A week ago I went to three weekly demonstrations in Israel/Palestine, winding up in Sheikh Jarrah in East Jerusalem. Much of the day was spent discussing anti-Zionism with Israeli Jews.
I found two camps among the Israeli Jews who were demonstrating. One camp was those who are there to try and save the Jewish state. Didi Remez for one. These are people who believe in the necessity of the Jewish state and realize that their greatest opponents are expansionists who have colonized the West Bank and therefore turned a state that was 80 percent Jewish into one that is half Jewish or maybe less, and thereby endangered the whole project "demographically," as they put it.
Another camp are anti-Zionist. They are against the idea of the Jewish state. They are not just for a return to the ’67 borders, but an end to Jewish nationalism within the ’48 borders. One friend of mine guessed that in the three demonstrations I went to that day (beginning with this one and this one in the West Bank) the Israelis were split 50/50 between these camps. But among the Israeli demonstrators at Sheikh Jarrah in East Jerusalem, it seemed most are trying to save the Jewish state. And of course if you look at the entirety of Israeli society, including the people who gave us the finger as we walked through West Jerusalem, or threw rotten eggs, 99 percent of them are for the Jewish state.
I said to one of my new Israeli friends: “Herzl came up with the idea of political Zionism as a visionary response to very real conditions for Jews in the Diaspora, anti-semitism. The answer was a Jewish state. Well I am a Jew in the Diaspora 100 years on and I am also having a real response to real conditions, and I tell you that I don’t need a Jewish state, and that Israel’s dependence on the U.S. is corrupting my society. That is why I am an anti-Zionist or non-Zionist, whatever I am. Just as I would have been a Zionist 100 years ago.”
The Israeli got an unhappy expression. “But what about the solidarity you should feel for a state that is providing refuge to Jews in the Soviet Union and now Yemen.”
It felt like the beginning of a bad argument. I said, “You are asking me to defer to the Israeli experience, when I am telling you what my genuine experience is, as a Jew in the Diaspora; and I can’t set my experience aside.” I didn’t say: I refuse to set my experience aside.
Then I had a conversation with an Israeli friend who has put himself in harm’s way against the Israeli army many times during these demonstrations. I said, “It feels like the Israelis are about trying to save Jewish sovereignty in a part of historical Palestine. What if it is too late? What if the future of the Jewish sovereignty has been destroyed by the expansion and by the treatment of Palestinians inside the state of Israel. It feels to me like Zionism is actually over and there is no place in the 21st century for this kind of state that privileges one group over another and creates ethnic cleansing. What if you can’t have a Jewish state?”
He nodded philosophically. “Yes and that would be a kind of tragedy, I think.”
Later I was standing in the yard of the al-Kurd house in Sheikh Jarrah (this is the house that Andrew Kadi has covered on this site). The Jewish settlers have moved into the front room, we sat and stood in the tent at the side. Israeli security moved among us, videoing us, in this silent ugly manner of goon secret police.
I talked to a professor at an Israeli university. He was sucking on a cigarette and I was playing with a dried pomegranate that a friend had gotten me from the old pomegranate tree in the front yard of the house. I gave my rap about Herzl and me, and the professor frowned and said, “This is not something for the Americans to decide for us. We are the parties to the conflict. Not you. It is for us to work out with the Palestinians.”
Then I said something that Avram Burg, former speaker of the Knesset, said in New York: Zionism created two structures. It created the state of Israel and it created the semi-autonomous community of influence in the United States, the Israel lobby. So we are part of your Zionist structure, and we should offer our real ideas about Zionism to the Jews of Israel.
He shook his head. “I don't think we should talk about Zionism. It’s not about an ideology, it’s about a political struggle involving two peoples.” But he offered me a Jewish identity lesson. Citing the French philosopher Alain Finkielkraut, he said: In Europe 100 years ago, gentiles were connected to the land and ideas of nationalism, and Jews represented the universalist impulse in ideas. Now that is reversed, and Jews are tied to a land and Europeans are representing the universalist impulse.
I was annoyed. It seemed like an airy word game to me; when here we were in a place where Jewish nationalism was destroying people’s lives. Who would want to be associated tribally with such an idea? Why would someone want to be claimed as a Jew by this? I felt in his philosophizing the undertow of his personal attachment to the existence of a Jewish state.
It was 4 o’clock and and I had to run. It was Friday and I was going to Sabbath dinner at my mother’s good friend’s house. This is the one personal connection I have to Zionism. She lives in West Jerusalem. I got a cab as the city grew dark and quiet. I walked through the Rehavia section at 6 o’clock, in darkness. I saw men through a synagogue window as in eastern Europe, and saw pious people walking through Ussishkin Street. They were speaking English in American accents. This is part of the weirdness of the Israel experience: here you are, 500 miles east of Istanbul, and it is a decidedly western culture, and therefore it feels colonialist.
I went into my mother’s friend’s house without knocking. I was the second to get there. I sat with her waiting for her family to arrive, one by one. They came in without knocking, ten or eleven of them. There was a book about Nazi Germany on the coffee table and her huge library--she is literary-- was filled with Holocaust books. She escaped the Holocaust at eight years old after Kristallnacht and moved to America. Then in her 40s she left America not because of anti-semitism this time, but philo-semitism. She didn’t want her children to marry non-Jews. She wanted them to be Jewish and her grandchildren to be Jewish. She got her way.
Sitting with her, we shared our disappointment that my mother has never visited Israel. She said, "She would really like it here, she would like the Jewish culture, it would remind her of her childhood in Brooklyn." I agreed. Then she said, "I think that all Jews should see this place, and see what the Jews made. Even if you don’t like it, you should see it." I thought that was a gracious reference to my views. My mother has told her about them, and I have hinted at them. But I have never had an open honest discussion about them.
Many times that night members of her family asked me what I was doing in Israel, and I said that I was working on a novel about Jewish identity. It will involve a birthright trip gone bad, I said. This is true and not true. I didn’t tell them the plain truth, about this website, where I express strong views about the politics of their country. I can tell myself it was because I was being polite, or because it was not the time or place. And I guess that’s right. I know that I will write my mother’s friend a letter. Still: I was upset with myself later.
I’m so out on this website. But I was chickenshit. Why am I not honest with the only Zionist relations I might be said to have, about my views? Have they claimed me? As so many other American Jews are claimed by their more-intimate connections with Israelis? Well, I think that at some level I defer to their Jewish experience. The Holocaust truly is the basis of the creation of Israel, it was behind the Partition vote of 1947; and I find I cannot question the validity of the Holocaust as part of their experience. It is sacred to them, and maybe to me as well.
