?
wj, it would be quite helpful if you would elaborate on why you think the Jewish “people” are in crisis. I, for one, would very interested in reading your opinions about that.
CMI- You have forced me to think and before my head starts hurting too much I will put my thoughts down in this reply box.
The Jewish people are in crisis.
As I have stated elsewhere the advent of modernity and the secularism that came with it exerts special pressure on the Jewish people because of the high content of religion in their self definition. True it is possible to be a Jewish atheist in a way that one cannot be a Catholic atheist, nonetheless there is a type of self denial involved. (If one eats on Yom Kippur is one an antisemite? I asked my father. No, but if one holds a party on Yom Kippur to celebrate eating on Yom Kippur then you’re an antisemite, he answered.)
Whereas an individual can lose his faith in God or the divine origin of the Torah and still read Tanach, Talmud, Jewish history or Kafka in his room and feel a connection with the Jewish past, the question of the Jewish community or Jewish continuity raises questions that cannot be answered by an individual connection. The inevitablity of Jewish assimilation (with intermarriage as its most glaring symptom of finality) in a predominantly nonJewish society seems self evident unless one shuns society as the ultra Orthodox attempt to do. The tensions of wishing to be like everyone else, but wishing to maintain identity are experienced both by the Jew and the nonJew with painful results for both.
But my comment regarding the Jewish crisis was more oriented towards Zionism and specifically leftist Zionism. Beginning in the days of the first intifadeh and ending with the eruption of the second intifadeh, there was an optimism amongst leftist Zionists that there was a future of peace and all that was lacking was sufficient will and if only we could be sufficiently optimistic and refuse to plant that seed of failure known as pessimism, peace would be at hand. Whether this optimism was misplaced to begin with or was undermined by Israeli policy, it seems today that such optimism was/is childish and reality has crushed it cruelly.
And in its place is the doctrine of “we must show how cruel we can be”.
I think the Jewish religion in America will survive in various forms: Ultra orthodoxy will remain more or less as today. Modern Orthodoxy- where the most interesting recent phenomenon is the women’s liberation movement and a move towards separate but equal. On the other end of the spectrum is the Reform movement – that does not necessarily incorporate practices and beliefs of Christianity into the services and thus become truly syncretic, but whose membership does practice both Christmas and Chanuka at home- thus a membership syncretism. The middle ground between this Reform Judaism and Modern Orthodoxy will be increasingly deserted.
Which returns me to the Zionist aspect. There is a large element that accepts the inevitability of a prolonged conflict, which seems to imply the necessity for periodic attacks like Lebanon three years ago and Gaza last year. Necessity is the mother of invention they say. But the group that felt that peace was just around the corner are certainly in crisis.
Holy Goddam that was stupid, Wondering. First you tell me about how we are so intelligent, than you say that we have this huge religious make-up, that you say you can be a Jewish Atheist. You are just blowing nonsense out your ass.
I read a piece recently at Ynet about the Leonard Cohen concert. Cohen, apparently, is not a practicing Jew, or entirely a practicing Jew, but he gave a priestly blessing at the concert. And according to the author of the article, a lot of the secular audience didn’t recognize it. The author says she is not religious but she has a strong attachment to the Jewish culture, an outgrowth of the religion. That there is something to value in traditions originating in a religion even if you do not believe in the the religion is true.
I strongly agree with this.
And I think this is a sense in which a person can really be a Catholic atheist – that Catholicism is the religion in which they don’t believe, but the traditions are still part of their identity.
I should note that my own anti-occupation group has witnessed this effect. We’re blessed in that we have a number of Palestinians themselves involved in it, but we’ve seen friction (generally distantly, but still) caused by well-meaning groups who’ve decided “what’s best for the Palestinians” without actually asking any Palestinians. From what I’ve heard, that’s why Norman Finkelstein — who I respect, still — pulled out of the Gaza Freedom March. He wasn’t willing to let the Palestinians speak for themselves in it (he thought it would politicize the march in a way he didn’t approve of).
The fact that you’re even asking these tough questions of yourself, Mr. Weiss, is a credit to you. It’s an issue I confronted and answered for myself early on when I decided it was time to rid myself of the reflexive, culturally instituted racism of which I’d become aware, painfully, that I had.
What you are seeing from Witty and Wondering Jew is what happens when Jews can’t hang on to their own religious identity, for one reason or another. They spend so much time around Christians (culturally speaking) that they forget what being Jewish means and they make up a religion of victory, in which we conquer sin and death like our Gentile friends.
I can’t really blame them, being a Jew is not that much fun, what with the consciousness of how you have failed God, the terror of knowing you are unprotected by Him, and it’s pretty trying on the patience, waiting, waiting, for a reapproachment which may never come.
Of course, you can always say you are better off than an Arab. I wouldn’t know, I stick pretty much to wondering who I am, am trying to treat others in a way that won’t shame us in front of God. He might be looking, and you know the Evil Eye is there, anyway.
Jews. superior? Sure, and maybe someday we’ll even get our birthrate and retention-rate up to a level which doesn’t guarantee extinction. Being able to stick on someplace for more than a hundred years without getting our asses kicked out, or being the victims of genocide would be nice, too. Must be the price of superiourity.
Sure, sure I know, all Jews are superior, but some Jews are more superior than others.
And the most amazing thing is the way we just burst all the boundaries and upset all the parameters! Did you know that Jews raised in a insular, affluent, and privileged milieu feel and act just about the same as any other Amewricans raised under those insular ,affluent and privileged conditions? Oy such nachos it gives me! What a country! The Goldenah Medina!
Did you know that Jews raised in a insular, affluent, and privileged milieu feel and act just about the same as any other Amewricans raised under those insular ,affluent and privileged conditions?
You’ve probably read criticisms that Jews don’t serve in the US military in proportion to their fraction of the population. I haven’t seen any hard numbers, and I find the implication that any ethnic or religious group feels less of a need to serve the larger community because of some trait in their ethnic or religious identity instinctively offensive.
I think a simple examination of relative numbers by ethnicity or religion is an incorrect way of quantitatively assessing any imbalances. Jewish Americans as a group, along with Sikh-Americans, and I think even Arab-Americans, are better off than average financially. Military service is correlated to some significant degree to poverty and lack of educational opportunity. Thus any estimates of relative participation in national service should be weighted by affluence or socio-economic status. Do Jews, or Sikhs, or whoever, serve in the military in lower numbers because they are Jews or Sikhs, or simply because in the aggregate they are more affluent and less attracted by economic incentives? I think it antisemitic to just assume that “Jews raised in an insular, affluent, and privileged milieu [would not] feel and act just about the same as any other Americans raised under [similar] conditions.”
“Jerry Haber has said that if there is one thing American Jews can do it is “helping to transform the 1948 ethnocracy into a liberal democracy of all its citizens”–to work with organizations like Taayush to help other Jews imagine a conjoint future with Palestinians. I speak for myself when I say that a basic respect for the Other, which was lacking in my own background, is key to going forward.”
Mister Weiss, I don’t really see how Israeli Jews can look to you for guidance. I agree with you that they have a lot to learn about respect for the Other, but if they don’t feel that you have any respect for them, why would they listen to you, unless they already agree with you?
Israelis don’t generally return respect with respect. Not only do I have my own personal experience in that regard… we can always ask George Mitchell about that too.
former coMMenter, your javascript doesn’t work . I dont see the closing carat for the href command…is that it? Can’t you turn it in a TinyURL.com command?
MRW, I think there’s some kind of length limit on the href parameter of the link tag, maybe imposed by the Mondoweiss CMS, so a long javascript link doesn’t work.
But I posted the code below; if you copy it into your address bar as is, it will have the desired effect.
Why should anyone have respect for murderers and thieves? If Israelis want help rehabilitating themselves, their first step should be acknowledging their guilt, admitting that they don’t deserve respect.
Yeah, I have a pretty good guess what it does, I know Javascript and HTML.
You know what? If it bothers you that much, substitute “Chaos4700″ for “Witty” in your code. It’s not as if I’m not used to being treated that way, honestly.
I have no problem with your retorts, Chaos, in fact I think they’re always on point, but I just thought even a Witty warrior like yourself could maybe use some peace and quiet now and then. Merely for you to use at your discretion. Don’t take it the wrong way. I actually wrote it for Donald who was joking in another thread that I can’t find anymore that he needs to go “cold turkey.”
Fair enough. If it’s any consolation, I have German and Polish ancestry. That means I enjoy getting angry and I’m too stubborn to let it go. :) Confronting Witty doesn’t actually make me happy per se, but it does leave me feeling satisfied. Like when you put the last dish you’ve washed into the cupboard and now the sink is totally empty.
Speaking of which, I gotta go do the dishes… But let me just respond to Witty real quick…
lol poor Rich…
I know he can hardly write comprehensible English, but he isn’t a very strong reader either. Did you notice he’s been touting the fact that he’s reading History of Israel all week long now? What’s he, in former President Bush’s book club? He still hasn’t gotten around to The Israel Lobby book by Walt & Mearsheimer, but he’s reviewed it about 30 times on this site and Realistic Dove. He had to install a macro for the word “polemical”, he used it so much.
I would feel sorry for the guy if he’d quit all the guilt-tripping and just “get out of the road if he can’t lend a hand” — because yes, the times (but no, not the Slimes) they are a changin’.
Richard, do you want me to find the comments you made asserting that W&M had not factored in Saudi Arabian interests or the petroleum industry in their calculations about who pushed the Iraq war? (In fact, they dedicated dozens of pages to these.)
Why is it that you are content with your “impressions”–however factually challenged–and yet you take such offense at the impressions of others?
My impression is still that you have not read the W&M book. Another impression I have is that you begin formulating your comments after reading only the title of Phil’s posts.
Why would you bother looking for a “contradiction”.
I certainly did not do an exegesis on a book that I read two years ago.
Did you?
If you did, then you would acknowledge the limited extent of the Walt/Mearsheimer thesis of the legality and extent of monolithic power, relative to the way it is/was invoked as conspiracy here.
They described the Lobby as an present political force, definitively NOT conspiratorial (excepting very broad consented concepts), and definitively not illegal as a generalization.
The point I was making, Richard, is that you can talk about reading history books all day long, but in the end, your conclusions pre-empt any new information anyone presents to you. You’ve already concluded that “Zionism is a good”–a rather absolute claim, for someone who thinks “justice is relative”–and everything either fits inside that value judgment or deserves your dismissive scorn.
That’s why it rings so hollow when you present yourself as a new-agey, open-minded liberal whose primary goal is the resolution of this conflict. It’s like your conscious and your sub-conscious are incommunicado.
I take in new information, and I digest it. If it is presented as information, and not as some effort to impose an interpretation that I don’t honestly conclude, it has a more pronounced affect.
If you are asking me to adopt “Zionism is racism” as an ideology, that is a vain effort. It won’t happen.
If you seek to inspire my zeal towards more involvement in reform of the way Zionism is applied, that is relevant.
I can understand, Richard. My parents continue to say nasty, untrue things about Hispanics, black people, Arabs, etc. and then turn around and tell me they’re not really racists. So I can see why, even when your racism is pointed out rather directly to you, you deny.
I mean, if you can deny something like the Nakba ever took place, what’s a denial on the personal level compared to that?
Witty, you need to read something other than your own navel.
Agassi notes that Professor Rabkin “mobilizes little known historical data in order to make distinctions between the following concepts: Zionism and Judaism; Israel as a state, as a country, as a territory and as the Holy Land … this creates a real and dangerous confusion between faith and nationality … One need not be religious in order to protest the exploitation by Israel of religious concepts. I am not religious and am not part of the current fad to find fault with Zionism and its history. But as an Israeli patriot and a philosopher, I find it imperative to make Judaic anti-Zionism a part of the badly needed debate about Israel’s past, present and future.”
Start here: Explaining the Long — and Largely Untold — History of Jewish Opposition to Zionism from the American Council on Judaism site. link to acjna.org
We find the same categorical rejection from Rabbi Joseph Samuel Bloch (1850-l923), a native of Galicia. He compared the Zionist project with the false messiah Sabbatai Tzevi and underscored the supranational character of Judaism. He explained to Therodor Herzl the Talmudic prohibition against returning en masse to Palestine before the arrival of the Messiah.
Franz Rosenzweig (1886-1929) and Simon Dubnow (1860-l941) held nothing but contempt for Zionism and insisted that organic connections with exile constituted an essential precondition for the survival of the Jews through the centuries: “Because Jewish history from the beginning moves from exile to exile, and because therefore the spirit of exile, the alienation from the land, the struggle for the higher life against decline into the limitations of soil and time, is implanted in this history from its beginning.”
The connection between Zionism and anti-Semitism is explored by Professor Rabkin. He reports that, “Certain rabbinical thinkers have asserted that racial anti-Semitism raised its head in Europe a few years after the emergence of a secular Jewish identity, thereby intimating a cause-and-effect relationship between the two, In fact, when the Zionists received the support of non-Jewish politicians, the support was often embarrassing. One of the first to express his enthusiasm for a Jewish state in Palestine, in a speech to the Hungarian parliament in 1878, was, in fact an inveterate anti-Semite, Herzl’s contacts with the tsarist authorities and those cultivated by Vladimir Jabotinsky with the Polish anti-Semites underline the conceptual compatibility of Zionism and anti-Semitism. The anti-Semites wished to be rid of the Jews; the Zionists sought to gather the Jews in the Holy Land. A recent study of the history of Palestine under the British Mandate has pointed up the assistance provided to Zionism by the anti-Semites in the Colonial Office both in London and Jerusalem, and the efforts of the Zionist leadership to cultivate the myth of a world Jewish plot. Several Judaic thinkers looked upon this coalition of interests with a heavy heart.”
Phillip “They surround Jewish feelings of superiority. We are chosen, we are smarter, we are irrigating the desert and building computers that will deliver a drop of water to every root of every artichoke bush, we have more Nobel prizes than all the Arab world combined. I’ve struggled with this idea of Jewish superiority all my life. It was in the warp and woof of my upbringing in an academic milieu, and I run into it in almost every argument I have with Zionists”
You are one brutally honest human being. A while back I heard one of my women friends who is Jewish telling her son that he was part of a chosen group of people. She was telling his this with such arrogance that I asked her later what that was all about. I asked her if this had been something she had been told as a young person. She was stunned and upset that I asked. She thought about it for days and came back and said she had been brought up to think that Jews were better and as you described this thinking permeated her family, their attitudes towards others and the way she looked at life. Have asked other Jewish friends to examine this”the chosen people” phenomena and several have come back with some honest insights as you have Phillip.
Something taught. Good to look at honestly.
One thing that I have never been able to figure out with Jewish friends is why a person has to proclaim being Jewish when one does not practice the faith. I grew up Catholic (am no longer Catholic) Irish, Polish, French, Russian. Yet I do not proclaim my ethnic history to people, I do not proclaim being Catholic since I do not practice the faith.
Why do so many Jews have to let you know they are Jewish when they are not active in Judaism? Can anyone explain
Kathleen, we already get the fact that you project your own feelings onto everyone else and think your connection (or lack thereof) to the Catholic church somehow makes you a spokesperson for all non-religious people. Being Jewish, even if secular, and being Catholic isn’t the same. Let’s start with the basic fact that you probably can’t name one relative who was persecuted for his religion, let alone gased along with the rest of your family. Capisce?
Actually, if she’s German Catholic, then she might have ancestors who were victims of the kulturkampf under Bismark. Not that you necessarily have to go back that far. I mean, my own grandfather — who was otherwise proud of his Teutonic heritage — first visited Germany as an American soldier fighting the Nazis and making sure that people like your family were survivors.
