Bernard Avishai describes Ben Caspit, an Israeli TV host, as a populist journo and then quotes these statements from him the other night:
Caspit wanted to talk about the public statement Friday by Likud’s Limor Livnat, a formidable minister in Netanyahu’s coaliton, that the freeze only proves Obama is anti-Israel, that "we have fallen into the hands of a terrible administration." …
"[I]n essence," Caspit said, "she [Livnat] said courageously what most of us think. The Americans–this administration–and I don’t fear them because I am not, lucky for all of us, a minister–is really an administration that burdens us, that is awful and terrible for Israel." … Later… Caspit said: "What, and soon we’ll have to freeze in Jerusalem? This is unprecedented." [Guest] Gideon Ezra protested that, for example, starting a new settlement in Nof Zion–"which is really Jabel Mukaber"–is an absurd provocation; that the key is to strengthen moderate forces among the Palestinians. Caspit’s answer in the form of a question: "So we will have given up 10 months of settlement for nothing, just so the goyim will say we are okay."..
Avishai says that Obama should "refocus the conversation not only on what Israelis should stop doing, but on positive steps that make concrete what positive steps the world community–goyim–expect Israelis and Palestinians to take." Avishai’s steps are not particularly convincing to me. It all seems way too little too late. Why, just consider the stunning arrogance of Caspit’s statement. This is the stuff of Greek mythology. This man sees no reason on human terms to end the colonization process and attempt to dismantle apartheid– he has no sense of anything owed an occupied people. No, it is just to get rid of the pressure from the goyim. It reveals to me the psychic damage of the blank check the Israel lobby has granted Israel for decades, and the damage of putrid ethnocentrism, a hubris born of the Leon Uris statement in Exodus that Jews can only rely on themselves.
Related posts:
- Report: Obama won’t bend to Israeli ‘tricks’ re settlements
- Cautious Obama begins to take flak from peace-camp Jews
- It was only a matter of time – Israeli govt minister compares Obama to Pharaoh
- I repeat, AIPAC should stop playing defense and invite Walt and Mearsheimer to debate their ideas
- Goyim need not apply to U.S. foreign policy jamboree
{ 1 trackback }
{ 31 comments }
Phil,
This is the stuff of Greek mythology.
I wish it were. Greek mythology had self-awareness and self-realization at its base, however tortured or however arrived at torturously, something Zionist mythology resists and resents, using blame of the ‘other’ as its raison d’etre.
Shulamit Aloni, deploring Israel as a “nefarious nation” still rejoices in the Israel lobby that keeps US support coming for Israel’s crimes.
Aloni has never rejoiced in US support or the actions on Israel’s behalf by American Jews to get that support and she said that publicly, as part of an attack on Stephen Solarz, a former Israel Firster in the US Congress, over efforts by American Jews to force the US to grant Israel $10 billion in loan guarantees in 1991 which she opposed. She is or was, unfortunately, only one of a not more than a handful of Israeli public figures to take that position. The late General Matti Peled was another one but found it was not a message that American Jews wanted to hear when he tried to tell them that more than a quarter century years ago.
Even the urbane South African, Abba Eban, who became Mr.Israel,thanks to his appearances on US television became a political non-person in Isael after the word leaked that he had advised NY Times editorial writer Max Frankel, to write an editorial suggesting reducing economing (of course not military aid!) to Israel in the early 80s. When the outraged Zionist lobby attached the thumbscrews to Frankel, he confessed that Eban made him do it. You won’t find that incident in any book. It came from Peled in a conversation on his speaking tour of the US. Nowadays, Israeli critics of Israel are far more censored in the US than they were then.
the damage of putrid ethnocentrism, a hubris born of the Leon Uris statement in Exodus that Jews can only rely on themselves.
Because, in that scenario, someone else is always to blame for the condition of the Jews: the eternal Hungarian violin.
Hubris should be the trigger for eventual self-awareness. But when the trigger fails to work because of the essential lack of awareness, intellectual ability, and moral intelligence of the prideful/cocky/arrogant, the virulent condition remains.
Pride goes before the fall.