It is not a good guide to the future, the Holocaust. The Holocaust included a genocidal European reaction to Jewish sociological power; but the counter-Holocaust has included a deception about Jewish power, both in the United States and in Israel. It is a deception about our continued life as victims, when we can be influential in the U.S. and oppressors in Israel/Palestine.
Nonetheless, I am upset with myself for my silence. I will write that letter to my mother’s friend. And I think my work is among Jews. They are in the power class in America, they are the ones standing in the road of our foreign policy. If we are to make progress on these issues it is necessary to convert the Jews to the idea of Israel’s non-necessity. But still Jews don’t believe it; by overwhelming majority they do not believe it. They are attached to the idea of the Jewish state out of an ancient Jewish sense of their own isolation in the world community. I feel that one role I have is to engage on this question, within my ethnic community, my original tribe, to try and get them past it. It won’t happen with bludgeoning.
Phil, please fit in your article the fact that 98% of Americans are Gentiles. What part should they play, and why, or why not? Your own wife is a
Gentile. Many regular commentators on your blog are living mixed marriages, just like you.
We (goy regulars here) always wonder what does your shicksa wife actually think? We never ear directly from them–Mooser also assays his shicksa wife’s opinion. Neither you, Phil, nor Mooser, allow us any direct insight into your respective wife’s POV. Why is that? Why refer to them, but never get their direct POV? Are they so secondary, such dim bulbs?
Citizen, as you say, my wife is a schicksa. Being such, she can neither read nor write, so the only way her opinion can be known is through me. And I am the only one who can decipher her grunts and ululations.
But let me put it this way: You keep on screaming about “goys” and “schicksas”
and making the stupidest inferences about I “allow” my wife, and you expect a serious answer?
And what the hell is happening to you? Have you become more serious about your drinking, or are you just dropping any pretense of a lack of bigotry about now?
And if you think the essense of anti-Zionism is American Jews “paying a price” or apologising to you, you got another think coming, bubele. I don’t think you have the lightest idea what’s going on here, do you, Mr. Jones?
Hey, Mooser, the fact remains we never hear directly from your wife, or from Phil’s wife, although you both have continually brought them into the conversation. So, we are not suppose to notice? In contrast, at least Dick Witty has never brought his wife into the conversation on this blog. We don’t even know if she’s a gentile. You and Phil
have made it clear that your wives are gentiles. It’s not something I have made up.
You have both talked in that vein; nobody else here made it up. So, what’s with that comment narrative
bubele?
Have you become serious about your prescription pill taking? Do you think the essence of anti-Zionism is American Jews “paying a price,” or apologizing to you?
You and Phil bring up your non-Jewish wives in a substantial number of your comments. I ask, what do they have to say directly to us who frequent this blog? You respond by
calling me an alcoholic. Cute. Do you even have the IQ of a moose?
BTW, Mooser, the term shiksa was not invented by me. but by Jews.
My wife is the child of Hungarian holocaust survivors.
She attended the demonstration with me last year in Amherst, about the time of the Hampshire first divestment resolution.
She was similarly appalled by the Palestinians and solidarity ranting at the pro-peace demonstraters. By pro-peace, I mean supportive of a two-state solution with a healthy and viable Palestine as a good neighbor to a healthy, accepted and secure Israel.
She’s occassionally looked over my shoulder as I read and write here, and her comments are not endearing, MUCH stronger than mine.
She’s not unusual. FAR FAR more otherwise idealistic, compassionate, and creative liberal Jews are very turned off by the pro-Palestinian vitriol, to the extent that it is uniquely self-defeating.
Liberal Jews who are so easily turned off by the pro-Palestinian vitriol are probably not liberal Jews but liberal Zionists, and seeing as there is no such thing as a liberla Zionist, it’s hardly a surprise.
OK. we get your wife’s story, Witty. She’s a born jew, and her family tree was
harmed by the Nazis. She’s more of a fanatical Zionist than you are–we assume therefore she thinks Pals are sub-creatures who have assumed the mantle of Nazis even though they are victims of Jews. We are still waiting to hear first hand from Phil and Mooser’s goy wives; you know, the wives they have both talked about in quite a few of their articles or comments?
She thinks that people that harass others are different than humane, different than “justice-seeking”.
What you left out Witty, is that harassement by Israel is accetable, just not when it’s done to Israelis.
Harrassment is unacceptable, even in defense of a just cause.
Why do you harass Phil then? And anyway, correcting your untruths and pointing out the double standards in your arguments isn’t harassment. Getting into your personal life is harassment, though I’d like to point out that I don’t see why you are dragging your wife into this. If she wants to argue on this board let her sign up, but it’s hardly surprising that she sides with you and it’s not evidence of anything.
It’s entirely possible you’ve seen bad behavior at demonstrations. It’s odd that you bring this up so much and then object to Max’s videos of bad behavior at pro-Israeli demonstrations. It’s almost like you have double standards about that. How do we know you’re telling the full truth about those demonstrations or why people get angry at you?
Then let her post here instead of you. An honest Zionist is preferable to your hypocrisy.
‘liberal Jews’? Like who?
Tell me what about you or your friends (who you label ‘liberal Jews’) is liberal.
I argue with and criticize Phil. Phil has met my wife, as I’ve met his. Hopefully again soon.
When I started posting here, I personally asked Phil if my tone was excessive, if I had offended him. He responded that he didn’t feel that. I don’t know if he’s changed his mind.
I have respect for him, some angers, some primary differences (and some more primary similarities – or at least often confirmed hopes of similarities).
My criticism of Max’s videos (and of Adam’s selections of and timing of presentation) is of a contemptuous intentionally demeaning smugness.
I believe that peace and justice are hastened by acceptance and respect, and are deterred by contempt, so part of my criticism is of thereby HINDERING the propsect for viable Palestine.
Phil seeks to convert the Jews to the idea of Israel’s nonnecessity. If you could convince the Jews that the path to Israel’s dissolution would be painless, that would give you a step up. But you cannot convince them of that unless you are convinced of that. Are you convinced of that?
You expect losing Jewish privilege in an apartheid state to be painless? If by painless you mean free of violence on a Kristallnacht scale, then sure, I honestly believe that is possible.