Far be it for us to expect that you actually care about strife and pain and suffering if it happens to anyone other than Jews, of course.
Oh look. The cadre of Zionist deniers is increasing.
You Zionists really make me sick. It’s like nobody else’s feelings matter but yours. And even then, it’s only what you can strip from other people with your nasty barbs. I’m glad most Jews aren’t actually like your little cult.
shut the hell up Carnas, there are PLENTY of people throughout history who have been brutalized and murdered. not just ‘the juice’
except, the native americans aren’t making movie after movie about their tragedy.
and what are you insinuating? that because European Jews were brutalized and murdered by Europeans, that Jews today get to do whatever they want to others and proclaim their superiority? You’re a scumbag.
jewish sense of entitlement is criminal at this point in history w/ the establishment of the IsraHell and all the crimes of Zionism
Cliff, I’m glad to see you commenting again and often agree with some of your points, at least in part. But you lose me when you use language like the above.
Carnas, first off, its rather cavalier of you to claim that Kathleen can’t have a relative who faced persecution just because she’s not Jewish. She’s Irish, Polish, French, Russian with a family background as a Catholic. Are you really that ignorant of European history to claim that only Jews faced persecution, religious or otherwise? Do you have any clue as to why separation of church and state was so important to the founders of our nation? Do you have any inkling of violent history of Europe, or are you a subscriber to the lachrymose theory of Jewishness, where no one else suffers, only Jews?
And what you have claimed in your snarky reply is that your Jewishness is based on victimhood. I suspect that you think that victimhood in and of itself confers some moral superiority on you as Jew. But it doesn’t and never will. Morality is an individual attribute and must be earned by your own deeds, not by being victimized by the deeds of others. Jews as a group have proven, through Israel, that there is no inherent moral superiority of Jews, just as there is no inherent moral superiority of any religious or ethnic group. Given power over the other, Jews as a group in Israel have proven that they are just as capable of persecuting others as any other group has been. I suspect that one of the reasons that some Jews continue to defend and excuse wretched behavior by Israel is because they cannot face the truth about the absence of any real inherent Jewish moral superiority. Their self-illusions trump their own morality.
Carnas you are obviously one of those folks with a “superiority complex” one of those folks who thinks only Jews were brutally murdered during WWII. In fact I did lose family members in Poland. Catholic family members. Yes the Hitler killing machine did kill others than Jews. But in our media only the 6 million Jews are mentioned. That is fucking truth only Jews were murdered during WWII
“Being Jewish, even if secular and being Catholic is not the same?”
Another example of the “superiority ” phennomena.
and that is not what I asked. If you are not a practicing the Jewish faith. Why do many Jews often proclaim they are Jewish often in the first meeting. I do not proclaim that I am Irish, French, Polish, Russian. Why is this necessary? I have heard this hundreds of times
Instead of just being human to human why do many Jews announce their ethnic, history. I have come to believe it is some kind of effort to pull out a trump card.
“One thing that I have never been able to figure out with Jewish friends is why a person has to proclaim being Jewish when one does not practice the faith. I grew up Catholic (am no longer Catholic) Irish, Polish, French, Russian. Yet I do not proclaim my ethnic history to people, I do not proclaim being Catholic since I do not practice the faith.
Why do so many Jews have to let you know they are Jewish when they are not active in Judaism? Can anyone explain ”
————————————————————————————————–
Here was your response
“Being Jewish, even if secular, and being Catholic isn’t the same.”
There are any number of reasons why people put forward one or more parts of their indentity at a first meeting. I have had people tell me they are Catholic, Protestant, atheist, gay, communist, femminist, married, parents etc. I’m not sure why many of the Jews you have come across have chosen to reveal that part of themselves to you. They might think it’s something special, or it might be something they feel insecure about. I don’t actively advertise the fact that I’m Jewish, but I don’t try to hide it either – as many Jews I know do. It may come up at a first meeting, or not. When it does come up, I often get weird responses, from the classic “some of my best friends are Jewish” to “that’s ok, it doesn’t bother me.”
Kathleen: One thing that I have never been able to figure out with Jewish friends is why a person has to proclaim being Jewish when one does not practice the faith.
I live in a (mostly non-practising) Catholic country, and have had this conversation many times with formerly-Catholic friends and acquaintances – shocked and confused, when I call myself an “atheist Jew” (they nearly faint when I add “anti-Zionist” to the mix). There is certainly such a thing as Catholic culture (note the current furore over crucifixes in Italian public schools), but Catholicism is still, for most Catholics and ex-Catholics, simply a religion. Judaism is part ethnicity (try replacing “Catholic” with Irish – it’s a lot harder to be “formerly Irish”), part culture – or “civilisation”, as some have called it – with a significant, but not essential, religious component. In the US, a Christian cannot logically be an atheist. Either you is or you ain’t. Judaism doesn’t work that way.
Of course, the meaning and content of “Jewishness” changes from individual to individual. I feel sorry for those whose entire Jewish identity rests on the Holocaust and/or Zionism.
I am very familiar with the work of Halevi, potsherd, and have even translated some of it. I doubt that the people Kathleen was referring to have ever heard of him or his theories. I also doubt that words penned a thousand years ago (not universally accepted even in Halevi’s day) mean much to the vast majority of Jews. To the extent that there is a Judaism-specific sense of superiority, its origins lie more in the realm of Jewish experience than in the words of long-dead rabbis. Judaism, like other religions and cultures, has evolved considerably in the past few hundred years.
Shmuel, I am not intimately familiar with Halevi, but it is certainly a characteristic of Judaism to accumulate the sayings of long-dead rabbis and refer to them. I suspect there is a direct link between the teachings of Halevi and Perrin’s infamous remark about the Jewish fingernail. These memes sink into the collective consciousness, even when the original source of the comments is no longer known.
Yes and no. Over the past couple of centuries, Judasim has undergone a major shift, even a break with the past, discarding ideas considered incompatible with modern thought and life. Halevi’s “soul theory” would certainly fall into that category, even in terms of memes and collective consciousness. The only group in which you will still find these ideas is the Orthodox minority – and even there, not universally.
To give you the context (I assume this is what you are referring to), in the Kuzari, Halevi discusses the difference between Jewish and non-Jewish souls, reaching the conclusion that a non-Jew who converts can attain the highest levels of holiness and eternal reward, but can never attain prophecy, the potential for which is inherent only to souls created Jewish. Since only a handful of Jews have actually attained prophecy, in practical terms, even Halevi saw no difference between non-Jews and virtually all Jews. Nevertheless, the idea conveys a certain message regarding Jewish superiority. Maimonides disagreed with Halevi, and believed that non-Jews are not inherently different from Jews in any way. Maimonides also had a great deal of respect both for Islam and Christianity, although he considered the former much closer to Judaism.
Shmuel – certainly some Judaism has undergone a major shift, but there are still the haredi sects who stand by the maxim “everything new is forbidden” – “new” being apparently the 17th century.
Unfortunately, it is this strain of Judaism that is in the ascendant in Israel, that is to the exclusion of the more modern and less bigoted versions. And it is the influence of Israel that I see as reviving these old memes of Jewish exceptionalism and mutating it into a strain of racism that goes beyond anything in medieval Judaism.
Potsherd – I thought we were talking about the US, where Haredim are an insignificant, albeit visible minority among Jews. The racist attitudes of Israeli Jews toward their non-Jewish neighbours (Palestinians, “Russians”, foreign workers) have many sources. Haredi influence is the least of the problem, despite headline-grabbers like Yishai (who, by the way, speaks like your average European xenophobic politician – be the sources of his “inspiration” what they may.)
Shmuel, I’m saying that attitudes in Israel influence the US. Because they are Israeli, people like Yishai and Lieberman are quoted widely and their ideas seep into the minds of people who may not even be aware of their origin.
I think most US Jews are disgusted by Yishai and Lieberman. As for sources, Yishai may put stock in Judah Halevi, but Lieberman is a pork-munching secular Jew, with little Jewish backround.
“They are arguments that if Jews really want to be a light unto the nations, they must ….”
Nice thought, Phil, but I didn’t know that Jews had been elected to be “a light unto the nations.” It’s an idea that probably sounds good to Jewish ears but maybe a bit presumptuous to others, don’t you think? Of course, it does comport with notions of Jewish superiority and exceptionalism, for those who buy that.
I know this post and thread have not been about A-S, but I can’t help asking in this context: How many Jews are aware that their common belief in their own superiority and exceptionalism is a leading cause of what they like to call antisemitism (at least in its milder forms)? For every effect, there are causes. As Kathleen has noted above, there seems to be an amazing amount of naivite about this.
That’s a bit of a tricky question, CMI, involving facts, perceptions, interpretations, etc. Historically-speaking, Jews have often been hated precisely because they were seen as inferior, and actually made inferior in the eyes of the masses through anti-Jewish legislation. The Jews of Papal Rome (and the Papal States in general), were among the poorest, filthiest most ignorant inhabitants of the city – due to legal restrictions concerning education, economic activity, where they could live, etc. Of course if someone you consider your inferior puts on airs and considers himself superior, that might make you hate him even more. The religious component of anti-Semitism certainly confirms this (another reason successive popes felt it was important to demonstrate the contemptibility of the Jews in the eyes of God and man). How can a people that is so stupid/stubborn/wicked as to have rejected God’s salvation still think it’s hot stuff?
There is also the element of perception. Phil’s comments notwithstanding, it’s not as if we spend our every waking moment strutting and patting ourselves on the back and looking down on everyone else. It is an ill that exists in a certain context, and is worth dealing with, but it really isn’t all that important. As others here have suggested, I think Eurocentrism (shared by European and American Jews) for example, is a far more basic part of the way in which we relate to the world than our Jewish ethnocentrism. The Nobel laureates thing (when not used to put others down, of course) is often just a little innocent ethnic pride. It may be pretty silly, but I don’t think it’s terribly sinister, or any more off-putting than say an Italian’s ethnic pride in Renaissance art or Italian food.
Exceptionalism is another matter however, and there I think you make a valid point. The common Jewish self-image as humanity’s perpetual victim, and the ways in which so many Jews have pursued and exploited this, is almost certainly a significant factor in anti-Jewish feeling. To the extent that this also implies a sense of moral superiority (as it would indeed appear to), I’ll give you superiority as well.
I think it also has to do with anti-miscegenationist attitudes and tribal networking.
I have relatives, for instance, who in their youth dated Jewish girls only to be told, directly or indirectly, that they best stop. Or else. (Or else what, I don’t know–they’d find a dead salmon on their pillow?) Anyway, that doesn’t exactly inspire much fondness.
And though personal connections are always going to be valued by humans, and rightfully so, the sentiments that Phil has written about here, about media figures feeling more “comfortable” working with other Jews, definitely has a discriminatory air to it that doesn’t exactly exalt people’s image of, or respect for, Jews as a tribalist grouping. (It also belies a certain hypocrisy in the “meritocratic” ideal.)
I think the anti-miscegenationism is slowly disappearing, which is probably why the die-hards are so hysterical. On the other hand, there is no denying the effect of direct or indirect connections on employment and other opportunities.
By the way, if you mess with the mishpuche, it’s a dead carp in the bed, not a salmon.
To clarify my response to FC, I think the perception of Jewish attitudes to intermarriage outweighs the reality of those attitudes, as a source of negative feelings toward Jews. The idea that Jews will often prefer other Jews when hiring, for example, may have more basis in reality, and I can see how that would generate animosity toward Jews as a group.
In case anyone has misunderstood, I am trying to understand anti-Semitism, not condone generalisations and group hatred. I am also trying to apply the principle established by Hanna Arendt that Jews, like anyone else, are always active participants in their experiences. I assume Phil, CMI and FC share this attitude.
Shmuel, thanks for the clarification there on the fish threats. :-)
I agree with you that the marriage issue is more perception than reality, but as most of us would be disgusted by a ban on interracial marriage in any context, I think it may be a particularly offensive perception, when it does arise.
My only experiences with large groups of Catholics is from my own family. The largest group of Jewish people I have even been around is my x who is a secular Jew. When around his family and friends (often all secular Jewish as my family generally hung out with Catholics) the talk was often similar to what Phillip inferred
“They are what I was raised with, and am still engaged by. They surround Jewish feelings of superiority. We are chosen, we are smarter, we are irrigating the desert and building computers that will deliver a drop of water to every root of every artichoke bush, we have more Nobel prizes than all the Arab world combined. I’ve struggled with this idea of Jewish superiority all my life. It was in the warp and woof of my upbringing in an academic milieu, and I run into it in almost every argument I have with Zionists. It reminds me of schwarzer talk in the 1970s–talking about black people.”
I was often in shock about how many inferences of “superiority” I would hear at sizable gatherings of secular and some Religious Jews. Now I am not saying that in some Catholic and other Religious families that there is not a sense of “superiority” but it was not in my family. Never heard my parents or family members refer to themselves as “chosen,better, smarter” Did hear these strong inferences at my x’s family and friends gatherings
My goodness; all this talk of superiority. The link below is NOT intended to offend anyone…or to generalize about Jews. the Jewish “achievement ethic” is well known. But it manifests itself in “individuals”.
So given my seriously twisted sense of humor, and hoping Mooser and Phil will understand, here is a link to a very timely Haaretz article…
” On the origin of criminals” , by Neri Livneh… link to haaretz.com
Of course, this once again raises THE QUESTION…when Jews try, quite successfully at times, to engage in criminal activity…”Is this good for the Italians?”
Yishai’s hypocrisy is rich in irony, since it was the Mizrahim who were doused in DDT in the Israeli refugee camps, as being likely carriers of disease, backwards, and “lacking in moral fibre.”
Have always admired that many Jewish families focus on education. But just listen closely to who Terri Gross, and many other Jewish talk show host promote. There is something to often promoting “your people’ I have often thought that you have to be Jewish to get a top spot at NPR. NPR has been accused of “pervasive cronyism” by employees. I had the opportunity to ask Juan Williams about this when I heard him speak. He confirmed that “this does go on at NPR”
There were suits filed and allegedly an investigation/ study into those about the claims. That report about NPR’s “Pervasive cronyism” has never been released
Please do not try to pretend this does not go on. This is a strong component as to why there are many Jewish people are what some people call successful.
“But Richard, as I frequently note, Israeli governing coalitions routinely exclude Arab parties from their negotiations. So Barak formed a liberal government in ‘99 without Arab parties/Knesset members, and had to call on rightwing religious factions to do so. And again this year, Netanyahu formed his governing coalition without Arab parties. So it’s not like they say, Some Palestinians are good, some are bad. No: they say, out of our government!”
Wasn’t there was a Palestinian minister in the Barak cabinet, from within labor party? I believe that there are other paths to incorporate civil Arab representation into coalition. First step would be to persuade Israelis of the practical merits of more humanistic attitude.
I know you were trying hard not to frame this post as inquiry, rather than as conclusion. But, my first reaction was that you were describing the J Street conference AS an example of “liberal racism” in practice, which I find ludicrous and insulting. Your headlines are what cue me to what you conclude as a result of your “inquiries”.
Forgive me if I over-reacted, or missed your point.
To clarify my position. I regard the adoption of “anti-Zionism” as racist. What I mean by Zionism is the self-governance of the Jewish people. It complements the hopefully soon realization of self-governance of the Palestinian people.
Jewish self-governance is a realization of democracy, moreso than a denial of democracy.