What really the worst part about this is now this Administration is going to try to sell this to the American public as an immense breakthrough. Of course, trying to do this while all the other activity (which is legion) takes place without skipping a beat. The haggling that has gone on for centuries which really amounts to nothing, that which is done in market places to make people think they have something, is what we are going to hear.
Oh bravo Obama, bravo! You got them to do almost nothing, so like the sucker who is listening as a third party wants to buy the sham, it is a veritable Monty opportunity! The Zionists will play it up here, singing their chorales of praise for the “hard bargaining” of Obama, and the magnanimous nature of Nutty Yahoo. Sing with me –
SING ALONG
If I were a tail followed around by a great big dog, I’d get cocky too.
There’s your tail and cock connection.
I had a feeling someone was going to do naughty things with my innocent remark ;-)
Just to add some meat to Shmuel’s comment, this jerk sounds like another variation of this:
http://www.kadaitcha.com/2009/01/22/ariel-sharon-flashback-1982-interview-with-amos-oz/
But Ben Caspit is not ‘Z’. He is as “moderate” and mainstream as they come. It’s that self-referential thing again (”Jerusalem is a part of the consensus”), combined with a good dose of chauvinism (”how dare the Americans tell us what to do”), and probably racism against a black man whose middle name is Hussein. Even today, the views expressed in the ‘82 Oz interview are not mainstream (although they have made significant inroads). Caspit on the other hand is dead centre.
GIve him an unguarded moment? Caspit’s a TV host…he understands the medium, and the reach. What he said was his public persona.
He’s relatively new to TV. He is primarily a journalist and political comentator (with Maariv for many years).
I stand corrected.
It is unfortunately a part of Jewish family tradition to raise the offspring to believe that all gentiles are inherently antisemitic, that, as Yitzhak Shamir would publicly say, “they imbibe it with their mother’s milk.” One result of this nonsense is, of course, Israel as should be obvious to anyone reading the writings of Herzl and his early Zionist colleagues. Another result of that indoctrination was to make those Jews anti anyone who was not Jewish and maintain a clannishness long after the walls of the ghettos had been placed in museums or sold in auction houses. This is as much a part of Judaism as it is Jewish culture.
In recent years, as a younger generation of Jews has assimilated and disappointed their parents by marrying a non-Jew, this has created a crisis in the American Jewish community which you can read about in any Jewish newspaper. The sad fact of the matter is that being anti-gentile (or goy in their terms) is as much a part of being a part of the Jewish community as is being a Zionist. In other words, a racist in the practical sense. Strange isn’t it, that it’s the one form of racism you never hear about? What distinguishes the orthodox, ultra-orthdox, the haredi or hassidim, from the other Jewish demoniations, is that among themselves they are quite open about it, as they are in Israel.
For a sampling, for those with the stomach for it, I suggest The Jewish Press, that bills itself the largest independent Jewish paper in the US (it certainly has by far the most pages). To give you some idea of what cesspool it is coming from (as well as its political clout), Rabbi Meir Kahane used to have a weekly column and on the next page was one by NY’s Jewish mayor, Ed Koch. (After Kahane was killed, one of his successor’s took over).The paper’s columnists as did its editorial writer had high praise for Baruch Goldtein, the doctor from Brooklyn who massacred 29 Palestinians in the mosque in Hebron, and sympathized with Rabin’s assassin.
http://www.jewishpress.com/
I find this painfull to see an Israeli come right out and admit that they were playing us a bunch of dumb goyim. I did believe in the early 90s that the Israelis were genuinely interested in a two state solution and the Oslo process was real. Sometime in about 2002 or so I began to suspect that the Israelis were scamming the whole peace process as a cover for futher colonization of the West Bank. But even then I attributed that perception to some kind of dynamic within Israeli politics where the “right” just happened to sabotage what the “left” had tried to achieve. I was so wrong. These guys cannot be trusted at any level — Labor, Likud or Kadima — they have a unified goal. Namely, colonization of the West Bank. Where they differ, it appears, is how they deceive foolish goyim in the US. I must admit that I was one of their marks.
Soon, I hope, enough of us can come together to resist this and convince our government to finally withdraw support for Israel’s continuous war against the Palestinians.
Look, bottom line: they want land. That’s the game. Land = power.