But if by painless you mean retaining all privilege….then I suggest you put down the crack pipe and wake up to reality. In a situation like that, I would expect those in power to fight and be the most violent as they have the most to lose.
to convert the Jews to the idea of Israel’s nonnecessity. If you could convince the Jews that the path to Israel’s dissolution would be painless, that would give you a step up…..Are you convinced of that?
that path israel is on is very likely to lead to israel’s dissolution as a jewish state unless israel does an about face and works towards a fair equitable 2 state solution (ie, give up the goal of greater israel), which does not seem to be happening. the only other option is for israel to rev up the ethnic cleansing. this issue is not about convincing israelis israel is not necessary, it is convincing them the end results of their continued expansionist policies will actually be more painful for jews (not just israelis) in the long run because israel becomes the state of its actions (immoral). because israel is the jewish state that translates into jewishness (and judaism) being seen as immoral. so one has a choice, israels survival as an immoral entity or israel’s dissolution for a higher moral (jewish ) standard?
what part of israels actions speaks for judaism? i think zionism could be what’s threatening judaism. it isn’t israel’s non necessity, it’s zionism’s non necessity. people act like this is about saving israel when what it really is about for many jews is saving the option for greater israel. israelis are gambling their own state w/their (albeit some) interpretations of judaism and this fixation of their (albeit some)aspirations of erezt israel (under the guise /lie of ‘security’). achieving that would be extremely painful and likely cause ww3, threatening mankind. how much weight can the shoulders of judaism bear for this zionism? israels must be convinced their pain will be greater following down the same path. WJ, are you convinced this same path israel has been on will be less painful than an about face?
annie- Israel was created from an ideology of survival. Zionism was “born” as a result of the pogroms in Russia in 1881. Zionism achieved critical mass in terms of population as a result of big power interference and the intense Jew hatred that resulted in Poland in the 20′s and in Germany beginning in ’33.
Israel’s interaction with the “indigenous” has been inimical.
You are proposing a 180 degree turnabout in Israel’s interaction with the “indigenous” and ask whether that would be worse than the present tense.
I don’t know and I generally do not trouble my mind to think of theoretical questions. Israel is made up of millions of Jewish individuals and also a million and a half of nonJewish individuals. Those millions of Jewish individuals will not be making a 180 degree turnabout as a result of a decision of mine or of yours about what would be best for them. They will stay the same or at “best” change in increments towards less inimical. A 180 degree turn is not part of the human personality, except towards more inimical, as in a physical reaction of fear or hate, but towards less inimical it doesn’t really happen except in Hollywood and fairy tales and even there it is hardly ever seen for even Hollywood and fairy tales use reality as their source and sounding board.
The settlement enterprise involves a number of factors- The attitude of Israel regarding how to reach a peace settlement on its eastern frontier. The determined attitude of a small group to achieve a greater Israel. (known in Hebrew as a complete Land of Israel)
Between 67 and 73 the settlement enterprises on the west bank were minimal. The plant was sown but it was limited.
In the aftermath of the 73 war, the settler group decided that the best reaction to the demoralization that resulted from the large number of soldiers killed was to embark on the enterprise of settlement. Between 74 and 77 this group confronted a government that was ambivalent towards how to make peace regarding the west bank. In 74 the Arab League recognized the PLO as the de facto government of the West Bank and Gaza and removed Jordan as official interlocutor. Whatever difficulties Israel defense thinking had regarding Jordan reoccupation of the West Bank or Jerusalem, the difficulties vis a vis
Arafat and his organization were exponentially worse.
In 77 Begin came to power and his dedication to a complete Land of Israel was strong. (The manpower for the settlement movement came from a religious background, but many of the ideologues were found in other parts of the population whose youth was realistic rather than ideologically committed.) The only chance to nip the settlement movement was at that time during the Egyptian Israeli peace negotiations. Carter wanted Israel to stop settling the West Bank, but not enough to make the Israel Egypt peace contingent on it.
Sorry for the digression. I just wanted to insert a little history. To turn the Israel settler movement 180 degrees around would require a country that is more or less united about the sovereignty that would replace the current situation. In fact the country is overwhelmingly skeptical regarding the sovereignty that would replace the current situation. And thus a determined population versus a government that has no vision of a 180 degree policy, the determined population will prevail.
WJ: And thus a determined population versus a government that has no vision of a 180 degree policy, the determined population will prevail.
Unless, perhaps, a government and/or a significant part of the remainder of the population is galvanised by international pressure and isolation to do something about the least rational and least defensible of all its policies – doubts regarding future sovereignty notwithstanding.
On a related note, the Israeli Attorney General will soon decide, whether Israel can go on ignoring the Goldstone Report. The recommendation of former Chief Justice Aaron Barak to the AG is that he establish a commission of inquiry into the Report’s allegations. I don’t know what he will decide or what such a commision will be worth, but without the international outcry aroused by the operation itself and by the Goldstone Report, the AG would not even have considered establishing a commission.
So far, protests and pressure haver been minimal, but they have been enough to make the Israelis nervous. I think this is a good sign for BDS.
Easy, the Israelis and their rubber-stampers in the USA goy slot of most influence due to how USA goy political campaigns are financed ( check out this), is the reason why USA, the enabling nation for Israeli whims, is so
deep in sin, no matter how you look at it.
So, we can’t assume any future Hollywood tale giving us the truth of how the Palestinians have been fucked all these years? Paul Newman’s movie Exodus just lingers on, and on—backed up by hard money stripped from the 98% US taxpayer millions. Nice.
98% of the US is non-Jewish.
Who needs Hollywood, not these days?
To turn Israel around requires outside pressure. As you point out, it will never happen by itself. The scales are not going to fall suddenly from Israeli eyes so they can see themselves as the racist thugs they are.
“Phil seeks to convert the Jews to the idea of Israel’s nonnecessity. ”
That’s already been proven beyind any diubt by the simple fact that most of the world’s Jewish population chooses not to live in Israel.
I was talking about free of violence.
Your belief that it is possible doesn’t convince me. To change another person’s belief you need more than just your own belief, no?
I see the pain and suffering inflicted on the Palestinians that we simply cannot express with words. It is absolutely sickening and many person would want to seek revenge through the death of those who inflict such cruelty. Yet by and large, after the constant repression, the constant detention, the numerous checkpoints designed to choke life, the numerous massacres committed, the denial of their historical existence on the land, the racism they face, the human rights violations and systematic attempt to psychologically break down Palestinians across the entire agree spectrum….these people are still willing to sit down at a Table and negotiate a REAL peace based on 1967 lines (both Hamas, and the Israeli Lacky the PA).