Others speak of anti-Zionism in the meaning of likud expansionist Zionism, as somehow all that Zionism as an ideology is or could be. I see that as equivalent to speaking of democracy as Bush democracy, and therefore declaring that “democracy is racism”.
That should be
“I know you were trying hard TO frame this post as inquiry, rather than as conclusion. But, my first reaction was that you were describing the J Street conference AS an example of “liberal racism” in practice, which I find ludicrous and insulting. Your headlines are what cue me to what you conclude as a result of your “inquiries”.
I came to this column late, but have to say I thought it was the best I’ve ever read from Phil. He brilliantly articulates what I’ve been thinking myself. While he probes some complex themes, the simple truthfulness of his wife’s statements stands out as a guidr for the future. She says that equality is a fundamental principle that cannot be compromised. It may be messy to get there, but there is no alternative that is morally defensible. With planning and sensitivity, the messiness can be minimized, but even if it cannot be eliminated entirely, a permanent state of inequality is unthinkable. Israel has to get there, and eventually it will. The only question is how many people will have to die before that happens.
It didn’t bother me at all, Richard. There is a legacy of a claim to being the chosen people. When I was a kid, I didn’t learn that Jews are the same as everyone else, no better and no worse. I learned, “It’s hard to be a Jew, but it’s good to be a Jew.” That’s an exact quote from my Hebrew School. If it’s “good” to be a Jew, it must be better to be a Jew than to be something else; otherwise the word good is meaningless. And of course the Holocaust is drummed into our heads to make us feel (and others feel about us) that we were singled out as victims because we are special, and that we are deserving of special protections because of it. Sure, many Jews don’t buy into superiority, or even specialness, but many do. And frankly, there’s an empirical basis for it. Jews are a tiny percentage of the US population, yet are diproportionately represented in all of the elite categories — government, finance, the arts, academia, etc. I’m really not sure myself what it all means. I do think that I, like all people, should take pride in my own accomplishments only, and being born into a Jewish family and US citizenship should not make me proud to be a Jew or an American. I had nothing to do with the circumstances of my birth. Nor should I take pride in the success of other Jews or the material and military success of the US, but I think these values do gain a lot of traction. Jewish Pride is not all that different from “Proud to be an American,” and you can’t deny that most of the country feels the latter sentiment.
“Sure, many Jews don’t buy into superiority, or even specialness, but many do. And frankly, there’s an empirical basis for it. Jews are a tiny percentage of the US population, yet are disproportionately represented in all of the elite categories ….” (Samel)
A familiar argument for superiority and specialness. Although it is clear that many contributing factors are at work here concerning this disproportionality, it should also be noted that in modern America, if we were talking about anyone other than Jews, it would be openly considered an “empirical basis for” (i.e., prima facie evidence of) discrimination in hiring, promotion, and selection. When non-Jews talk of Jewish “specialness”, this is often what they have in mind – not some notion of inherent superiority.
I remember a time in America when “whites” were “disproportionately represented in all of the elite categories”, in relation to most minorities, and consequently were “clearly” special and superior.
Sorry if you took offense, Ishmael, but the only fact that I uttered was that Jews are disproportionately represented in elite positions. The opinion that I expressed was quite clearly that this fact does not entitle any of us Jews to anything, and I even rejected the notion that we should feel pride in this fact. You concede my factual assertion, and I’m not quite sure why you bothered to complain about an opinion I clearly do not have.
A long while back I spent some time reading the Torah. Often wondered about the root of some of ways or attitudes that some Jews may have towards Gentiles based on some of the racist comments in Deutoronomy.
Jesus frickin Christ, how much of this vaunted Jewish intelligence do you need to figure out that people who constantly proclaim their own superiourity are probably more worried about the opposite? Remember, like the guy in High School who “hated fags” and was “all man”, and then you see him at the leather-boy-bar?
C’mon, how much fuckin smartsd does it take to figure that out?
Anyway, I thought people were supposed to give us Jews all this stuff cause we had been kicked around so much, poor weak homeless Jews. Then we get it and we turn around and say: “See how superior we are, we sure took you Gentiles for a ride”
And we call that smart? Yeah, good plan for a group of not more than a couple million completely dis-organised people. It’ll work out real well.
By the way folks: one of the signs at yesterday’s “Capitol Hill “tea party said (and I quote) “OBAMA TAKES ORDERS FROM THE ROTHSCHILDS”
Nah, deep down inside they are a mass of self-loathing and sexual conflicts, and they probably have allergies, too! (And I bet they are a half-size, and different top and bottom, so their suits never fit). You have no idea what that can drive a person to. What was the worst thing Alex Portnoy ever did? You call that superior?
Imagine the reaction if he peed on a Menorah, an Israeli flag or a Koran? I don’t believe this scene is an accident. It’s a deliberate attack on the Christian majority, designed to humiliate, shame and disinherit.
“Anti-Semitism” disguises what is in fact a long-term hatred of Christ and Christian civilization on the part of certain Jews. The Talmud imagines Christ as an illegitimate son of a whore and a Roman soldier. He is condemned to boil in a vat of excrement. Some Orthodox Jews are taught to spit whenever they see a cross or pass a church. During the Intifada, Israeli soldiers shot up statues of Christ and Mary in Bethlehem.
Shmuel “Historically-speaking, Jews have often been hated precisely because they were seen as inferior, and actually made inferior in the eyes of the masses through anti-Jewish legislation. The Jews of Papal Rome (and the Papal States in general), were among the poorest, filthiest most ignorant inhabitants of the city – due to legal restrictions concerning education, economic activity, where they could live, etc.’
With the the brutal history of Jews and the understandable reasons for wanting a “homeland” to feel safe, pride etc. If safety is what Israel is after. Why keep trying to confiscate land through the expansion of settlements, building part of the wall on internationally recognized Palestinian lands if you want to secure safety? Have really come to the believe that a one state solution is the answer
I don’t agree with the way Israel came to be, but Israel exists. And it is completely understandable to want a safe homeland
I would not criticize the government or military of Israel if they would abide by internationally recognized 67 border, share Jerusalem, sign the NPt and deal fairly with the right of return.
You won’t get any argument out of me, Kathleen. I agree with all of your points about Israel, although I’d continue criticise Israel until non-Jews got full equal rights – as amazing a deal like the one you describe would be.
Kathleen, the Zionists were not looking for, nor were they ever content with, nor did they ever do anything to ensure “a safe homeland”. They were looking to push others away so they could dominate the land.
There’s a great irony, that I hope is not lost on you.
That is that the proposals that Kathleen made, are nearly exactly what I propose (on different basis though).
1 & 2. 67 borders (at least as consented basis of borders) (with the exception of the Jewish portion of the old city of Jerusalem)
3. Fair right of return (I prefer the term “day in court”, to defend land and property claims, not the abstracted and unenforcable right of descendants of all ethnic Palestinians)
So, to summarize: Witty believes Jews have supremacy to “return” to Israel, no matter who their family might be or where they were really born. Palestinians, on the other hand, are not allowed such right, because Israel refusing that right for generations and trying to wait the original refugees to death is, in Witty’s world, perfectly kosher. Their children are stateless and as far as Witty is concerned why should he care? They aren’t Jews, after all.
Potsherd…”attitudes in Israel influence the US”…
Probably true, but the reverse strikes me as “more true”. One of the issues rarely addressed in this conversation is the “price” many Israelis have paid for US support. Part of which, it seems to me, is the bizarre phenomenon of a “Jewish” country evolving to become a “mirror image” of the US, socioeconomically.
With more and more citizens having “less and less”. Poverty rates in Israel now exceed 40%; the school sytems 9for the people of the book) are rapidly deteriorating. Very strange, and very sad.
I oppose J Street because I believe it will seduce and coopt the liberal Jews who might otherwise come to understand that the attitudes you describe, the attitudes unlying J Street, are wrong. J Street will soothe them with lies of liberalism and democracy, calming their outrage and telling them that they are being as progressive on the issues as possible.
Jewish superiority? You must be kidding, Phil. Are we talking about the same people who laughed off the Ten Commandments, built and worshipped the Golden Calf, and ended up so disappointing God that He turned His face from us, pending further notice.
We screwed up so bad, from day 1, the the Almighty left us naked and defenseless against all the vicissitudes and hatreds of the world.
And then, to top it off, once God’s resolve to not save our sorry asses again has been tragically, horribly made plain, we go and claim a privilege (return to Zion) by violence and manipulation that should be solely in God’s bailiwick to grant and effect.
You call that superiority? Because some of us are clever with numbers?
Ah, I shouldn’t criticise, persecution can drive people crazy.
You one seriously cool guy, Mooser. I think I like you as much as Phil and Adam. Humility is an extraordinarily attractive quality; in anyone.
Of course, I say this only to flatter you since I need a bit of help here…I think “THE QUESTION” should be changed to “Is it good for the Italians”. I am just not sure how to bring this about. Any suggestions would be most appreciated.
That’s actually a great mind-expanding idea–wondering out loud in any Middle East policy discussion–”Is it good for the Italians?”
Wha’ happenned? I write a post, and everybody gets it? I’ve had it with you people! I’m going home, where everybody misunderstands me.
You know, I once asked my wife, who is sort of a Bible scholar, what,( according to the Prophets) got God most pissed off about the Israelites. She didn’t even have to hesitate and replied “Adultery and whoring after false Gods!”
And has anything changed, really?
Mooser, I seem to agree with you here. Even the more-intelligent-than-other-tribes-meme ultimately has antisemitic roots.
Concerning superiority. Were I Phil, I would ask myself if I could misjudge my experience as specifically Jewish? How would you compare? I don’t think bias is something specifically Jewish.
Not that it matters much, but I sense a similarity to the use of nigger in the black community. Don’t forget the large shadows of the Holocaust. Cannot humiliation, degradation result in a feeling of superiority in a way? Black Americans adopted the word nigger, used it with pride.
You say we are useless, we tell you we are the best, the most clever, the most beautiful.
But I’ll shut up again.
I like your wife’s wisdom. It feels right. You can’t stem the tide.
Moose’s da man.
If I were Israeli and thought that a single state solution would resemble South Africa I would fight it to the bitter end.
. . . to the bitter end.
Yes, that is how many want it. Unfortunately we may all get to see what ‘the bitter end’ looks like in a few years.
And join the tradition of terrorism up on the Sacred Mountain?
It’s interesting that Jews romanticize this resistance-unto-death thing for themselves, but demonize Arabs for resisting.
One of the things I’ve noted about the whole Israel-Palestine issue is, generally, anything that the Palestinians get accused of doing either A) has a Zionist antecedent (e.g. King David Hotel) and it only becomes wrong when someone else is doing it; or B) is something that the Israelis themselves are doing, not the Palestinians (e.g. human shields)
You know the history of the sicarii, who died on Masada? Terrorists.
If I recall correctly, the guys at Massada fought the Roman occupiers fair and square, regardless of what one may think of their mass suicide (a subject endlessly debated by Zionist youth groups when I was a lad). The Sicarii (also known as the Biryonim) on the other hand, were indeed terrorists, who specialised in eliminating other Jews whom they felt were too conciliatory toward the Romans. One of their best-known “operations” (as recounted in the Talmud and Josephus) was the burning of Jerusalem’s ample grain stores, in order to bring the Roman siege to a head and, they hoped, force the people to fight. Although condemned in Jewish tradition, a couple of modern-day Zionist terrorist groups (Brit Habiryonim, Sikarikim) have drawn inspiration from them.
The Zionist use of the Massada story/myth is a fascinating subject in itself.
exactly, ethnocentric Jews and Zionists are not the only people who do this though
it’s Europeans as well in general.
just think of all those movies where a hero goes insane, kills lots of people, but is redeemed in the end and everyone loves him (anakin skywalker).
i mean, it’s not even the fight to the death idea it’s the redemption for a psychopath idea
for all the technological accomplishments a person or nation or people can have – it says NOTHING about their morality
someone who is ethnocentric s ethnocentric – that’s the first word. what Zionism should teach people is how ordinary ethnocentric Jews are from other ethnocentric ‘peoples’
the same kind of hate and racism and the same kind of lies and mythology utilized to keep the ideology afloat transcends race and religion
Another terrific, probing, honest post. Phil is the best writer in America on this issue, barnone.
I have a close friend from South Africa and his parents’ garden looks the same if not better today, under black rule, as it did under white. So maybe it’s a bit irrational to think that the quality of life or certain cultural characteristics will inevitably change if Palestinians get to have a say in a democracy. Frankly I think it’s yet another case of Jewish/Zionist projection–having imposed so heavily on the Palestinians, they imagine the Palestinians doing the same to them. Nothing of the sort has happened in South Africa, as far as I can tell. The whites aren’t required to wear African fabrics and speak Bantu and live like the African population. And they don’t.
Owning up to the superiority complex is such an important part of addressing Western imperialism — beit in the form of Zionism or American military aggression in Afghanistan/Pakistan/Iraq. It’s not just a Jewish thing, though that is a valid specific context Phil’s qualified to talk about, but an American and Western thing. We think we are the greatest civilization since humans fell out of the trees, despite the fact we are constantly at war, our economic system generates massive poverty and endless debt, and we are driving the planet toward ecocide. Some serious self-reflection is in order.
But our Zionist friends would rather that we look down on the Arabs (and bomb them).
“Another terrific, probing, honest post. Phil is the best writer in America on this issue, barnone.” I agree. None of the other blogs have any balls.
I echo your sentiments exactly.
This discussion is so important, so fundamental. And Phil does such a fantastic job illuminating the issues.
Agreed. Phil and Adam do a fantastic job and should be congratulated for it often.
“Jewish superiority” “racism”.
That is bullshit analysis. I’m certain there are many that exhibit feelings of superiority and express it institutionally.
The reason for Zionism currently is identity, not a dismissable construct of identity, but identity itself.
If you wish to question literally every basis of association by any, go ahead, but you will then end up questioning, “why am I associated with my brothers and sisters, I should disassociate, we have a vanity, and that is proof that we are guilty of something”.
Or, journalists. “Why do I have the superior rights of a journalist, who is immune from having to say “I”"?
Or, urbanites, or educated, or living on the earth, or 21st century.
Question the flow, the precedents of your identities. Go ahead, dive deep.
But, do not EVER seek to destroy the basis of others’ identity, apparently archaic or not, rhetorically “racist” or not.
Our Zionist friends, the ones that are my friends, would rather that we reconcile with the Arabs and befriend them, but as Jews, not as pariahs.
You published this one Phil. This is the poster child of a popular slogan that you and I resent.
Even on the question of “being governed by Arabs”, the basis of any acceptability of that is the characteristics that others can rely to be fairly and considerately governed.
There are MANY Arab individuals that deserve the status of that level of leadership, because of their individual characteristics (whether endemic to Arab communities, or exceptions). They don’t deserve it because they are Arabs though.
They deserve for their individual characteristics to be seen, to be respected, so that there is the option to choose to say, “I respect this individual. I trust his judgement. I empower him/her to governance.”
You are now advocating for ethnically profiled prohibitions from association, from leadership, from responsibility, based on your “inquiry”.
That is also a definition of racism, isn’t it?
Holy cow are you ever getting desperate, Witty. I’m sorry, but you’re not going to be able to build straw men faster than they’re going to catch fire, here.
But Richard, as I frequently note, Israeli governing coalitions routinely exclude Arab parties from their negotiations. So Barak formed a liberal government in ’99 without Arab parties/Knesset members, and had to call on rightwing religious factions to do so. And again this year, Netanyahu formed his governing coalition without Arab parties. So it’s not like they say, Some Palestinians are good, some are bad. No: they say, out of our government!