I’ll try to have a look at the programme later, but “playing the goyim” is not the impression I get from the line that Avishai quotes. It seems more like an expression of the commonly-held view that a settlement freeze is a pointless sacrifice in terms of the peace process, so why do it just because Obama wants us to?
I watched about ten minutes of the show (the first time since the Gaza Massacre), and it was as self-referential as self-referential can be. There was a representative of the right wing of Kadimah (Gideon Ezra) and the left wing of Likud (Yossi Peled), and a pair of interviewers trying to challenge them without going too far or criticising the government too much. Peled supported the freeze in order to show the world that Israel is serious about peace, but drew the line at construction for Jews in Jerusalem, near the Palestinian neighbourhood of Jebel Mukabar, which he said must go on. He also said that Israel must try to “maintain collegiality between allies”, without compromising its own positions, of course. Ezra also supported the freeze, but called the construction in Jebel Mukabar a “provocation”. On the other hand, he said construction in Gilo should go on as planned. The practical and ideological differences between the two (four, if we include the anchors) were absolutely underwhelming.
Caspit challenged his interviewees, taking the position of Limor Livnat (Likud) that the current US administration is bad for Israel, and asked (here’s the context Avishai left out) what happens if the freeze doesn’t lead to a resumption of talks (note: “talks”, not progress or agreement)? “Then we will have stopped construction for ten months for no reason, just so the the goyim will say that we’re OK.”
Nasty stuff all ’round, but I didn’t get the sense of “playing the goyim” from any of the speakers.
Just a word about “what will the goyim say?”. It’s a pretty folksy expression that implies a ceratin lack of Jewish self-respect or pride, a need for external validation. In the Zionist lexicon, worrying about what the goyim will say is the mark of a weak, diaspora Jew.
Syvanen, the only answer is BDS. It’s clean. It’s dispassionate. It’s effective. It’s grassroots. And it’s the only arena in which the Lobby has no control.
Shmuel,
Then what’s an effective ’sacrifice’ in term of the peace process? And this is a sincere question. Not a backhander.
MRW,
From the point of view of the average Israeli, there can be no effective sacrifice in terms of the peace process, because the process itself is dead and there is no chance of peace (Palestinians’ fault of course). When Limor Livnat says that Obama is bad for Israel, what she means is that he – like Europe and the whole goddamn world – does not or will not understand this, and therefore demands sacrifices from Israel. Netanyahu “stood firm”, but eventually realised that he had to give Obama something (Michael Oren said as much), so he came up with his partial pause in construction, and tried to make as big a deal out of it as possible. Gideon Ezra tried to present the view that the freeze served a real purpose, and Caspit (judging by Avishai’s quotes), called him out on it, postulating that it is a real sacrifice that serves no real purpose, and was only done to make “the goyim” happy – i.e. as a gesture to the US. In and of itself, there is nothing wrong with such a move, and Ezra could easily have explained it as a necessary concession to Israel’s most important ally. The real problem is the bad faith behind the whole process, and in a twisted kind of way, it is to the credit of those Israelis who would like to put an end to what is essentially a farce. Of course, that’s not how politics work.
It may be disconcerting to try to get inside Israelis’ heads, but it’s an important part of trying to understand what the hell’s going on
Shmuel,
It may be disconcerting to try to get inside Israelis’ heads, but it’s an important part of trying to understand what the hell’s going on.
That’s why you’re so important on this board. That, and the fact of your fucking smarts.
Avishai wrote:
“Avishai says that Obama should ‘refocus the conversation not only on what Israelis should stop doing, but on positive steps that make concrete what positive steps the world community–goyim–expect Israelis and Palestinians to take.’”
Utterly incoherent. The purest verbal chaff designed to whack even the mildest call for Israel to do anything while at the same time pretending that he believes Israel ought to.
With indistinguishable, absolute equality one can *either* perceive Obama’s call to freeze the settlements as being a “negative” step telling the Israelis to stop doing something, or one can see it as a “positive” step “making concrete” what the world community “expects the Palestinians to take.” Absolutely no difference whatsoever.
Indeed in the latter regard it’s a rather tiny step given that it doesn’t even tell the Palestinians they can expect to “take” any settlement land back whatsoever. Even though the entire world has said that’s what they are entitled to.