This entire website is a testament to that fact if you pay attention and actually read the stories without trying to pre filter it.
That is how I can look at the situation as say that I believe it is possible to deconstruct the aparteid that has been built up. And, looking at the historical events that have transpired, that is how I can say I am most fearful of a backlash from the Israeli side as they may violently attempt to maintain power.
these people are still willing to sit down at a Table and negotiate a REAL peace based on 1967 lines
What is there alternative? Wait for BDS to solve all of their issues, or wait for the progressives to change the minds of the entire world?
All other means, be it BDS or not, push towards (a) a two State Solution or (b) a single State Solution. To get to that point you invariably need negotiations. Now if the world (lets just say US and EU because that is all that really matters) changes their mind and acts unilaterally to implement a ’67 Palestine with force, then I’ll be all for it.
Barring the fantastic scenario I just described (Which isn’t going to happen), only when Israeli Gov’t (and I’m not referring just to Netanyahu) is forced to sit down and negotiate on the basis of rights, and not needs, will all issues be solved.
And all I see , from both Hamas in Gaza and Fatah in WB, is a real desire to live in peace on ~’67 borders (With minor and equal adjustments). I have not seen that from the Israeli Side in terms of actions. It is just about, as others have stated, negotiating for the sake of negotiation to continuously delay a just resolution.
But don’t worry yonira – once BDS builds up enough and is mainstream, and once the ‘progressives’ of the world understand….Israel will want to rush to the bargaining table. I just hope it happens before the slow genocide in the territories explodes with great intensity over a short period of time that would make Gaza seem like child’s play – clearly, the Israelis who want all the land are still fantasizing that the Palestinians will someday cease to exist; and once they realize that won’t happen, using violent force will be their preferred tool, as it historically has.
Thanks for the follow up AM, I agree with you totally.
I guess if BDS could bring a quicker solution and cause Israel to ‘rush’ to the bargaining table than I am game.
Yes, and Uncle Sam will give the green light for Israel to bomb Iran, followed up by US blood and money to support Israeli racism. Let’s repeat bombing Iraq.
Yeah, you’re right yonira, seems like nothing can be done about the goy congress people and their wannabes. The combo of easy campaign money and immunity from being called an anti-semite is the arch driver in the USA software program.
Any hick American knows this.
Don’t you believe in the power of conviction? Gandhi said, one man with the truth is a majority.
How many Jews do you think don’t recognise that what Israel is doing to Palestinians is morally wrong? Whether they are willing to admit it or not depends on how successful they think they are at pulling the wool over people’s eyes.
I do believe that it will take a lot to make Israel give up its advantage [genocide always works] and the pressure will have to come from within.
I was talking about free of violence.
obviously israelis have never had an aversion to violence. the state was founded on using violence and has been sustained thru the use of violence. if they had any aversion to violence they would not have used violence to evict so many people prior to their founding which brought about the inevitable retaliation attacks. so why peddle this ‘free from violence’ idea when what we are really talking about is whose violence and whose pain and how much pain and what in the long run causes pain and how much pain israelis have always been willing to risk and meter out for their constant expansionist goals. they are running a friggin occupation and violent suppression of millions of people so its rather nervy bringing this ‘free from violence’ canard in here wrt the oppressor. if this is about people’s ‘beliefs’ we might start w/the (your) belief the whole world should accept israels violence is justified by some exceptionalist thing. ultimately israel exists because the world community allows for it’s oppression and violence to go unchecked (largly due to the backing of the US superpower). that will not last forever. so it isn’t just about us convincing you or israelis, it is about either israel convincing us..or else remaining in some superpower war criminal status indefinitely against all odds…. or changing and dumping their violent policy of oppression and constant threats of more violence.
Israeli’s have never had any aversion to violence, not towards each other, and not towards their neighbors.
And BTW, Zionism never ever convinced the whole world of a damn thing.
Mooser, you don’t need convince anyone of Zionism, you only need to convince them that if they don’t go along with the Zionist program they won’t have a career; this has been well done. Just look to our USA congress for pudding proof.
Phil:
Seems to me you were reluctant to express your views out of consideration. In the home of a Holocaust survivor, thats not out of place. It will be easier to write a letter and perhaps the next time you visit, you’ll find the subject waiting for you.
thanks sammy, kind and thoughtful. citizen, i will ask the wife about this. i want to get her to israel to get her take. i’ll report to you. and wondering: it’s a good point…
Better yet Phil, why not publicly and loudly choose NOT to exercise your wife’s and your own (racist) option to go and spend time in Israel while people who were born there can’t return?
Me I swore long ago I would never, ever set foor in the place. I got better things to do than hang around stolen property.
Eventually, the Israelis will prove to Phil that their intransigence is much, much stronger than his desire to do anything about it. After all, they are fully committed to solving their problems through violence, and Phil to the opposite. So when the time comes that Phil is convinced that nothing except violence will move Israel, he may honorably drop out of the fight.
Yup, that’s right, I said “honorably”.
So, Mooser, are you advocating for at least economic sanctions against Israel, if not US military force against Israel by the US military? What do you recommend, Mooser, that the USA do to enhance honest fairness in regard to the I-P situation?
I believe that Israel is not just non-necessary, it is corrupting. Israel no longer has the excuse of terrorism, it is now attacking free speech and peaceful demonstration on the part of both Arabs and Jews. It has become a police state.
“Israel is not good for the Jews.”
This discussion has to involve Americans. It affects non-Jews too! It’s our tax dollars going over there. And doesn’t Israel want to be a part of the Western world? Isn’t it already? Don’t they always brag about their advancements? Isn’t that something a ‘Western’ nation would do?
Enough with this isolation. And do the Palestinians factor in, to those Jews who feel they ‘need’ a Jewish State?
Why didn’t Germany get partitioned? Why the Palestinians? Profound racism.
Remember the Berlin Wall Cliff? East and West Germany?
par·ti·tion (pär-tshn) n.
1. a. The act or process of dividing something into parts.
b. The state of being so divided.
2.a. Something that divides or separates, as a wall dividing one room or cubicle from another.
b. A wall, septum, or other separating membrane in an organism.