Also are you saying you never heard any of this stuff about Jews being smarter when we were young? It’s in Commentary every month. I think many Jews believe we’re smarter. And certainly our record of intellectual achievement is astonishing. Netanyahu uses this record of achievement to say, Forget about the occupation, Israel is vital to the world. That seems superior to me. Phil
“The elaboration of this attitude—which J Streeters seem to believe “Your thesis is NOT about Israeli actions, it is about Jewish identity, about the right to associate. I personally don’t give a shit if you met individuals that did express some Jewish chauvinism in some form, or that you detected what you suspected/imagined was some common theme, and that that was the same theme that you are intimately grappling with in your efforts to “remove racism” from your pallette.
When you generalize, and exagerate about those imagined racial characteristics, you indulge IN racism.
You express some shame that your mother said to you personally, “You are a special person. You are entitled to a good life.” (And part of that was expressed as “You are part of a great people. Your ancestors struggled to survive.” And then further, “We were suppressed for tens of generations. Your success will prove that we are capable individuals, that the lies told about us for generations, are lies.”)
Or, even that the Jewish people passed down a story of “God chosing them” in some trivial meaning of the term, rather than the feeling of a loved child that feels special because of the love, and general feeling of thankfulness over his/her individual or collective life (“We thank you for choosing us, to watch over us, to demand of us even.”)
Two rabbi friends of mine told the same story publicly over years. They probably heard it from some common source. That was of a Jew objecting to coming to shul, to praying some literal prayer together (rather than flexible and private), maybe of the peer pressure to put on a prayer shawl that they didn’t initiate. And, the Jew told the rabbi of his/her objections. “How can I believe in a God that does …..” To which the rabbi stated, “That God that you don’t believe in. I don’t believe in that God too.”
That is my attitude about the form of the interpretation of “chosen people” that some that you could call chauvenistic adopt. I LOVE the form of that that is primarily thankfulness. You can call that an exception if you like.
I encountered it in the metaphor of Krishna dancing with the cowherd girls, as a description of the intimacy of God with EVERY soul, including me, not an abstraction, not a thought, an intimacy.
Even the notion that Jews deserve a small slice of “God’s green earth” contrasts only with “Jews DON’T deserve any place on the planet to be comfortable”. If there is any either/or, that is it.
Yes or no? Should the Jewish people, which is a people, have any safe haven anywhere, any site of self-governance? Yes is Zionism. No is anti-Zionism. Only two choices. (Assimilation is an entirely different question. That is a question of how does a Jew survive during the conclusion “no, Jews don’t have a right to any safe haven”)
There is a next question from that, which is “what form should that take? What law, what policy, what behavior should be done?” And, to that I assert democratic. And, if the actual practice is less than that fully democratic, then dissent oriented to reform is rational, needed, supported.
But, the instant that urge to reform shifts to an urge to suppress, to answer “no” to the question “should Jews be able to self-govern, to voluntarily associate in sufficient critical mass to require state scale institutions, and safely”, then we are in DIFFERENT territory.
We are then not in “live and let live”, but in “I live, you die” (in the name of opposing suppression).
So, when you open a criticism of J Street, with in some form “it is another form of Jewish chauvenism” for simultaneously asserting the right of Jews to self-associate and the obligation to do so humanely, I cringe literally.
It is not a question of which political interpretation to derive from the observation of suffering (which I’m sure made you cringe. You are a compassionate human being.)
I get, and hope that I would too ask, “how could my people do this?”
And, the next question, “how can I get this to stop?” And, “Don’t our shared attitudes contribute to this?”
Those are the SAME questions that I ask routinely, and search for answers.
But, I search for those answers only within the pallette of “how can I make change in a manner that does not amplify suffering, short and long term?”
I NEVER go to theses that veil, or endorse in any way, a suppression of Jewish right to self-associate. I will NEVER adopt the view, “Zionism is racism”, EVER. I definitely will enthusiastically criticize forms of Zionism as inhumane, racist.
Jews have self-governed for 60 years as Jews (in a state) of the last 2000. It is still a humble exercise ultimately. Those two generations are new ones. Any conclusions or generalizations of “that is what will inevitably occur” are projections, changing depending on the conditions and leadership to make humane qualitative change.
I LOVE the dual nature of the Israeli basic laws. And I LOVE the dual nature of J Streets stated agenda. (Universalism in place, in community) (Not, no community, no place, only universalism).
Forward ever, backwards never.
Witty, you really gotta watch it with that “safe haven” stuff, you know? I mean, thanks to Albert Einstein, there is no “safe haven” anywhere for anybody. But anyway, as far as the “safe haven” goes, I find your faith in the Goldenah Medina quite touching. You know they could turn on us at any time!
Richard: The right to associate? That has nothing to do with what Israel is: a Jewish STATE, constructed (through violence) on the land of the Palestinians (and I mean that in the sense that it can also be the land of the Jews), and imposed on the Palestinian people. Regardless of the post-ethnic-cleansing “demographics”, that is so fundamentally wrong, and yes, racist. We shouldn’t even need to have this discussion.
Richard: do you understand what a state is? Maybe that is the problem here. The standard definition is Max Weber’s: “an entity which possesses a monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force”.
So when we talk about a Jewish state, we’re talking about the monopolized force of a state being wielded on behalf of a single ethnic group, rather than on behalf of the ruled (all equally). This is plainly a racist arrangement.
Part of the problem here is the laws, charters, and institutions of the state of Israel, which define it as belonging to Jews. Part of it is the ideology, which places the first priority on Jewish control of force, rather than on universal justice or any other value. Hence we have the discussions in Israeli politics about “transfer” of Palestinians, the “demographic threat” of their birthrates, and the unthinkability of allowing the return of refugees (a basic human right) or the enfranchisement of Palestinians under occupation (real democracy pending separation). Not to mention the Nakba, an intentional act of ethnic cleansing.
Because of this fixation on maintaining Jewish control over force, Israel is not properly a democracy, even a flawed one. It is an ethnocracy, an apartheid regime. A democracy grants either the vote, or independence to all its subjects. It can’t have it both ways, and deny both to some (based on ethnic preferences). Israel has had it both ways for over 40 years. That’s not an accident, and it’s certainly not democracy. It’s apartheid.
On “Jewish self-governance”:
States never govern within ethnic borders. They rule over territory. And no territory is ever ethnically homogeneous. Jews have a right to political enfranchisement, everywhere. All people do. That does not at all mean a Jewish state.
I am so strongly in favor of Jews’ right to live in Israel/Palestine, to be politically enfranchised there, and to have their human rights protected. The same for Palestinians. A Jewish state is not consistent with those rights, for Palestinians. It is a racist construct, and a colonial imposition on the Palestinian people.
Israel is defined in its basic laws as Jewish AND democratic, meaning Jewish haven in which minorities are to be guaranteed equal rights and equal due process under the law.
That is Zionism. Its a very good design. Possible, but difficult to live up to. Worthy of the attention of reform, not an attack on its identity.
The Palestinian right of return is not proposed to the descendants of Jews that resided in Palestine, but only to “real Palestinians”. Ethnic.
What are you talking about? The law of return of applies to all Jews. I’m not opposing that, given an equal right of return for Palestinians.
If the state is going to privilege or even acknowledge ethnicity, it is racist not to also acknowledge the other indigenous group of that territory. Why shouldn’t Israel be a Jewish and Palestinian haven?
And what should Israel do when a Jewish majority is threatened by peaceful processes (such as birthrates, or repatriation)? Is it not racist for the “demographic balance” to even be a consideration in politics, as it is so fundamentally in Israel? Doesn’t that always direct policy toward some form of ethnic cleansing? And if the concern is more with power than demographics, toward the disenfranchisement of minorities?
Even if Palestinians were perpetual minorities, not a threat to the “demographic balance”, don’t basic laws identifying the state with Jewish ethnicity prejudice the ability of that state to provide truly equal rights and protections under the law? The answer of course is yes. It always has done so in practice! When Israelis make policy that privileges Jews over Palestinians, they point to the “Jewish character” of the state as justification. Just as we point to “all men are created equal” and other basic doctrines of our government institutions to justify policies and proposals.And that’s why you would never want the United States to become a White democracy, or a democratic state of the Hispanic people.
Robin,
There is definitely a tension associated with “simultaneously Jewish AND democratic”, as there is a tension between any component AND democratic.
As MANY have stated about American democracy, it is an obligation of a citizen to vigilantly pursue reform towards democracy. That is true in Israel.
My comment was about the 5% of pre-1948 Palestine that was Jewish, that have not been offered a right of return to Palestine. Palestinian nationalism is very similarly ethnic (in the manner that you object to), not geographic.
Again, a prohibition against a people choosing the basis of their association and self-governance is a racially/ethnically screened prohibition, an arbitrary one.
People choose to be a coherent self-governing community for a wide variety of motivations, and then evolve/devolve from there. Again, Israel is Jewish as France is French. There are large minorities in France with full civil rights, that are not French-speaking or originating in French ancestry. But France is still French, not only civil, BOTH.
LOL! Oh, there is a tension, Witty? A tension? What, like the same sort of “tension” that existed in the Democratic Republic of Weimar?
Try again. Jews have full equality in France, non-Jews are second-class citizens in Israel. Here’s the Jewish pressure group which fights for policies in France that Jews consider suicidal in Israel:
link to licra.org
Richard, again, “Israel is Jewish as France is French,” is an incorrect analogy. The proper comparison would be “Israel is Israeli as France is French”. You are comparing a nationality with a religion or ethnicity. Any citizen of France is French, regardless of religion or ethnicity. A large minority of citizens of Israel are NOT Jewish, and thus are left wanting in a country that defines itself by the ethnicity or religion of its majority. And in fact, Israel, which covets the occupied territories, denies citizenship of those who were ethnically cleansed within the green line and of those whom Israel rules over in the West Bank and Gaza, based solely on their ethnicity and religion. That is not democracy, it is ethnocracy.
I think if you ask most Arabs in France, they would similarly say that Arabs are second-class citizens in France.
That is not a good thing, better that they be first-class citizens, by right and earned.
The dual nature of nationality and democracy are not oil and water. They are soluble.
Witty, the difference is that a kid with a Brooklyn accent or a Russian who changes his name to something Jewish-sounding can’t go to France, be fast-tracked to citizenship and then get subsidized to live in a home built on land taken from the natives by military force.
“The dual nature of nationality and democracy are not oil and water.”
Again, Richard. “Jewish” is not a nationality. The nationality is Israeli. “Jewish” is a religious or ethnic descriptor. Just as either “Christian” (religious) or “white” (ethnic) would be. Do you understand that if the US legally described itself as the nation of all whites that it would cease to be a democracy and instead be an ethnocracy?
The parallel between European nationalism and Zionism is an accurate one. Its been criticized as anachronistic, on the assertion that the world has moved more towards the US version of democracy. But, Europe is still nationalist by definition.
Its not for everybody. I don’t live there. I live in commercial America, and want to live in ecological America (which I am working on).
The usage of the term “nation” is that the Jews were/are a people (self-identifying as Jews, and often also as Germans, or French, or Polish), and following the “last straw” of pogroms culminating in the holocaust, NEEDED to coalesce for refreshment of our survival and identity. And, to do that (among the European diaspora, and later formerly Arab diaspora), they required an actual state with borders and international recognition.
The late 20th century was more the era of establishment of national states, than the era of dissolution of nationalism.
Israel was earlier than the nationalization of Eastern Europe.
Again, Jewish and democratic are soluble, if Israelis and others accept that identity. Otherwise, Israel goes to war, with war mentality (now becoming permanent). The war mentality motivating the far less democratic sentiments, and features.
Palestinian nationalism whether two or one-state, of any flavor, do not offer Jews/Israelis anywhere near the degree of safety and identity that is needed (not just desired).
I see you ignored my question to you, as usual.
Only in terms of “romantic” or “ethnic nationalism”, as practiced, for one, in Nazi Germany. Hence the common parallels between Nazi Germany and present day Israel.
Self-identifying as a Jew, or as a Christian, or a Hindu or a Buddhist, does not constitute nationhood, nor does it give one the right to expel other people from land you covet, put them under occupation, nor does it give one the right to “self-govern” at the expense of the rights of those not belonging to your favored identity group. That is not democracy and is not compatible with democracy. I self-identify as a woman. Does that give me the right to come take your home and treat you as a second-class citizen with the excuse that I am doing so as my right to ‘self-govern” as a woman?
Again, a perfect example of your hypocrisy. “Jewish nationalism”, in your view, is OK and will protect the non-Jewish minority even though it has epically failed at that protection for over one hundred years. “Palestinian nationalism”, which has yet to be tried, is already judged by you to be incapable of that protection, even though “Palestinian” does not necessarily preclude “Jewish” as a part of the nation, whereas “Jewish” precludes anyone non-Jewish from being part of the nation. And further, you only mention concerns about safety and identity for Jews, when it is the Palestinians who face daily threats to their safety and identity in and from Jewish Israel.
Richard, to the extent that Palestinian nationalism really is that way (seeking an ethnocracy), it is problematic. But Palestinian nationalism is beside the point: it is not properly in power (so not only is its inequity mostly hypothetical, but there is no definitive and realized idea of the state to point to, so you can’t even talk about it as “ethnocratic” or “not ethnocratic”), and it’s not beholden to massive U.S. support. And furthermore Israel, by its example and the framework it directly pushes on Palestinians, encourages Palestinians not to think beyond ethnocratic nationalism.
For so many reasons, the issue is Israel–its very basic failure to recognize the rights and legitimate wishes of its indigenous Palestinians. A “Jewish State” says to them: you have no power or respect in your own land. It is both a symptom and a cause of Palestinian disenfranchisement. Precisely because it ignores their wishes, it had to be imposed by force with mass ethnic cleansing (and you call it a good!).
Equality is the only possible result of a negotiation free of coercion. One-state or two, an overarching politics that fundamentally affirms both peoples’ right to live and be protected and be represented politically in all of Israel/Palestine. That’s still a Jewish haven, the motivation for which is understandable.
And, I would like to hear you respond to my question about the consideration of a “demographic balance” as a concern of politics. Is there any way in which that does not point toward ethnic cleansing in some form (except arguably in immigration policy, though of course Palestinians are not immigrants to Palestine)?
The degree of democracy within Israel is in flux.
Again, similar to France, Israel is both Jewish and democratic (at least in basic law), with need for reform to achieve it.
The issue of Palestinian nationalism is by no means irrelevant. Thats if you are seeking democracy in fact in the region.
It is the key to democracy either in a single-state, bi-national state, or two-state.
In the currently only likely prospect, a two-state, it is the characteristic that enables peace to come to pass, the prospect of two democracies living side by side. To the extent that there are interlocking minorities in the two democratic states, there is then the possibility of some evolution to bi-nationalism. To the extent that minorities in each are excluded or suppressed, there is no possibility of bi-nationalism.
Its odd that any advocate for single-state or bi-national state would ignore that, and instead pursue a punitive approach, also based on or triggered by ethnicity.
It is true that Virginians at one point thought of themselves as Virginians, and morphed into Americans. Maybe similar is possible to Israelis and Palestinians.
It is not true with any party’s formula, intent, to remove the other. Its not true with likud, and not true with Hamas.
Only the moderate mutual acceptance view, is democratic.
The anti-Zionist view, as in active opposition to the desire to self-associate for Jews, is a racism.
“The degree of democracy within Israel is in flux.”
Yes, and it was in flux in 1930′s Germany as well, Witty. How very comforting.