So what does Avishai want? Apparently, Obama talking first, foremost and perhaps only in terms of what the Israelis will “take” in a peace deal; how nice. Yeah, that’s it: start naming all the settlements it *can* keep without negotiations even, sure. Now *there’s* the path to a just settlement! Or, how about … Obama talking about how with any peace deal the tons of American lucre already going Israel’s way will only *increase*! Yeah, *that’s* the ticket….
Good one, Bernard. But if you are really in favor of “positive” steps only how’s this for same: Haaretz reporting that the EU is ready to accept a unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state and recognize East Jerusalem as its capital.
(http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1131926.html)
C’mon Bernard, say your secret heart. “Positive” or not in your mind? I’m betting not so much.
You know, in order to discredit and demonize the Palestinians, and Middle Easterners in general, there needs to be a vast network of Zionist think tanks, PR agencies and the like, and they only get it accomplished by falsely translating what and exploiting the fact that almost no Americans learn Arabic.
All it would take to shine a light on Israel would be for a typical segment from Israeli talk TV to be broadcast in the US, as it is. You wouldn’t even have to translate it because a significant portion of the US population knows Hebrew at this point, compared to Arabic.
Just another way of spitting on the goyim:
http://www.jewishjournal.com/hollywoodjew/item/after_ama_debacle_adam_lambert_promises_fans_a_new_direction_20091130/
And this is relevant how?
Phil – Ethnocentrism may be putrid today and certain attitudes might reflect hubris today, but Leon Uris weakens your point.
“the damage of putrid ethnocentrism, a hubris born of the Leon Uris statement in Exodus that Jews can only rely on themselves.”
The late Leon Uris does not need my defense, but the characters in Exodus were speaking in 1948 and at that time a statement that Jews can only rely on themselves made perfect sense. Although compensating for Jewish helplessness in Europe with Jewish militarism in the Middle East might not make sense, the fact of Jewish helplessness in Europe was foremost in many Jewish minds at the time and the fact was that the Jews could not rely on anybody else to help them. (I assume you are familiar with the saga of Jan Karski.)
This indeed may be ethnocentric, but it is not an example of hubris. It is not pride to consider oneself alone, it is either factual or not. Previously you have excoriated the son of Podhoretz for not realizing that the times have changed since the late 40’s and it may be factual that Israel or the Jews are no longer alone. But in either case it is a question of political judgment rather than pride.
Although there were many Jews who were not ethnocentric even in the aftermath of WWII, I don’t think that ethnocentrism for Jews in 1948 was putrid, but actually better than other possible reactions: like converting to Christianity to protect one’s children from the scourge of antisemitism by bowing to the will of the antisemites. (Madeline Albright’s parents come to mind.)
Times may have changed and in fact I believe they have changed and maybe at this point in time one can refer to ethnocentrism as putrid and a belief in the seemingly eternal right of Israel to unquestioning support from the United States for their policies on the wrong side of the green line as hubris. But if you wish to emphasize that the times have changed, then a quote from Leon Uris’s Exodus is certainly misplaced.
Not for Middle Eastern Jews it didn’t. After 1948 they had at least as much to worry about (if not more) from Zionist false flag terror as actual, and misplaced, backlash against Jews outside of Israel for the Nakba. And what did they get out of the Zionist protection racket? Hundreds of years of rich Jewish culture that had previously coexisted alongside Islam and Christianity, flushed down the toilet so that the Ashkenazim could have cheap labor.
Well said, Zionism not only uprooted the Palestinians but wiped out, and deliberately so, centuries of Jewish culture for which the European Ashekenazi had no respect. As for the odious Uris, whose racism oozed from virtually every joint, the facts of the matter are (and it is no secret) that the Israelis were receiving arms and the machinery to manufacture them from the US beginning in 1945 and although it was illegal, the FBI under J Headgear Hoover looked the other way. Then, in 48, they were also receiving arms from Czechoslovakia whereas those of the Arab armies were ancient and more suited for another era. The story of that war that has been presented to the world with its heroic Jews fighting against tremendous odds the armies of five, count them, five Arab armies, is another Zionist myth.
Comments on this entry are closed.