3. A part or section into which something has been divided.
4. Division of a country into separate, autonomous nations.
That was a “partition” between inhabitants of the land by a third party. Israel is a third party state imposed on the inhabitants. Not the same thing. It would be like paritioning India and Pakistan, giving India to the British [or all Christians, if you like] and expecting the rest of the people to move.
yonira, you know what I meant
why did the Palestinians – who were the majority – have to see their land partitioned?
if this is all about the Holocaust and antisemitism, why didn’t a European State take some ‘responsibility’?
maybe Germany should have given over, say Bavaria, to the Jews after WW2? Where’s LeaNder on this?
“This discussion has to involve Americans. It affects non-Jews too! It’s our tax dollars going over there.”
Write a letter to your representative. Everyone says paper letter delivered by mail are the most effective.
Thanks, Mooser you are right in your advice.
I’m very happy, grateful that you went to Israel.
I’m sure that it was a changing experience for you, evident in your writing, as your two trips to Gaza and Cairo were clearly changing experiences and also evident in your writing.
Best to see for yourself.
I think your statement “If we are to make progress on these issues it is necessary to convert the Jews to the idea of Israel’s non-necessity.” is both innaccurate objectively and a vanity on your part, a projection of your own and some others’ similar experience, into something conclusive objective.
Just there is a kind way to be Phil Weiss, and likely a mean way that is still Phil Weiss, it is a confident and self-aware Phil Weiss that is most likely able to be the kind one. The prospect of a mean Phil Weiss would be most likely one that is hurt in some way.
The advantage of a life lived (ours), is of a compost, a transformation of alive garbage into alive nutrient-filled soil. Of guilt motivating compassion changing to compassion itself (confident). Or of fear motivating determination changing into determination itself (fearless).
“But still Jews don’t believe it; by overwhelming majority they do not believe it. They are attached to the idea of the Jewish state out of an ancient Jewish sense of their own isolation in the world community. I feel that one role I have is to engage on this question, within my ethnic community, my original tribe, to try and get them past it. It won’t happen with bludgeoning.”
I strongly agree that transformations of consciousness don’t happen by bludgeoning. It is one of my primary criticisms of Norman Finkelstein and some of the comments that you’ve chosen to post here.
I’ve sincerely wished that Norman had the self-possession to pursue and teach spirituality (as a child of a holocaust survivor, like my wife is) to transform his guilts into his compassions and maybe open a center like Burg suggests, to help others “turn their composts”.
Its unclear if he’s saved Palestinians lives or experience by his actions (or potentially made them worse). By helping individuals heal, even if that work had any impact on removing a shadow and complex associated with feelings of persecution, he might have instead persuasively changed a decision-maker’s attitude and changed a life.
Its never too late.
This website as currently constructed is entirely on the political, and secondarily on your confusions and navigations.
I’ve been confused, and raised that confusion to you privately and publicly, whether the site is a description of “the world according to Weiss” as the name implies, and therefore your personal journalizing, or if it is a journalistic exercise in the more conventional meaning of the term of reporting (including the human).
I guess the two can complement. “What I witness”. But, the identity of the site is still confused.
In a discussion at a class that I teach this week on social aspects of accounting reporting, our class was reviewing an Alcoa sustainability document in which they claimed (and certified by a reputable third party), that they had achieved significant ecological improvements in their performance, less CO2 emissions, less toxic output from their processes, etc, accompanied by improved profitability on their operations.
Still, the question remained of the affects of their success, success being at least in a large portion of their current business model, of mining, smelting, and selling more aluminum (a very toxic supply chain process). If they sold more aluminum, would the world be a better place, even as they do so more ecologically than their competitors (I don’t know that).
If the BDS movement for example gained steam, and as a direct result of this website, and resulted in the boycott of Israeli dancers, Israeli academics, former Israeli officials, Israeli films and/or then later all computers (AMD, Intel, Motorola, Cisco all having some significant research affiliates or contracts in Israel), or cellphones, or electric car or battery systems, or drip agricultural systems, would that be a success in the world, especially if it ended there, without a single state in our lifetime, without a real peace between two states that evolve to be good neighbors?
Awareness of bludgeoning is important.
I have MANY suggestions for efforts to shift attitudes if you are interested in pursuing that effort in earnest.
Why don’t you go start your own site where you can suggest to your heart’s content.
Oh yes, Dick Witty, like a Nazi correctly patting himself on the back for all the
German innovations in science and technology. We owe those Nazi Germans of old a lot, and we certainly benefit from their endeavors, why even the German-derived USA education system as merely one example, made the USA better. Where would the Israelis be without the German influence? Or indeed, the USA? Something to think about more than you do.
This would be moving, if I weren’t familiar with your views.
As for BDS, why not argue for it in some areas and not for others? Maybe it’s a bad idea to boycott Israeli cultural and intellectual life. I could believe this (though certainly the Israelis don’t seem to have a problem trampling on the educational hopes of Gazans). But how about putting a ban on weapons to Israel? What’s the humanist reason for continuing with that? You seem to think it’s legitimate for Israel to impose a brutal siege (with Egypt’s help) on Gaza until such time as they can ensure that no weapons are shipped there via the ocean. So why not ban weapons imported into Israel?
“Familiar with your views”?
Maybe your not. Or, maybe your judgementalism is an irrational approach to reform, more consistent with bludgeoning.
Gosh Richard, it always is so inspiring how fast, thoughtfully and personally Phil answers your comments. He must think an awful lot of your intelligence and character.
“Maybe your not. Or, maybe your judgementalism is an irrational approach to reform, more consistent with bludgeoning.”
If I’m not, Richard, it’s a sad commentary on your writing, as I’ve seen you express your views countless times now. I’ve even summarized them in a way you obviously thought accurate a month or two ago. No doubt you’ve forgotten.
As for bludgeoning, an interesting term coming from a man who supports the blockade on Gaza until it can be guaranteed no weapons will be sent there, but who won’t advocate even so small a thing as a ban on weapons being sent to Israel.
As for reform, it’ll have a better chance of coming when your sort of hypocrisy on this subject is discredited. Your apologetics for Israeli brutality combined with your advocacy of peace (some of which is good, if taken in isolation from your own noxious views) is poisonous. It discredits what little good there is in what you have to say.
Again,
You have the option of considering compassion for BOTH Palestinians and Israelis as a basis to move forward.
On the blockade of Gaza, what OPTIONS do you see? What do you propose, practically?
Seriously. Please do not evade the question.
That’s easy Witty.
Lift the blockade completely and allow Gaza to function as any other society. Gaza’s leadership proved that it’s capable of adhereing to a ceasfire.