Also — “similar to France?” Really, Witty? So if France is a Jewish AND democratic state, what purpose does Israel serve? You know, just for the sake of argument.
Did you read what I wrote, Richard? I called for a:
“politics that fundamentally affirms both peoples’ right to live and be protected and be represented politically in all of Israel/Palestine.”
Israel is the single largest inconsistency with that ideal. I would describe any philosophy or institution opposed to that ideal as being bigoted. Would you?
“Did you read what I wrote, Richard?”
If you intend to keep trying to engage RW, you must learn, grasshopper, that this is the wrong question. A better question would be “Does it make any difference at all what I write?” The best question of all, however, is “Why am I wasting my time with this guy?”
When you learn to ask that question, then you are on the path that leads to enlightenment. Plus fewer encounters with trolls.
Robin,
Its a good goal. The notion of a Jewish nation, with the features of a state protecting that Jewish nation, is still relevant.
The Jewish basic law defining Israel as Jewish AND democratic is an excellent model, not a model to be ashamed of, or conflicts with democracy at all.
It takes commitment AND respect to realize.
Again and again, the single-state approach does NOT represent a prospect for safe haven status for Jews in the foreseeable future, not without intentional efforts to reconcile at a social and attitudinal level.
That conflicts with the mode of political dissent which insists that Israelis are to be shamed for their desire to self-govern. BDS is a component of that, especially if BDS is imprecise and punitive in spirit.
Criticism of policy and behavior, especially if related to the increase in the weight of “democratic” in Jewish AND democratic.
Israel is not the US. The people are different, with different history, formative ideological experiences, in a different part of the world. Any projection of our part onto to Israel is that, a projection. The attention that you bring to review your attitudes against prejudices towards Arabs, are also needed in consideration of Israel.
There are MANY Israelis still that do reflect philosophically towards a humane and democratic balance. And, it is true that many of them are migrating to the US, that Israel is keeping the more right-wing, and some of the more liberal Israelis are moving to the US. Avraham Burg, Bernard Avishai, others.
But, also, MANY progressive Israelis remain, insistently Zionist, patriotic, and dissenting simultaneously.
Donald,
If you think of this site as solely a left and left-right thinking site, or a rallying site only (for the purpose of uniting the dissenting politically correct position), then practice academic or cultural boycott is called for.
If Phil, or others, regard actual dialog with liberals as relevant (and not with some radical badge of participation), then respectfully considering how one could rationally hold the views that I and others do, is a more relevant manner of discussion.
You sadly describe a failure to organize around goals, instead establishing a litmus test of organizing around reactions and interpretations of events.
It is NOT an effective strategy for developing anything close to any mass movement, especially if you rant at and insult your allies.
Oooh. Well this article hit a bit close to home for someone, huh?
Weiss wonders, Witty whines.
Since 2007.
“would rather that we reconcile with the Arabs and befriend them, but as Jews, not as pariahs.”
Don’t worry Richard, under a one-state solution only those Israelis convicted of war crimes or crimes against humanity will be piriahs. I mean, you can’t have anthing against prosecuting criminal, can you? I’m sure the great majority of Israelis have nothing to fear.
And Richard, nobody is proposing doing anything to “Jews”, just Israelis, who are criminals.
“The reason for Zionism currently is identity, not a dismissable construct of identity, but identity itself.”
Witty, even someone as ignorant as I knows that political Zionism is not essential to Jewish identity. It was originally, and still is currently, an overlay onto Jewish identity – especially for American Jews.
“Witty, even someone as ignorant as I knows that political Zionism is not essential to Jewish identity”
Actually, it’s more important to know that Judaism is not essential to Zionism. Not at all. It could have been done under any rubric, anything that would hook the rubes. Now, it is true that the persecutions of Jews in Europe created Jewish “raw material” for the Zionists. Apart from that, the way in which it was done was common to many other schemes. There was nothing “Jewish” about it. Does a guy rob a bank in a “Jewish” way? If you want to replace people in lands they think of as theirs, you gotta kill ‘em, or scare them away, or both. Doesn’t matter if you light candles on Friday, that’s what you gotta do.
And now the Zionists want to make the Jewish religion just one big apologetic for and celebration of colonial dispossession and expansionist war.
I ask you this: If the people wishing to put a Western colony in Palestine were not Jewish , and based their colonial appeal on something else (re-claiming the Holy Land for Christ, plus great beaches?) would their actions have been any different. Would they not first, have appealed to and dickered with the reigning colonial power, and then tried, at whatever cost, to establish the facts on the ground to their perceived advantage? What could they possibly do any different?
Time and time again, you’ve shown that you’re no liberal in any functional sense of the word, Witty. I would appreciate it if you stopped stealing the appellation.
“Liberals and racism”
Very good, Rich. Now read the rest of the post.
“I speak for myself when I say that a basic respect for the Other, which was lacking in my own background, is key to going forward.”
Good point. I request that you consider the ways that you also regard the Jewish community as “other”, so you don’t indulge in any reverse racism in fact.
Reverse racism? Jewish community as the other? Witty? Phil is Jewish. Or did you just excommunicate him with your magical Zionist powers?
Witty seems to have a big advantaghe over me, I’ll admit it! Knowing the world as I do, I’m sure someone who considers Judaism or Jewishness a mitigating factor in crimes would have a much greater scope for accomplishment than one who considers his Judaism or Jewishness a reason to not be criminal. There’s just so many more things he can do!
Too many forget the racial part of anti-Semitism in history. WWI era cartoons of swarthy complexioned Eastern European Jews with angry scowls, scraggly beards, and big hooked noses, regularly appear in the US media though now invariably dressed as Middle-Eastern mullahs. In spite of the fact that it may be Jews in the media who draw such cartoons or okay their publication, it is absurd to categorize these updated images as anything but anti-Semitic.
White racists cheerfully endorse the mutual extermination of Israeli Jews and Palestinians by each other. The extermination of Christian Palestinians is fine with those racists because they are not white. Is it believable that the racism they express for Israeli Jews is anti-Semitic but the racism they express for Palestinians is a different kind of racism? Though her brother-in-law is a Lebanese Catholic, is Erica Jong’s “Arabs and other animals” reference anti-Christian or is it a racist anti-Semitic one? Young drunken racist American Jews in Israel captured in Max Blumenthal’s videos are intended to remind us that too many Jews are so assured of their whiteness that they are comfortable with their racism.
The distinction between Persian and Arab is a cultural one. No such distinction is made with the images of Middle-Eastern mullahs, which are purely racial, anti-Semitic, to be specific. What happens when young defenseless children see these images in our media no matter that they are Jewish, Arab, Persian, Christian, Moslem? Should we care?
We should, but so long as there is oil over there, we will do whatever to keep Arabs and Muslims looking like animals.
They will be treated as such and in the meantime we’ll get 100 movies every year about the Holocaust and subtle humanized imagery of Jews (propaganda in the context of the comparison between Jews and Arabs and in light of the fact that Hollywood is Zionist).
Life isn’t fair already. It doesn’t have to touch the I-P conflict. But once it does, it’s not only fair, it’s oppressive. I mean, we’re always hearing even Leftist Jews soft peddle Israeli crimes because they want reconciliation.
This imagery is bad enough. But the reality is worse and it’s daily. The occupation is daily. Think of how often people have stupid debates about anti-Jewish attitudes. Or how many times we have to see a Jew and Arab hold hands like this is all a misunderstanding when it has nothing to do with that.
It’s only because this is the WORST case of identity politics EVER in modern times. By ‘worst’ I mean, most effective for dishonest and IMO evil reasons.
Jews are not only humanized, but their identity constitutes a social pressure and taboo.
So even if a Jew kills an Arab (happens ALL the time) – they get away with it. Always. And no one says anything. If they do, they are Jewish and that’s meaningless. When Arabs in this country are able to muster something more than a worthless 70K to mobilize people to the TRUTH (not a cause, the goddamn TRUTH!) then we’ve made progress and we can finally not just overcome Zionism but also the intellectually dishonest imagery of identity politics.
Lies, endless lies spun by ethnocentric Jews in our intelligentsia. And they will continue lying. They’ll write their memoirs. They’ll end up at distinguished Universities. They’ll be awarded Presidential Medals of “freedom”. It’s all a big joke.
I can’t imagine how this dishonesty can last. I hope the Arabs keep fighting. Never give up.
Yeah, that’s the mental pitter-patter that’s being peddled, and because most Americans lack a basic education in world history, they buy this shit, Jews included.
The fact of the matter is the polar opposite. Read How Eurocentric Is Your Day? by M. Shahid Alam link to z.pe
for a quick look at what most Americans dont know about what they use today. The great Arabic cultures produced our math, chemistry, optics, astronomy, and sciences. They perfected architecture and poetry. (The first poem ever was written by an Iraqi woman around 5,000 BC.) They invented the university, long before one was parked in England. Jews dont have this history; they were stuck in shtels for 1500 years unless they escaped the system that didn’t allow you to question the Rabbi or think for yourself, and went to a country where they were allowed intellectual freedom.
Why dont we know about all this? Many of the Arabic cultures that were ruled by kings destroyed all history of the previous King’s history in order to rewrite how the new one was appointed by god, and his divine whatever. The only record, in some instances, of previous kings is coinage (entire depts at the U. of Chicago are devoted to this). The Arabs were always the intellectuals of the world; ditto the Persians. They excelled in medicine, literature, government, and commerce. But we dont know that because we uneducated Americans only know one fucking language, and can read no other. We can’t read source documents. We are the ignoramuses. So many buy these tall tales that Israeli Jews are smarter than any other, that their culture represents some new standard, when the truth is they were such peasants that they didn’t even know there were enlightened nation states to copy other than the badly mangled and mismanaged Eastern European ones around them in the lands they came from. I’ll say it again: they were the Boys from Bialystock, no more enlightened than Avigdor Lieberman. Crude, vulgar, always ready to pick fight, lacking in philosophical finesse, education and statesmanship, and use neanderthal violence to get their way. The urbane, intelligent, and memorable Jews of the past 1800 years were the ones who escaped the prison of their religious edicts and made their mark in assimilated societies. But to discover that, you have to read a lot of history.
Regarding Arab society’s alleged backwardness- this is not disproved by ancient history. No one disputes the great contributions that Arab society gave to the world between the death of Mohammed and being conquered by the Mongols in 1250. But what have they produced lately? (759 years) It seems to me- not much. They might have invented the university, but name one world class university in the Arab world today. Where do they go to get a decent education- to the West. What are the number of books translated from other languages into Arabic?
I base my opinions on a cursory reading of headlines referring to the UN Development program. If I am wrong, enlighten me.
There is some validity to the lack of progress of Jews who reacted to modernity by shunning it, but there were some Jews who did not totally assimilate and brought modernity to their societies.
“Crude, vulgar, always ready to pick fight, lacking in philosophical finesse, education and statesmanship, and use neanderthal violence to get their way. The urbane, intelligent, and memorable Jews of the past 1800 years were the ones who escaped the prison of their religious edicts and made their mark in assimilated societies.”
This is a crude vulgar assertion lacking historical finesse and attributing everything to assimilation and nothing to Jewish values. The Jewish value of books and learning was transferred from the Talmud to other courses of study. It is true that the stars for the most part escaped religious edicts, but who can deny that iconoclastic tendencies, modes of logical and even illogical thought and bookish propensities were not the keys to their success as well. And where did those tendencies come from?
Racism! It’s not just for liberal Jews like Witty. Apparently stone-hearted right wing Ziocons like WJ get in on the act pretty well too.
So tell us, WJ? What’s your opinion on Africans? Or the Chinese?
My definition of racism has to do with genetics, rather than culture. It seems rather clear that certain cultures are in a state of stasis or decay and others are not.
I don’t think that makes me racist.
But what have they produced lately? (759 years)
Here ya’ go: link to z.pe
WJ, I actually thought that quote (from MRW) was by some 19th century German Jew writing about the Ostjüden!
I agree with some of your points, except I’d add that the US and Israel have consistently thwarted any attempt by middle eastern states to develop. We bomb them if they get too strong (Lebanon, Iraq…now Iran?) or else install and support corrupt leaders who will serve our interests.
Oh, so your into eugenics, then WJ? Gee, what a surprise.
Gosh, wondering Jew, if we are so cool, why did God turn His face from us? Remember, He even stopped the sun in its tracks to help us win a battle. And then he dropped us, and let the Romans shit all over us. What happened, smartie? Was the Roman Empire more powerful than God? I really doubt it.
You know pal, you can’t just pick and choose the parts you like. Why don’t you man up and face up to what your spiritual condition is, as a Jew. I know it’s more fun to be in a priapic land-fetish cult, but you gotta resist that whoring-after-false-Gods thing, you know?
Chaos with the “racist” card once again. And, as if explaining to a five-year-old, we have to repeat: there’s nothing racist in pointing out statistics you can find in a UN report. If I note that African-Americans make less than their white counterparts, that’s not racist! You’re like the undergrad who answers all the questions on his exam using the same incorrect logic, and still doesn’t get it even when someone points out his mistake.
What’s racist, carnas, is using those statistics to prove that another group is intellectually, culturally or morally deficient.
How come you guys are always nasty? Like, always? Unfailingly? I mean at least most white people where I live are polite racists. How come Zionists are cruel as well as racist? I mean, you guys are even vicious to other Jews.
wj did not try to “prove that another group is intellectually, culturally or morally deficient”. The point was that Arab society, in its current makeup, does not encourage intellectual development – this is not an inherent property of Arabs, it’s something about the way they currently run things. Obviously, things were different in the past and might be different in the future.
So instead of calling him a racist, it would do more good to think about what could encourage reform in the Arab world, although the Arabs will have to do the work, if they want to.
Oh, yes, indeed, carnas. The so-called “white man’s burden,” huh.
You Zionist supremacists make me sick. Not just that you think you’re better than the Arabs — it’s that your little country wouldn’t exist except that it’s a charity case for the Western world. That without the American taxpayer’s teat to suckle, you’d be just another cult of cultural supremacists living on the margins.
But Carnas, didn’t you see my post? It does not suit the interests of the US or Israel for the Arab/Muslim world to reform, and we make sure it doesn’t happen.
If we can’t install a compliant dictator, we destroy the country. Israel took care of Lebanon, we took care of Iraq, and apparently Iran is next (although it isn’t really Arab, it tends to be lumped in).
Who to believe: the CEO of Google or an uneducated, ignorant poster on Mondoweiss?
“JG: Go to one final thing, something that struck me when I was reading this book. You have a boycott movement in Europe, but in the U.S., too, you have forces that want to delegitimize Israel. I realized in reading this that it would be quite something to go tell Intel or Google or IBM to divest from Israel.
DS: They’ll never do it. I mean, it’s impossible. What various companies told us is that if they had to shut down operations in India tomorrow, they could survive because it’s basically a lot of outsourcing and a lot of call centers. They said if we had to shut down our operations in Ireland, we could survive. But what one person after another told us is that the one place in the world that would devastating for them to have shut down would be Israel, because they put so much of their mission-critical work and R&D in Israel. The Intel story we tell is amazing, this key chip that was central to Intel taking off was designed and then manufactured in Israel, so it would be devastating to these companies to lose Israel. And one more thing — the most interesting data point on all of this is that European venture capitalists invest more in Israel than they do in any single European economy.
JG: Is that true?
DS: Yes and, to me, that says it all. For all the ranting from Europe about boycotts and attempts at boycotts, that’s not what European capital is doing. In terms of the U.S., this is even more true. I don’t want to oversimplify, but who do think is more important to Barack Obama: The head of J Street or Eric Schmidt at Google? And if Eric Schmidt said that his company would be devastated if Israel came off-line — and we interviewed Schmidt and he talked about the importance of Israel — then I think I know the answer. “
Of course CEOs making piles of money in Israel don’t like BDS and will take every opportunity to tell us how impossible it is and how it’ll never happen. They did the same with SA. Pols don’t like boycotts either. It is up to grassroots to create the momentum. I can’t say whether it will ever work, but I certainly won’t take a CEO with vested interests’ word for it.
I’m guessing carnas would have been ardent fans of Jack Abramoff and the International Freedom Foundation, back in the day, huh?
Oooh, a Jeffrey Goldberg interview with Dan Senor! Now there’s two objective sources on Israel! One’s American and fought for the IDF, the other’s an AIPACer and worked for Bush! Both thought invading Iraq was a brilliant idea! These are two guys Americans can really trust!
Besides the Goldbergian staple of pretending that Zionism has been a victimless crime (Goldberg: “They’ve written a book that doesn’t examine Israel through the prism of its conflict with the Arabs”! Woohoo!), the two also get right into the Jewish superiority thing that Phil just wrote about, despite falling all over themselves to pretend they harbor nothing of the sort:
JG: One thing about the book that’s interesting to me is that it seems that you’re trying very hard not to say, ‘Well, of course if you put a bunch of Jews in a room, that weird Jewish brain will create something.”
DS: We were very self-conscious about that.
JG: Because it’s wrong? Because it’s stereotypical? Because you don’t believe it?
DS: We believe that there are lessons that developing and developed economies can learn from Israel, and that there are prescriptions for the U.S. that can be taken from Israel, and if it is simply about the fact that Jews are smart, well-educated and good at business, it completely undermines the notion that there is anything transferable. We really believe that. We’re not naïve; there are certain dynamics that are unique to Israel that cannot be, and should never be, tried elsewhere.
JG: Judaism: Don’t try this at home.
DS: Exactly, but we think that’s only part of it.
Chaos, sometimes I wonder if the carnas phenomenon isn’t just one thoroughly nasty guy with a few hundred internet handles, who spends all day and night leaving a trail of bile and malice. Because they all sound exactly alike.
And if Eric Schmidt said that his company would be devastated if Israel came off-line — and we interviewed Schmidt and he talked about the importance of Israel — then I think I know the answer.
This is truly laughable nonsense. The vast majority of high-tech ‘capital’ is human. Buying a new building somewhere else and relocating a few thousand employees and their families is hardly beyond the means of large profitable companies like Google. This is what will eventually happen as Israel slides deeper into reviled apartheid.
If the Israeli branch of an corporation’s operations are so critical to its continued existence, much less something like mere profitability, does anyone think its shareholders (Google for example is a publicly traded company; its management at least in theory serve at the pleasure of shareholders), who want profits, not biblical entitlement frippery, are going to let their massive investments slide down the toilet by not relocating and safeguarding essential assets? Which is more likely when Israel becomes an unacceptably risky place to do business, Google successfully intervening to convince the rest of the planet that ethnic cleansing and colonization really are ok, or Google pulling out to save their company?
A lot of good arguments can be made for Israeli contributions to the world. However, I feel embarrassed for the poor fools who try the ‘you just can’t do without us’ spiel. I hate to break it to you exceptionalists, but we can indeed do without you. No one is vital. The world will keep going when you are gone. The world will keep going when I am gone. The world will keep going when Google, Intel, and Microsoft are gone. No individual, company, or government lasts forever. As long as there is money to be made and human intellect in need of spiritual gratification from the pursuit of excellence, someone will step up to the plate to meet needs. I’d close by saying ‘get over yourselves’, but I suspect this bizarre attitude stems more from insecurity than arrogance.
Once again, Shmuel at November 6, 2009 at 8:44 am has the proper response. Who the hell is Dan Senor? He’s all over TV right now publicizing his book and acting as if he owns the networks. Cocky as hell. Claiming the ridiculous things that AIPAC did in the exhibits at its last convention, things like Israel invented the cell phone. Jesus! These people must think that no one knows how to use google. (Dr. Martin Cooper created the first cell phone using the new packet network and proved it on the streets of Manhattan around 1973 or 1974. Remember those Motorola cellphone bricks that everyone used for a decade? Dr. Martin Cooper. Not Israel.)
Watch the intro to the 1001 Inventions of the Muslim world here. Scroll down to the comments section to catch the YouTube.
link to pulsemedia.org
The Nobel prizes were 20th C inventions. The number of inventions that the Arabic world came up with are inventions you are using today. link to z.pe
Scroll down to the section State More Important Than Jews and start reading from there. link to z.pe
And dont ignore the section Little Understanding of Free Societies .
I hit the wrong REPLY button. This was meant for WJ.
Mooser – The morality of the Jewish position in I/P vis a vis the Palestinians at this point in time is not something that I was commenting on. I was commenting on a few specific lines typed by MRW.
My position is that there is a bridge that is halfway built between war and peace and that bridge is called the Clinton parameters or the Geneva “Accord” and to neglect that halfway built bridge because it is lacking in justice for the Palestinians will result in continued warfare. I am not a land fetishist, although I think it is unreasonable to expect the Israelis to give up sovereignty over the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem and over the Western Wall. I recognize the Jewish history that has led the Jewish people to this point of time and I cannot dismiss it with a wave of my hand and suggest that my concept of God and religion replace the concept of God and religion that others possess.
I think that the intifadeh was meant to scare the Jews into packing their suitcases and leaving and those who didn’t pack their suitcases are not interested in leaving and most of those who talk about a one state solution would be perfectly happy if nine tenths of the Jews left Israel Palestine. I think the genocide of the Jewish people in Europe ripped a pretty large hole in the Jewish heart and Zionism was “meant” to cure that tear, but it is essentially a failure in that regard.
I think that a reading of the Jewish prayerbook indicates the central aspect that Jerusalem played in the Jewish imagination throughout the last two thousand years and to ignore that because it strikes one as a land fetish, is to define the Jewish religion in one’s own image rather than in the image of those who composed the prayer book. I think the Jewish people are in crisis and your rhetoric might make you feel better but it is self righteous and does not serve the purpose of dialogue with those who disagree with you.
Are you forgetting, WJ, that all through the Accords, Israel accelerated colonization of the West Bank? And then continued it indiscriminately thereafter? So basically they broke their word? And that’s your example of Israeli moral superiority?
“I think the Jewish people are in crisis ….”
wj, it would be quite helpful if you would elaborate on why you think the Jewish “people” are in crisis. I, for one, would very interested in reading your opinions about that.
CMI- You have forced me to think and before my head starts hurting too much I will put my thoughts down in this reply box.
The Jewish people are in crisis.
As I have stated elsewhere the advent of modernity and the secularism that came with it exerts special pressure on the Jewish people because of the high content of religion in their self definition. True it is possible to be a Jewish atheist in a way that one cannot be a Catholic atheist, nonetheless there is a type of self denial involved. (If one eats on Yom Kippur is one an antisemite? I asked my father. No, but if one holds a party on Yom Kippur to celebrate eating on Yom Kippur then you’re an antisemite, he answered.)
Whereas an individual can lose his faith in God or the divine origin of the Torah and still read Tanach, Talmud, Jewish history or Kafka in his room and feel a connection with the Jewish past, the question of the Jewish community or Jewish continuity raises questions that cannot be answered by an individual connection. The inevitablity of Jewish assimilation (with intermarriage as its most glaring symptom of finality) in a predominantly nonJewish society seems self evident unless one shuns society as the ultra Orthodox attempt to do. The tensions of wishing to be like everyone else, but wishing to maintain identity are experienced both by the Jew and the nonJew with painful results for both.
But my comment regarding the Jewish crisis was more oriented towards Zionism and specifically leftist Zionism. Beginning in the days of the first intifadeh and ending with the eruption of the second intifadeh, there was an optimism amongst leftist Zionists that there was a future of peace and all that was lacking was sufficient will and if only we could be sufficiently optimistic and refuse to plant that seed of failure known as pessimism, peace would be at hand. Whether this optimism was misplaced to begin with or was undermined by Israeli policy, it seems today that such optimism was/is childish and reality has crushed it cruelly.
And in its place is the doctrine of “we must show how cruel we can be”.
I think the Jewish religion in America will survive in various forms: Ultra orthodoxy will remain more or less as today. Modern Orthodoxy- where the most interesting recent phenomenon is the women’s liberation movement and a move towards separate but equal. On the other end of the spectrum is the Reform movement – that does not necessarily incorporate practices and beliefs of Christianity into the services and thus become truly syncretic, but whose membership does practice both Christmas and Chanuka at home- thus a membership syncretism. The middle ground between this Reform Judaism and Modern Orthodoxy will be increasingly deserted.
Which returns me to the Zionist aspect. There is a large element that accepts the inevitability of a prolonged conflict, which seems to imply the necessity for periodic attacks like Lebanon three years ago and Gaza last year. Necessity is the mother of invention they say. But the group that felt that peace was just around the corner are certainly in crisis.
Holy Goddam that was stupid, Wondering. First you tell me about how we are so intelligent, than you say that we have this huge religious make-up, that you say you can be a Jewish Atheist. You are just blowing nonsense out your ass.
WJ – those remarks are insightful.
I read a piece recently at Ynet about the Leonard Cohen concert. Cohen, apparently, is not a practicing Jew, or entirely a practicing Jew, but he gave a priestly blessing at the concert. And according to the author of the article, a lot of the secular audience didn’t recognize it. The author says she is not religious but she has a strong attachment to the Jewish culture, an outgrowth of the religion. That there is something to value in traditions originating in a religion even if you do not believe in the the religion is true.
I strongly agree with this.
And I think this is a sense in which a person can really be a Catholic atheist – that Catholicism is the religion in which they don’t believe, but the traditions are still part of their identity.
I should note that my own anti-occupation group has witnessed this effect. We’re blessed in that we have a number of Palestinians themselves involved in it, but we’ve seen friction (generally distantly, but still) caused by well-meaning groups who’ve decided “what’s best for the Palestinians” without actually asking any Palestinians. From what I’ve heard, that’s why Norman Finkelstein — who I respect, still — pulled out of the Gaza Freedom March. He wasn’t willing to let the Palestinians speak for themselves in it (he thought it would politicize the march in a way he didn’t approve of).
The fact that you’re even asking these tough questions of yourself, Mr. Weiss, is a credit to you. It’s an issue I confronted and answered for myself early on when I decided it was time to rid myself of the reflexive, culturally instituted racism of which I’d become aware, painfully, that I had.
What you are seeing from Witty and Wondering Jew is what happens when Jews can’t hang on to their own religious identity, for one reason or another. They spend so much time around Christians (culturally speaking) that they forget what being Jewish means and they make up a religion of victory, in which we conquer sin and death like our Gentile friends.
I can’t really blame them, being a Jew is not that much fun, what with the consciousness of how you have failed God, the terror of knowing you are unprotected by Him, and it’s pretty trying on the patience, waiting, waiting, for a reapproachment which may never come.
Of course, you can always say you are better off than an Arab. I wouldn’t know, I stick pretty much to wondering who I am, am trying to treat others in a way that won’t shame us in front of God. He might be looking, and you know the Evil Eye is there, anyway.
Wow. It sounds a lot like being Catholic, except we at least have confession and penance once in a while.
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.
Right. Spain in the Middle Ages was such a horrible precedent (link to z.pe
Or present day Iran.
The great Lizard Brain thinking of Israel.
Jews. superior? Sure, and maybe someday we’ll even get our birthrate and retention-rate up to a level which doesn’t guarantee extinction. Being able to stick on someplace for more than a hundred years without getting our asses kicked out, or being the victims of genocide would be nice, too. Must be the price of superiourity.
Sure, sure I know, all Jews are superior, but some Jews are more superior than others.
And the most amazing thing is the way we just burst all the boundaries and upset all the parameters! Did you know that Jews raised in a insular, affluent, and privileged milieu feel and act just about the same as any other Amewricans raised under those insular ,affluent and privileged conditions? Oy such nachos it gives me! What a country! The Goldenah Medina!
Did you know that Jews raised in a insular, affluent, and privileged milieu feel and act just about the same as any other Amewricans raised under those insular ,affluent and privileged conditions?
You’ve probably read criticisms that Jews don’t serve in the US military in proportion to their fraction of the population. I haven’t seen any hard numbers, and I find the implication that any ethnic or religious group feels less of a need to serve the larger community because of some trait in their ethnic or religious identity instinctively offensive.
I think a simple examination of relative numbers by ethnicity or religion is an incorrect way of quantitatively assessing any imbalances. Jewish Americans as a group, along with Sikh-Americans, and I think even Arab-Americans, are better off than average financially. Military service is correlated to some significant degree to poverty and lack of educational opportunity. Thus any estimates of relative participation in national service should be weighted by affluence or socio-economic status. Do Jews, or Sikhs, or whoever, serve in the military in lower numbers because they are Jews or Sikhs, or simply because in the aggregate they are more affluent and less attracted by economic incentives? I think it antisemitic to just assume that “Jews raised in an insular, affluent, and privileged milieu [would not] feel and act just about the same as any other Americans raised under [similar] conditions.”
“Jerry Haber has said that if there is one thing American Jews can do it is “helping to transform the 1948 ethnocracy into a liberal democracy of all its citizens”–to work with organizations like Taayush to help other Jews imagine a conjoint future with Palestinians. I speak for myself when I say that a basic respect for the Other, which was lacking in my own background, is key to going forward.”
Mister Weiss, I don’t really see how Israeli Jews can look to you for guidance. I agree with you that they have a lot to learn about respect for the Other, but if they don’t feel that you have any respect for them, why would they listen to you, unless they already agree with you?
Israelis don’t generally return respect with respect. Not only do I have my own personal experience in that regard… we can always ask George Mitchell about that too.
link to mondoweiss.net
Chaos, this is for you, Donald, and all the Wittyholics among us.
<a href="javascript:var w=new Array();var d=document.getElementsByTagName("dd");for (var i=0;i<d.length;i++){if (d[i].className.indexOf("witty")!=-1){w[w.length]=d[i]}};for (var i=0;i<w.length;i++){w[i].parentNode.removeChild(w[i])};var t=new Array();var s=document.getElementsByTagName("dt");for (var i=0;i<s.length;i++){if (s[i].className.indexOf("witty")!=-1){t[t.length]=s[i]}};for (var i=0;iErase Richard Witty Threads.
Simply bookmark this link and click it every time you open up a Mondoweiss thread. And enjoy that cold turkey.
(Click it now if you want to test it in this thread. )
If I plug my ears and sing, “la la la! I can’t hear yooou!” that only makes me almost as bad as Witty.
former coMMenter, your javascript doesn’t work . I dont see the closing carat for the href command…is that it? Can’t you turn it in a TinyURL.com command?
MRW, I think there’s some kind of length limit on the href parameter of the link tag, maybe imposed by the Mondoweiss CMS, so a long javascript link doesn’t work.
But I posted the code below; if you copy it into your address bar as is, it will have the desired effect.
Why should anyone have respect for murderers and thieves? If Israelis want help rehabilitating themselves, their first step should be acknowledging their guilt, admitting that they don’t deserve respect.
Sometimes addictions need to be treated. But anyway I can’t get the link to work.