In fact, Isrlae has been carrying out aerial bombardment of Gaza, killing over a dozen Palestrinians and Hamas have not responded with any rocket attacks. I suppoe you wil argue that Israel is not breaking the ceasfire because Hamas are not fighting back.
Lift the blockade means what exactly?
1. Israel allow unmoderated traffic across its borders?
2. Egypt allow unmoderated traffic across its borders?
3. Establish some lawful means for Gaza to have a funtioning port, short-term (before a port is built)?
Move forward actually. How do you see that happening?
Israel could check to see that weapons aren’t being smuggled across its own borders, but the sadistic blockade intended to prevent reconstruction should end–it was and is a war crime. How stupid, self-righteous, and bigoted do you have to be not to understand this? Israel’s actions are not those of a country merely trying to prevent weapons from entering Gaza–as Ethan Bronner at the NYT has repeatedly said, they are intended to establish a contrast between the relative prosperity of the WB under Israel’s compliant puppets (though that will end if they are less compliant) and the immiseration of people under Hamas.
And why do you continually dodge the suggestion that one could impose a tightly targeted sort of boycott on Israel, one intended only to keep weapons out, for instance? ( I think it is even illegal for the US to ship weapons that are going to be used in the commission of war crimes, not that we enforce it with our war crimes committing allies in various places.) It would not in any way cause Israeli civilians to suffer–it would let them know that the war crimes of their government are taken seriously and condemned by the US. Please do not evade the question.
“How stupid, self-righteous, and bigoted do you have to be not to understand this?”
I support the relative relaxation of cross-border trade and have written to my Congresspeople to urge that of their contacts among Israelis.
There definitely IS a difference in relationship between Israel and the PA in the West Bank and Israel and Hamas in Gaza. And the consequences of that are limited border traffic. To insist that Israel have the same policy towards both would be an excessive intrusion.
Especially while Hamas permits the firing of rockets at Israeli civilians still (war crime).
I think the US should insist that Israel not use phosphorous. On the leveling of farms/factories, I wasn’t convinced that at least in some cases, that wasn’t a logistical military necessity in a status of actual war. (I believe that there were instances of destruction that was neither error nor necessary logistically).
The question of whether Hamas intended a state of war is an IMPORTANT question to answer the question of the extent of war crimes. I contest that Hamas either objectively compelled a state of war, or was horridly negligent in proceeding on a strategy that gave Israeli military the scope to rationalize that it was in a state of war.
I don’t know for certain which is accurate, or if they were in a state of governance to even pose it in those terms.
I see tragedy, and seek to avert it. You apparently see injustice only and seek to hold others accountable, including those that only see tragedy and not raging injustice.
What delusion gives you the belief that you’re the schoolteacher here, with the right to demand people take your tests?
” support the relative relaxation of cross-border trade and have written to my Congresspeople to urge that of their contacts among Israelis.”
That’s good, though with your prose it’s hard to tell what you mean. Here you’ve talked of a solution that depended on no weapons going to Hamas as a precondition. Until then, the blockade continues.
“here definitely IS a difference in relationship between Israel and the PA in the West Bank and Israel and Hamas in Gaza. And the consequences of that are limited border traffic. To insist that Israel have the same policy towards both would be an excessive intrusion.”
Euphemisms again. Israel and Egypt together prevent Gaza reconstruction. It’s a war crime. To insist that Israel cease committing war crimes is apparently an excessive intrusion. They don’t have to have the same relationship with the PA as with Hamas , but punishing the Gazans is not an acceptable way to proceed.
“Especially while Hamas permits the firing of rockets at Israeli civilians still (war crime).”
You’re right–firing rockets at Israeli civilians is a war crime. That’s easy enough to say, apparently.
“I think the US should insist that Israel not use phosphorous. On the leveling of farms/factories, I wasn’t convinced that at least in some cases, that wasn’t a logistical military necessity in a status of actual war. (I believe that there were instances of destruction that was neither error nor necessary logistically).”
Good about the phosphorus. How exactly should they insist? How about imposing a weapons importation ban on Israel? As for the leveling of farms and factories, it’s hard to believe ANY of that was necessary. As for instances of destruction that was neither error nor necessary logistically, it sounds like a very long way of avoiding saying “The Israelis committed war crimes”.
The following paragraph is rationalization on your part–poor little Israel can never be held responsible for its acts of immense destruction without pointing the finger at Hamas, but one can always simply blame Hamas for war crimes without any hedging. Your usual double standards.
“I see tragedy, and seek to avert it. You apparently see injustice only and seek to hold others accountable, including those that only see tragedy and not raging injustice.”
No, Richard, you are relentless in imposing your double moral standards on the situation and dressing this up as an attempt to seek peace. The fact that Palestinians will deeply resent the odious double standards on morality that you wish to impose is an obstacle to peace. For the foreseeable future there are likely to be violent acts from both sides–if your approach is adopted, as it has been for decades, we are guaranteed a continuation of a farcical “peace process” where the Palestinians continue to be oppressed and are given the brunt of the blame for their own oppression because people like you will unhesitatingly condemn Palestinian violence while hemming and hawing , condemning here, but mostly exusing the much greater Israeli violence. You can’t see the problem because you can’t see any problem that hits too close to home.
And btw, have you read the Benny Morris link that I and others have provided repeatedly, the one that shows him defending ethnic cleansing?
1. What goes to Gaza is no more Israel’s business than it is Hamas’ as t what goes into Israel.
2. What goes to Gaza is no more Egypt’s business than it is Hamas’ as t what goes into Egypt.
3. There is an established lawful means for Gaza to have a funtioning port. It;s under Haza’s juridiction and entierly up to Gaza what takes place in Gaza’s waters and territory.
You’re simply a rampant imperiliast who regards Palestinians as sub human,
A trademark Witty sleazy post.
“I support the relative relaxation of cross-border trade..”‘
The word relative is a typical Wittyizm that is degined to mean anything Israel wants it to be. So a 1% relaxation is a relative relaxation.
“‘To insist that Israel have the same policy towards both would be an excessive intrusion.”‘
So Wotty arguies it would be excessively intrusive to prevent Israel being excessive on Gaza. Witty also bases his assumptino on Israel’s perennial righetousness, by arguing that the West Bankis not blockaded, because Isrle has a better relationship with Fatah.
Witty sees nothing wrogn with this. Justice is not important, fiversity of opinion shoudl not be tolerated, but favouratism should be encouraged.