Let me try like this:
javascript:var w=new Array();var d=document.getElementsByTagName("dd");for (var i=0;i<d.length;i++){if (d[i].className.indexOf("witty")!=-1){w[w.length]=d[i]}};for (var i=0;i<w.length;i++){w[i].parentNode.removeChild(w[i])};var t=new Array();var s=document.getElementsByTagName("dt");for (var i=0;i<s.length;i++){if (s[i].className.indexOf("witty")!=-1){t[t.length]=s[i]}};for (var i=0;i<t.length;i++){t[i].parentNode.removeChild(t[i])}
Paste that in your address bar and see what happens.
Yeah, I have a pretty good guess what it does, I know Javascript and HTML.
You know what? If it bothers you that much, substitute “Chaos4700″ for “Witty” in your code. It’s not as if I’m not used to being treated that way, honestly.
I have no problem with your retorts, Chaos, in fact I think they’re always on point, but I just thought even a Witty warrior like yourself could maybe use some peace and quiet now and then. Merely for you to use at your discretion. Don’t take it the wrong way. I actually wrote it for Donald who was joking in another thread that I can’t find anymore that he needs to go “cold turkey.”
Fair enough. If it’s any consolation, I have German and Polish ancestry. That means I enjoy getting angry and I’m too stubborn to let it go. :) Confronting Witty doesn’t actually make me happy per se, but it does leave me feeling satisfied. Like when you put the last dish you’ve washed into the cupboard and now the sink is totally empty.
Speaking of which, I gotta go do the dishes… But let me just respond to Witty real quick…
lol poor Rich…
I know he can hardly write comprehensible English, but he isn’t a very strong reader either. Did you notice he’s been touting the fact that he’s reading History of Israel all week long now? What’s he, in former President Bush’s book club? He still hasn’t gotten around to The Israel Lobby book by Walt & Mearsheimer, but he’s reviewed it about 30 times on this site and Realistic Dove. He had to install a macro for the word “polemical”, he used it so much.
I would feel sorry for the guy if he’d quit all the guilt-tripping and just “get out of the road if he can’t lend a hand” — because yes, the times (but no, not the Slimes) they are a changin’.
See you tomorrow, Captain Chaos.
I read both the Walt/Mearsheimer article (three years ago), and the book (one year ago).
Get it into your skull, before you demean others.
I suggest that a thorough read of history is necessary to make comments that could affect others materially, as if your statements influence many.
I’d like to hear you explain how my comments or any comments here will “affect others materially.”
Is Zionism a racket?
You words are actions.
No acknowledgement that you falsely (hopefully inadverstently) demeaned me.
Richard, do you want me to find the comments you made asserting that W&M had not factored in Saudi Arabian interests or the petroleum industry in their calculations about who pushed the Iraq war? (In fact, they dedicated dozens of pages to these.)
Why is it that you are content with your “impressions”–however factually challenged–and yet you take such offense at the impressions of others?
My impression is still that you have not read the W&M book. Another impression I have is that you begin formulating your comments after reading only the title of Phil’s posts.
Why would you bother looking for a “contradiction”.
I certainly did not do an exegesis on a book that I read two years ago.
Did you?
If you did, then you would acknowledge the limited extent of the Walt/Mearsheimer thesis of the legality and extent of monolithic power, relative to the way it is/was invoked as conspiracy here.
They described the Lobby as an present political force, definitively NOT conspiratorial (excepting very broad consented concepts), and definitively not illegal as a generalization.
The point I was making, Richard, is that you can talk about reading history books all day long, but in the end, your conclusions pre-empt any new information anyone presents to you. You’ve already concluded that “Zionism is a good”–a rather absolute claim, for someone who thinks “justice is relative”–and everything either fits inside that value judgment or deserves your dismissive scorn.
That’s why it rings so hollow when you present yourself as a new-agey, open-minded liberal whose primary goal is the resolution of this conflict. It’s like your conscious and your sub-conscious are incommunicado.
Actually, MM.
I take in new information, and I digest it. If it is presented as information, and not as some effort to impose an interpretation that I don’t honestly conclude, it has a more pronounced affect.
If you are asking me to adopt “Zionism is racism” as an ideology, that is a vain effort. It won’t happen.
If you seek to inspire my zeal towards more involvement in reform of the way Zionism is applied, that is relevant.
I can understand, Richard. My parents continue to say nasty, untrue things about Hispanics, black people, Arabs, etc. and then turn around and tell me they’re not really racists. So I can see why, even when your racism is pointed out rather directly to you, you deny.
I mean, if you can deny something like the Nakba ever took place, what’s a denial on the personal level compared to that?
Wow! former CoMMenter, it works! I made a snippet out of it and can call it up whenever. What a difference it makes to the thread. Thank you.
Witty, you need to read something other than your own navel.
Start here: Explaining the Long — and Largely Untold — History of Jewish Opposition to Zionism from the American Council on Judaism site.
link to acjna.org
More…
Phillip “They surround Jewish feelings of superiority. We are chosen, we are smarter, we are irrigating the desert and building computers that will deliver a drop of water to every root of every artichoke bush, we have more Nobel prizes than all the Arab world combined. I’ve struggled with this idea of Jewish superiority all my life. It was in the warp and woof of my upbringing in an academic milieu, and I run into it in almost every argument I have with Zionists”
You are one brutally honest human being. A while back I heard one of my women friends who is Jewish telling her son that he was part of a chosen group of people. She was telling his this with such arrogance that I asked her later what that was all about. I asked her if this had been something she had been told as a young person. She was stunned and upset that I asked. She thought about it for days and came back and said she had been brought up to think that Jews were better and as you described this thinking permeated her family, their attitudes towards others and the way she looked at life. Have asked other Jewish friends to examine this”the chosen people” phenomena and several have come back with some honest insights as you have Phillip.
Something taught. Good to look at honestly.
One thing that I have never been able to figure out with Jewish friends is why a person has to proclaim being Jewish when one does not practice the faith. I grew up Catholic (am no longer Catholic) Irish, Polish, French, Russian. Yet I do not proclaim my ethnic history to people, I do not proclaim being Catholic since I do not practice the faith.
Why do so many Jews have to let you know they are Jewish when they are not active in Judaism? Can anyone explain
Kathleen, we already get the fact that you project your own feelings onto everyone else and think your connection (or lack thereof) to the Catholic church somehow makes you a spokesperson for all non-religious people. Being Jewish, even if secular, and being Catholic isn’t the same. Let’s start with the basic fact that you probably can’t name one relative who was persecuted for his religion, let alone gased along with the rest of your family. Capisce?
Actually, if she’s German Catholic, then she might have ancestors who were victims of the kulturkampf under Bismark. Not that you necessarily have to go back that far. I mean, my own grandfather — who was otherwise proud of his Teutonic heritage — first visited Germany as an American soldier fighting the Nazis and making sure that people like your family were survivors.
Far be it for us to expect that you actually care about strife and pain and suffering if it happens to anyone other than Jews, of course.
I would ask her not to assume that just because she feels no connection to her ancestry everyone must do the same.
Oh look. The cadre of Zionist deniers is increasing.
You Zionists really make me sick. It’s like nobody else’s feelings matter but yours. And even then, it’s only what you can strip from other people with your nasty barbs. I’m glad most Jews aren’t actually like your little cult.
shut the hell up Carnas, there are PLENTY of people throughout history who have been brutalized and murdered. not just ‘the juice’
except, the native americans aren’t making movie after movie about their tragedy.
and what are you insinuating? that because European Jews were brutalized and murdered by Europeans, that Jews today get to do whatever they want to others and proclaim their superiority? You’re a scumbag.
jewish sense of entitlement is criminal at this point in history w/ the establishment of the IsraHell and all the crimes of Zionism
“You’re a scumbag.”
Cliff, I’m glad to see you commenting again and often agree with some of your points, at least in part. But you lose me when you use language like the above.
Carnas, first off, its rather cavalier of you to claim that Kathleen can’t have a relative who faced persecution just because she’s not Jewish. She’s Irish, Polish, French, Russian with a family background as a Catholic. Are you really that ignorant of European history to claim that only Jews faced persecution, religious or otherwise? Do you have any clue as to why separation of church and state was so important to the founders of our nation? Do you have any inkling of violent history of Europe, or are you a subscriber to the lachrymose theory of Jewishness, where no one else suffers, only Jews?
And what you have claimed in your snarky reply is that your Jewishness is based on victimhood. I suspect that you think that victimhood in and of itself confers some moral superiority on you as Jew. But it doesn’t and never will. Morality is an individual attribute and must be earned by your own deeds, not by being victimized by the deeds of others. Jews as a group have proven, through Israel, that there is no inherent moral superiority of Jews, just as there is no inherent moral superiority of any religious or ethnic group. Given power over the other, Jews as a group in Israel have proven that they are just as capable of persecuting others as any other group has been. I suspect that one of the reasons that some Jews continue to defend and excuse wretched behavior by Israel is because they cannot face the truth about the absence of any real inherent Jewish moral superiority. Their self-illusions trump their own morality.
Don’t say “we,” carnas, when it is you and you alone with such thoughts.
Carnas you are obviously one of those folks with a “superiority complex” one of those folks who thinks only Jews were brutally murdered during WWII. In fact I did lose family members in Poland. Catholic family members. Yes the Hitler killing machine did kill others than Jews. But in our media only the 6 million Jews are mentioned. That is fucking truth only Jews were murdered during WWII
“Being Jewish, even if secular and being Catholic is not the same?”
Another example of the “superiority ” phennomena.
and that is not what I asked. If you are not a practicing the Jewish faith. Why do many Jews often proclaim they are Jewish often in the first meeting. I do not proclaim that I am Irish, French, Polish, Russian. Why is this necessary? I have heard this hundreds of times
Instead of just being human to human why do many Jews announce their ethnic, history. I have come to believe it is some kind of effort to pull out a trump card.
Carnas you have still not answered my question
“One thing that I have never been able to figure out with Jewish friends is why a person has to proclaim being Jewish when one does not practice the faith. I grew up Catholic (am no longer Catholic) Irish, Polish, French, Russian. Yet I do not proclaim my ethnic history to people, I do not proclaim being Catholic since I do not practice the faith.
Why do so many Jews have to let you know they are Jewish when they are not active in Judaism? Can anyone explain ”
————————————————————————————————–
Here was your response
“Being Jewish, even if secular, and being Catholic isn’t the same.”
So can you explain the difference?
Kathleen,
There are any number of reasons why people put forward one or more parts of their indentity at a first meeting. I have had people tell me they are Catholic, Protestant, atheist, gay, communist, femminist, married, parents etc. I’m not sure why many of the Jews you have come across have chosen to reveal that part of themselves to you. They might think it’s something special, or it might be something they feel insecure about. I don’t actively advertise the fact that I’m Jewish, but I don’t try to hide it either – as many Jews I know do. It may come up at a first meeting, or not. When it does come up, I often get weird responses, from the classic “some of my best friends are Jewish” to “that’s ok, it doesn’t bother me.”
Kathleen: One thing that I have never been able to figure out with Jewish friends is why a person has to proclaim being Jewish when one does not practice the faith.
I live in a (mostly non-practising) Catholic country, and have had this conversation many times with formerly-Catholic friends and acquaintances – shocked and confused, when I call myself an “atheist Jew” (they nearly faint when I add “anti-Zionist” to the mix). There is certainly such a thing as Catholic culture (note the current furore over crucifixes in Italian public schools), but Catholicism is still, for most Catholics and ex-Catholics, simply a religion. Judaism is part ethnicity (try replacing “Catholic” with Irish – it’s a lot harder to be “formerly Irish”), part culture – or “civilisation”, as some have called it – with a significant, but not essential, religious component. In the US, a Christian cannot logically be an atheist. Either you is or you ain’t. Judaism doesn’t work that way.
Of course, the meaning and content of “Jewishness” changes from individual to individual. I feel sorry for those whose entire Jewish identity rests on the Holocaust and/or Zionism.
One can be an atheist Jew, or a Buddhist Jew, but not a Christian Jew, right?
agreed thanks for your insights
Look up Rabbi Yehuda Halevi. He taught that there were gradations in creation with Jews being at the top, “the cream.”
I am very familiar with the work of Halevi, potsherd, and have even translated some of it. I doubt that the people Kathleen was referring to have ever heard of him or his theories. I also doubt that words penned a thousand years ago (not universally accepted even in Halevi’s day) mean much to the vast majority of Jews. To the extent that there is a Judaism-specific sense of superiority, its origins lie more in the realm of Jewish experience than in the words of long-dead rabbis. Judaism, like other religions and cultures, has evolved considerably in the past few hundred years.
Shmuel, I am not intimately familiar with Halevi, but it is certainly a characteristic of Judaism to accumulate the sayings of long-dead rabbis and refer to them. I suspect there is a direct link between the teachings of Halevi and Perrin’s infamous remark about the Jewish fingernail. These memes sink into the collective consciousness, even when the original source of the comments is no longer known.
Ptsherd,
Yes and no. Over the past couple of centuries, Judasim has undergone a major shift, even a break with the past, discarding ideas considered incompatible with modern thought and life. Halevi’s “soul theory” would certainly fall into that category, even in terms of memes and collective consciousness. The only group in which you will still find these ideas is the Orthodox minority – and even there, not universally.
To give you the context (I assume this is what you are referring to), in the Kuzari, Halevi discusses the difference between Jewish and non-Jewish souls, reaching the conclusion that a non-Jew who converts can attain the highest levels of holiness and eternal reward, but can never attain prophecy, the potential for which is inherent only to souls created Jewish. Since only a handful of Jews have actually attained prophecy, in practical terms, even Halevi saw no difference between non-Jews and virtually all Jews. Nevertheless, the idea conveys a certain message regarding Jewish superiority. Maimonides disagreed with Halevi, and believed that non-Jews are not inherently different from Jews in any way. Maimonides also had a great deal of respect both for Islam and Christianity, although he considered the former much closer to Judaism.
Shmuel – certainly some Judaism has undergone a major shift, but there are still the haredi sects who stand by the maxim “everything new is forbidden” – “new” being apparently the 17th century.
Unfortunately, it is this strain of Judaism that is in the ascendant in Israel, that is to the exclusion of the more modern and less bigoted versions. And it is the influence of Israel that I see as reviving these old memes of Jewish exceptionalism and mutating it into a strain of racism that goes beyond anything in medieval Judaism.
Potsherd – I thought we were talking about the US, where Haredim are an insignificant, albeit visible minority among Jews. The racist attitudes of Israeli Jews toward their non-Jewish neighbours (Palestinians, “Russians”, foreign workers) have many sources. Haredi influence is the least of the problem, despite headline-grabbers like Yishai (who, by the way, speaks like your average European xenophobic politician – be the sources of his “inspiration” what they may.)
Shmuel, I’m saying that attitudes in Israel influence the US. Because they are Israeli, people like Yishai and Lieberman are quoted widely and their ideas seep into the minds of people who may not even be aware of their origin.
The Haredi adjust as well.
To different aspects than what you focus on.
I think most US Jews are disgusted by Yishai and Lieberman. As for sources, Yishai may put stock in Judah Halevi, but Lieberman is a pork-munching secular Jew, with little Jewish backround.
“They are arguments that if Jews really want to be a light unto the nations, they must ….”
Nice thought, Phil, but I didn’t know that Jews had been elected to be “a light unto the nations.” It’s an idea that probably sounds good to Jewish ears but maybe a bit presumptuous to others, don’t you think? Of course, it does comport with notions of Jewish superiority and exceptionalism, for those who buy that.
I know this post and thread have not been about A-S, but I can’t help asking in this context: How many Jews are aware that their common belief in their own superiority and exceptionalism is a leading cause of what they like to call antisemitism (at least in its milder forms)? For every effect, there are causes. As Kathleen has noted above, there seems to be an amazing amount of naivite about this.
That’s a bit of a tricky question, CMI, involving facts, perceptions, interpretations, etc. Historically-speaking, Jews have often been hated precisely because they were seen as inferior, and actually made inferior in the eyes of the masses through anti-Jewish legislation. The Jews of Papal Rome (and the Papal States in general), were among the poorest, filthiest most ignorant inhabitants of the city – due to legal restrictions concerning education, economic activity, where they could live, etc. Of course if someone you consider your inferior puts on airs and considers himself superior, that might make you hate him even more. The religious component of anti-Semitism certainly confirms this (another reason successive popes felt it was important to demonstrate the contemptibility of the Jews in the eyes of God and man). How can a people that is so stupid/stubborn/wicked as to have rejected God’s salvation still think it’s hot stuff?
There is also the element of perception. Phil’s comments notwithstanding, it’s not as if we spend our every waking moment strutting and patting ourselves on the back and looking down on everyone else. It is an ill that exists in a certain context, and is worth dealing with, but it really isn’t all that important. As others here have suggested, I think Eurocentrism (shared by European and American Jews) for example, is a far more basic part of the way in which we relate to the world than our Jewish ethnocentrism. The Nobel laureates thing (when not used to put others down, of course) is often just a little innocent ethnic pride. It may be pretty silly, but I don’t think it’s terribly sinister, or any more off-putting than say an Italian’s ethnic pride in Renaissance art or Italian food.
Exceptionalism is another matter however, and there I think you make a valid point. The common Jewish self-image as humanity’s perpetual victim, and the ways in which so many Jews have pursued and exploited this, is almost certainly a significant factor in anti-Jewish feeling. To the extent that this also implies a sense of moral superiority (as it would indeed appear to), I’ll give you superiority as well.
Interesting points, Shmuel.
I think it also has to do with anti-miscegenationist attitudes and tribal networking.
I have relatives, for instance, who in their youth dated Jewish girls only to be told, directly or indirectly, that they best stop. Or else. (Or else what, I don’t know–they’d find a dead salmon on their pillow?) Anyway, that doesn’t exactly inspire much fondness.
And though personal connections are always going to be valued by humans, and rightfully so, the sentiments that Phil has written about here, about media figures feeling more “comfortable” working with other Jews, definitely has a discriminatory air to it that doesn’t exactly exalt people’s image of, or respect for, Jews as a tribalist grouping. (It also belies a certain hypocrisy in the “meritocratic” ideal.)
FC,
I think the anti-miscegenationism is slowly disappearing, which is probably why the die-hards are so hysterical. On the other hand, there is no denying the effect of direct or indirect connections on employment and other opportunities.
By the way, if you mess with the mishpuche, it’s a dead carp in the bed, not a salmon.
To clarify my response to FC, I think the perception of Jewish attitudes to intermarriage outweighs the reality of those attitudes, as a source of negative feelings toward Jews. The idea that Jews will often prefer other Jews when hiring, for example, may have more basis in reality, and I can see how that would generate animosity toward Jews as a group.
In case anyone has misunderstood, I am trying to understand anti-Semitism, not condone generalisations and group hatred. I am also trying to apply the principle established by Hanna Arendt that Jews, like anyone else, are always active participants in their experiences. I assume Phil, CMI and FC share this attitude.
Shmuel, thanks for the clarification there on the fish threats. :-)
I agree with you that the marriage issue is more perception than reality, but as most of us would be disgusted by a ban on interracial marriage in any context, I think it may be a particularly offensive perception, when it does arise.
My only experiences with large groups of Catholics is from my own family. The largest group of Jewish people I have even been around is my x who is a secular Jew. When around his family and friends (often all secular Jewish as my family generally hung out with Catholics) the talk was often similar to what Phillip inferred
“They are what I was raised with, and am still engaged by. They surround Jewish feelings of superiority. We are chosen, we are smarter, we are irrigating the desert and building computers that will deliver a drop of water to every root of every artichoke bush, we have more Nobel prizes than all the Arab world combined. I’ve struggled with this idea of Jewish superiority all my life. It was in the warp and woof of my upbringing in an academic milieu, and I run into it in almost every argument I have with Zionists. It reminds me of schwarzer talk in the 1970s–talking about black people.”
I was often in shock about how many inferences of “superiority” I would hear at sizable gatherings of secular and some Religious Jews. Now I am not saying that in some Catholic and other Religious families that there is not a sense of “superiority” but it was not in my family. Never heard my parents or family members refer to themselves as “chosen,better, smarter” Did hear these strong inferences at my x’s family and friends gatherings
“a light unto the nations.”
Is that from the Bible. A history book written by a bunch of Jewish guys. And we know what happens when people write history books
Do the nations get a say in the matter?
It comes from Isaiah 42:6, although the original expression is “light of the nations” and not “light unto the nations”.
My goodness; all this talk of superiority. The link below is NOT intended to offend anyone…or to generalize about Jews. the Jewish “achievement ethic” is well known. But it manifests itself in “individuals”.
So given my seriously twisted sense of humor, and hoping Mooser and Phil will understand, here is a link to a very timely Haaretz article…
” On the origin of criminals” , by Neri Livneh…
link to haaretz.com
Of course, this once again raises THE QUESTION…when Jews try, quite successfully at times, to engage in criminal activity…”Is this good for the Italians?”
I think not!!
No question about it, Don. Talk of Jewish gangsters is very good for the Italians. Takes the heat off :-)
Shmuel…very helpful insight! I honestly had not thought of it in that way. I changed my mind…it IS good for the Italians!
Yishai’s hypocrisy is rich in irony, since it was the Mizrahim who were doused in DDT in the Israeli refugee camps, as being likely carriers of disease, backwards, and “lacking in moral fibre.”
Have always admired that many Jewish families focus on education. But just listen closely to who Terri Gross, and many other Jewish talk show host promote. There is something to often promoting “your people’ I have often thought that you have to be Jewish to get a top spot at NPR. NPR has been accused of “pervasive cronyism” by employees. I had the opportunity to ask Juan Williams about this when I heard him speak. He confirmed that “this does go on at NPR”
link to current.org
link to current.org
link to current.org
There were suits filed and allegedly an investigation/ study into those about the claims. That report about NPR’s “Pervasive cronyism” has never been released
Please do not try to pretend this does not go on. This is a strong component as to why there are many Jewish people are what some people call successful.
This goes on.
“But Richard, as I frequently note, Israeli governing coalitions routinely exclude Arab parties from their negotiations. So Barak formed a liberal government in ‘99 without Arab parties/Knesset members, and had to call on rightwing religious factions to do so. And again this year, Netanyahu formed his governing coalition without Arab parties. So it’s not like they say, Some Palestinians are good, some are bad. No: they say, out of our government!”
Wasn’t there was a Palestinian minister in the Barak cabinet, from within labor party? I believe that there are other paths to incorporate civil Arab representation into coalition. First step would be to persuade Israelis of the practical merits of more humanistic attitude.
I know you were trying hard not to frame this post as inquiry, rather than as conclusion. But, my first reaction was that you were describing the J Street conference AS an example of “liberal racism” in practice, which I find ludicrous and insulting. Your headlines are what cue me to what you conclude as a result of your “inquiries”.
Forgive me if I over-reacted, or missed your point.
To clarify my position. I regard the adoption of “anti-Zionism” as racist. What I mean by Zionism is the self-governance of the Jewish people. It complements the hopefully soon realization of self-governance of the Palestinian people.
Jewish self-governance is a realization of democracy, moreso than a denial of democracy.
Others speak of anti-Zionism in the meaning of likud expansionist Zionism, as somehow all that Zionism as an ideology is or could be. I see that as equivalent to speaking of democracy as Bush democracy, and therefore declaring that “democracy is racism”.
That should be
“I know you were trying hard TO frame this post as inquiry, rather than as conclusion. But, my first reaction was that you were describing the J Street conference AS an example of “liberal racism” in practice, which I find ludicrous and insulting. Your headlines are what cue me to what you conclude as a result of your “inquiries”.
“I regard the adoption of “anti-Zionism” as racist.”
Anything yoou can do, Zionists do better! Anything yooou can do they can do best!
Seriously. How often does my maxim about Zionists accusing their adversaries of doing exactly what they’re doing have to be proven true?
I came to this column late, but have to say I thought it was the best I’ve ever read from Phil. He brilliantly articulates what I’ve been thinking myself. While he probes some complex themes, the simple truthfulness of his wife’s statements stands out as a guidr for the future. She says that equality is a fundamental principle that cannot be compromised. It may be messy to get there, but there is no alternative that is morally defensible. With planning and sensitivity, the messiness can be minimized, but even if it cannot be eliminated entirely, a permanent state of inequality is unthinkable. Israel has to get there, and eventually it will. The only question is how many people will have to die before that happens.
Phil’s inference that Jews by nature (not a set, but generally) think of themselves as superior didn’t bother you?
I did not get a “nature” inference but a “nurture” inference. Learned attitudes
It didn’t bother me at all, Richard. There is a legacy of a claim to being the chosen people. When I was a kid, I didn’t learn that Jews are the same as everyone else, no better and no worse. I learned, “It’s hard to be a Jew, but it’s good to be a Jew.” That’s an exact quote from my Hebrew School. If it’s “good” to be a Jew, it must be better to be a Jew than to be something else; otherwise the word good is meaningless. And of course the Holocaust is drummed into our heads to make us feel (and others feel about us) that we were singled out as victims because we are special, and that we are deserving of special protections because of it. Sure, many Jews don’t buy into superiority, or even specialness, but many do. And frankly, there’s an empirical basis for it. Jews are a tiny percentage of the US population, yet are diproportionately represented in all of the elite categories — government, finance, the arts, academia, etc. I’m really not sure myself what it all means. I do think that I, like all people, should take pride in my own accomplishments only, and being born into a Jewish family and US citizenship should not make me proud to be a Jew or an American. I had nothing to do with the circumstances of my birth. Nor should I take pride in the success of other Jews or the material and military success of the US, but I think these values do gain a lot of traction. Jewish Pride is not all that different from “Proud to be an American,” and you can’t deny that most of the country feels the latter sentiment.
Pride is not racism.
“Sure, many Jews don’t buy into superiority, or even specialness, but many do. And frankly, there’s an empirical basis for it. Jews are a tiny percentage of the US population, yet are disproportionately represented in all of the elite categories ….” (Samel)
A familiar argument for superiority and specialness. Although it is clear that many contributing factors are at work here concerning this disproportionality, it should also be noted that in modern America, if we were talking about anyone other than Jews, it would be openly considered an “empirical basis for” (i.e., prima facie evidence of) discrimination in hiring, promotion, and selection. When non-Jews talk of Jewish “specialness”, this is often what they have in mind – not some notion of inherent superiority.
I remember a time in America when “whites” were “disproportionately represented in all of the elite categories”, in relation to most minorities, and consequently were “clearly” special and superior.
Sorry if you took offense, Ishmael, but the only fact that I uttered was that Jews are disproportionately represented in elite positions. The opinion that I expressed was quite clearly that this fact does not entitle any of us Jews to anything, and I even rejected the notion that we should feel pride in this fact. You concede my factual assertion, and I’m not quite sure why you bothered to complain about an opinion I clearly do not have.
A long while back I spent some time reading the Torah. Often wondered about the root of some of ways or attitudes that some Jews may have towards Gentiles based on some of the racist comments in Deutoronomy.
The “nurture” or taught/ learned issue
link to shema-yisrael.org
Or,
“I’ve never seen a purple cow either.” ?
Jesus frickin Christ, how much of this vaunted Jewish intelligence do you need to figure out that people who constantly proclaim their own superiourity are probably more worried about the opposite? Remember, like the guy in High School who “hated fags” and was “all man”, and then you see him at the leather-boy-bar?
C’mon, how much fuckin smartsd does it take to figure that out?
Anyway, I thought people were supposed to give us Jews all this stuff cause we had been kicked around so much, poor weak homeless Jews. Then we get it and we turn around and say: “See how superior we are, we sure took you Gentiles for a ride”
And we call that smart? Yeah, good plan for a group of not more than a couple million completely dis-organised people. It’ll work out real well.
By the way folks: one of the signs at yesterday’s “Capitol Hill “tea party said (and I quote) “OBAMA TAKES ORDERS FROM THE ROTHSCHILDS”
Get a clue.
Good point But some actually believe they are better
Nah, deep down inside they are a mass of self-loathing and sexual conflicts, and they probably have allergies, too! (And I bet they are a half-size, and different top and bottom, so their suits never fit). You have no idea what that can drive a person to. What was the worst thing Alex Portnoy ever did? You call that superior?
Jewish Comic Insults Millions of Christians
link to henrymakow.com
Shmuel “Historically-speaking, Jews have often been hated precisely because they were seen as inferior, and actually made inferior in the eyes of the masses through anti-Jewish legislation. The Jews of Papal Rome (and the Papal States in general), were among the poorest, filthiest most ignorant inhabitants of the city – due to legal restrictions concerning education, economic activity, where they could live, etc.’
With the the brutal history of Jews and the understandable reasons for wanting a “homeland” to feel safe, pride etc. If safety is what Israel is after. Why keep trying to confiscate land through the expansion of settlements, building part of the wall on internationally recognized Palestinian lands if you want to secure safety? Have really come to the believe that a one state solution is the answer
I don’t agree with the way Israel came to be, but Israel exists. And it is completely understandable to want a safe homeland
I would not criticize the government or military of Israel if they would abide by internationally recognized 67 border, share Jerusalem, sign the NPt and deal fairly with the right of return.
You won’t get any argument out of me, Kathleen. I agree with all of your points about Israel, although I’d continue criticise Israel until non-Jews got full equal rights – as amazing a deal like the one you describe would be.
Agree. And if they did not…some of the racism in Israel would become more than apparent
Kathleen, the Zionists were not looking for, nor were they ever content with, nor did they ever do anything to ensure “a safe homeland”. They were looking to push others away so they could dominate the land.
link to lawrenceofcyberia.blogs.com
Those were not people looking for “a safe homeland”.
There’s a great irony, that I hope is not lost on you.
That is that the proposals that Kathleen made, are nearly exactly what I propose (on different basis though).
1 & 2. 67 borders (at least as consented basis of borders) (with the exception of the Jewish portion of the old city of Jerusalem)
3. Fair right of return (I prefer the term “day in court”, to defend land and property claims, not the abstracted and unenforcable right of descendants of all ethnic Palestinians)
So, to summarize: Witty believes Jews have supremacy to “return” to Israel, no matter who their family might be or where they were really born. Palestinians, on the other hand, are not allowed such right, because Israel refusing that right for generations and trying to wait the original refugees to death is, in Witty’s world, perfectly kosher. Their children are stateless and as far as Witty is concerned why should he care? They aren’t Jews, after all.
Potsherd…”attitudes in Israel influence the US”…
Probably true, but the reverse strikes me as “more true”. One of the issues rarely addressed in this conversation is the “price” many Israelis have paid for US support. Part of which, it seems to me, is the bizarre phenomenon of a “Jewish” country evolving to become a “mirror image” of the US, socioeconomically.
With more and more citizens having “less and less”. Poverty rates in Israel now exceed 40%; the school sytems 9for the people of the book) are rapidly deteriorating. Very strange, and very sad.
Pingback: Bernard Avishai has publicly rejected ‘the demographic threat’
Pingback: Racism in Jewish Life | America at War
Pingback: 17 years before apartheid fell, Coetzee despaired inside a ‘fortress Christian state’