“‘Especially while Hamas permits the firing of rockets at Israeli civilians still (war crime).”‘
Witty asks us to ignore the lephant in the room, namely that Israel had a a ceasfire that they rejected and then used as a pretext to carry out far greater war crimes.
Witty also hopes we ignore th fact that Israel has been bombing Gaza and killing Palestinians, in spite of a ceasefire.
“‘I think the US should insist that Israel not use phosphorous”‘
Note, the US should ask, but not withold suppling the WP to Israel. Whereas, Hamas should be denied all weapons.
“‘The question of whether Hamas intended a state of war is an IMPORTANT question to answer the question of the extent of war crimes.”‘
Yes it is important and it has been answered. Israel vilated the ceasfire from day 1, while Hamas stuck to it regardless. Israel rejected the calls for a return to ceasefire and demanded the US veto calls for a ceasfire at the UN.
Tzipi LIvni stated that Israel were not interested in a long ceasfire, for it would threaten Israel’s strategic interests.
The Goldtone report concluded that Israel perpetarted war crimes, much more severe than those perpetrated by Hamas.
“I contest that Hamas either objectively compelled a state of war…”‘
In spite of no evidence and all facts to the contrary.
“I see tragedy, and seek to avert it. “”
A tragedy is blameless crime, a massacre is not a tragedy.
Have I missed anything?
I think my work is among Jews. They are in the power class in America, they are the ones standing in the road of our foreign policy. If we are to make progress on these issues it is necessary to convert the Jews to the idea of Israel’s non-necessity.
i think your work is among jews too. i think you have a powerful strong open exploring and questioning voice. wrt ‘the idea of Israel’s non-necessity’ i don’t think it is necessary for israel to not exist for us to find equitable solutions. it is the way israel exists, the form zionism exists. i think convincing anyone of israels non necessity is a non starter. it is the idea of convincing people a jewish homeland does not require a majority of jews , any form of exclusivity, any inherent expansionist policies or any unequal rights for non jewish citizens. one might imagine the priority of a jewish homeland would be the aspiration to reflect the best principles of jews and judaism.
“I think my work is among Jews. They are in the power class in America, they are the ones standing in the road of our foreign policy.”
That is the height of self delusion concerning Israel. And don’t believe everything they tell you about themselves, schlump
I see Mooser has never worked in a USA job that involves any relation to Israel.
Convincing people is about knowing what they are willing to hear and able to absorb – if only after you’ve gone home. It’s also about picking your battles – if only for the sake of your own sanity and stamina.
I know that guilty feeling, because it’s not just about what you haven’t said, but about what you’ve implied by not saying it. Sigh. It reminds me that it’s time to book my flight to go see my family.
People are willing to hear a great deal if spoken to respectfully, including in a way that doesn’t seek to abuse their liberty.
Yeah, right Dick Witty–how many US families have you talked to who have kids in
war in the Middle East? None. Your kids are protected by the goy soldiers; your kids are playing with religion, defended by lower class goy kids so they, your kids, can do whatever they want. Please, tell me this is not so, and prove it.
Negotiations Israeli style:
link to haaretz.com
Shin Bet threatens Abbas to drop Goldstone report at the UN.
Thanks, Phil, for revealing the contents of your heart in this one.
As a Christian who has stood on the Mount of Olives and looked out across the Kidron valley and Zion and west Jerusalem–as a gentile who has listened intently to live Bridge Ensemble klezmer music at the Odeonsplatz in Munich where the Nazis began their campaign of hate–I am very moved by what you have written. Thanks for sharing.
I pray for the peace of Jerusalem.
“Let justice roll down like the waters, and righteousness like a mighty stream.”
Shalom
Carey Rowland, author of Glass half-Full
How many Americans even know about the Goldstone Report–one in a million? That suggests a problem, no?
To be fair, our media hardly mentioned the Goldstone Report except to condemn it as Congress did and no one publicized how to find it. That and it’s five hundred pages.
Cliff, there was no Palestinian state before 1948.
Your making it like there was a Palestinian state with a Palestinian President.
Because the British always sided with the Arabs, thats why the Jews were not the majority.
The British white paper given to appease the Arabs in 39 and this was the only reason why the Jews were not the majority.
The majority of Palestinians are Arabs from the surrounding Arab countries.
The Term Palestinian was first used by the Egyptian Yasser Arafat in 64.
Before 64, Palestinians referred to themselves as Greater Syrians, cause they came from Syria.
The Palestinians are the descendants of the Judeans who remained in the land after the Romans turfed out the Judean terrorists. Greater Syria was the name of the Ottoman province, which included Lebanon and the territory called Palestine.
I believe I sense the brimestone odor of Daniel Pipes.
Baruch,
Maps show the existence of Palestine going back 2,000 years. Get a grip and do your homework before you come here where this issue was addressed well over two years ago. The ZOG mentioned the word Palestine in its proceedings before the turn of the 20th C. Jabotinsky too. Jews in Palestine held Palestinian passports before 1948. The effing Balfour Declaration of 1917 states “Palestine.”
You make the typical arrogant weak western argument that a nation has to have a “President” in order to be a nation. And Arafat was NOT the first person to use the term Palestinian. Try the League of Nations docs from the early part of the 20th C.
What is this – Mommy always liked the Arabs better than me?
The British always sided with the Arabs, so they issued the Balfour Declaration giving away Arab land that they had no right to dispose of, to an immigrant population.
Then the immigrant population complains that it wasn’t allowed to flood the country in unlimited numbers so they could vote the residents out of their own land. Whining like a greedy kid who didn’t get the biggest slice of the cake.
good reply, potsherd.
Whining like a greedy kid who DID get the biggest slice of the cake, but thinks he deserves the whole cake instead.
“‘Cliff, there was no Palestinian state before 1948.”‘
Irrelevant. Palestinians were land owners, who owned more than 50% of the land in Palestine, while Jews only owned 7%.
If the British had sided with the Arabs, they would not have given more than 50% of Palestine to the Jewish population, which was 1 third. The fact that Jews were a minority went back to the Ottoman Empire and centuries earlier. The 1939 White Paper is of no relevance.
The majority of Israeli Jews are Europeans and East Europeans with no connectino to Israel or Palestine.
All inhabitants of Palestine were referred to as Palestinian in 1920, and all carried Palestinian passports.
Here endeth the lesson.
Pretty amazing, Shingo, that you have to give the lesson. The USA regime is very much against your truth. Obama is a jerk.
If the British always sided with the Arabs, why did they sign on to the Balfour Declaration letter, which gave foreign Jews an enforceable (by Brit Arms and prestige) mandate in Palestine; especially when at the time well over 90% of the land in question was not owned by jews?
Clue: The letter was directed at Rothschild, who even then owned England as a practical matter. Oh gee, am I a conspiracy nut case? I shouldn’t look at the history of the Rothschild clan?
The Holocaust included a genocidal European reaction to Jewish sociological power;
Phil, Mein Kampf is not a good history book, neither of Jewish history, nor of European history. It’s funny you’re all worked up about seeing the book being sold when your own understanding of Euroepan history is often drawn from the same rotten sources.
What are you implying?
“Evildoer” is from JSF, the website we all happily cite because they are so anti-Zionist over there. He’s implying that the notion of Jewish sociological power having anything to do with causing the Holocaust is bullshit. And though I know very little about the situation of European Jews in late 19th and early 20th century Europe, it’s obvious he’s right. Whatever wrongs, real or imagined, non-Jewish Europeans might have attributed to Jews, they couldn’t possibly be sufficient to cause an outburst of genocidal madness on the scale of the Holocaust.
I’ll add that the notion of Jewish sociological power itself might be what “evildoer” was objecting to. According to Tom Segev, the Balfour declaration was imposed in part because the British imagined there was such a thing, but the power existed mainly in the imagination of anti-semites. Though ironically enough, that did give the Zionists real power.
It’s much more simple, in the only super power nation, the jews control USA foreign policy. Nothing can be done about it unless the USA masses vote for
actual justice.
I guess “sociological power” is the power to fill vacancies in social science departments, a power monopolized by Jews at least since Talcott Parsons converted. On the other hand, it is possible Weiss wanted to say “social power,” and added a few Greek sounding syllables for the same reason cheap restaurants drench foul smelling meat in heavy sauce.
What isn’t clear about what I said?
Hey, Evildoer, why don’t you suggest a good history book revealing for us the true
history of Jewish and European history?
Because, as it is clear from your condescending irony (“revealing”, “true history”) at the very idea that historical analysis better than the stuff that informs Mein Kampf (and Herzl) exists and has any value, you have no intellectual interest other than that of buttressing your prejudices. You find what you seek.
Actually, I would appreciate it if you did have some good recommendations off the top of your head. No problem if you don’t. And I don’t think Mein Kampf has any value as historical analysis (don’t know if Herzl is equally worthless).
I’d recommend the following as worth reading:
Katz, Jacob. From Prejudice to Destruction: Anti-Semitism, 1700-1933. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1980.
R. I. Moore , Formation of a Persecuting Society: Authority and Deviance in Western Europe 950-1250, 2nd Edition
Trotsky on anti-semitism in the Soviet Union: link to marxists.org
Zygmunt Bauman, Modernity and the Holocaust
Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism
Thank you Phil,
I fess up I’m silent too when talking to Jewish (and other) friends and acquaintances whose stand on Israel I don’t know or who I know to be pro-Israel. Sadly, this includes relatives who are very dear to me. One of them gave me Bernard Lewis’s history of the Middle East as a birthday present, and all I did was thank him (except when he said he’d bought it used, I told him I was glad he didn’t pay full price for it – I’m glad to have it too). I’d love to know how to start a calm conversation with one of those I know to be PEPs.
I fully sympathize with the idea of the Holocaust as sacred. Your mother’s friends sound like wonderful people despite apparently following an evil philosophy that of course they don’t know is evil – and it isn’t evil to seek to be with others of similar culture, only if they build that space on mass murder and destruction of a people. I don’t think you should beat yourself up too much for not wanting to risk a shouting match with them. I don’t know where your mother stands on the issue, I might run the letter by her but certainly writing a letter allows for careful thought and being non-threatening.
“I fess up I’m silent too when talking to Jewish (and other) friends and acquaintances whose stand on Israel I don’t know or who I know to be pro-Israel.”
Me too, but after everybody from whom I could possibly expect to inherit money passed on, I was free to speak my mind. You might not have much longer and you can actually bewcome a man, who says what’s on his mind.
Perish the thought.
“I don’t think you should beat yourself up too much for not wanting to risk a shouting match with them. “
Now if only those goddam Palestinians would shut up!
Oh, and by the way, yes, it is eveil in today’s world to seek to be “with others of a similiar culture”, and no, it’s never accomplished without theft and murder. grow up.
Yeah, make sure you are against every race and tribal and ideological POV. That way you will be way ahead of Mooser and his antlers. You know, Mooser, the guy
who says he’s suppressed by his self-defined shiksa wife, who he characterizes as
a violent barbarian.
Phil,
I can relate to the difficulties in discussing the issue with close friends and relatives, and can’t offer any advice on that score.
But as an outsider look in, I noticed two points about your description of your mother’s friend. Number one, she didn’t go to Israel because of the Holocaust (or Kristallnacht in particular), she went to America. And she didn’t go to Israel because of anti-semitism, she went because she wanted to be immersed in Jewish culture, not unlike what it was for her growing up in Brooklyn. (I’ll give her the benefit of the doubt and assume it wasn’t racism that led her to Israel.) So, really, for her, Israel was not a “necessity, and a new Israel that treats all its citizens as equals will still have the rich Jewish culture, but will exist on a much more sustainable, ethical and moral basis.
Tree: So, really, for her, Israel was not a “necessity, and a new Israel that treats all its citizens as equals will still have the rich Jewish culture, but will exist on a much more sustainable, ethical and moral basis.
This is a very important point. Zionists who oppose equal rights for Palestinians generally cite three main reasons: Fear of the Palestinians themselves, a safe haven for persecuted Jews from around the world, and immersion in Jewish culture. The third reason is probably the easiest to address. At this point, how could 5.5 million Hebrew-speaking Jews, with a vibrant culture, possibly not continue to live and create within that culture – regardless of political shifts? Ahmed Moor and others have suggested ways of ensuring autonomy in areas such as education, in the context of a democratic state. The actual problems are not insurmountable. Furthermore, as tree points out, a culture free of oppression, discrimination and violence would be healthier and more sustainable (eg. Jewish Israeli society is currently haemorrhaging talent and creativity).
There is also an argument to be made from within Zionist theory (Gordon, Borochov, etc.), pertaining to all three justifications for denying Palestinians equal rights. This is not my favourite part of Zionism, because it is tinged with anti-Semitism, as well as blood-and-soil nationalism, but it can certainly be “transvalued” (to borrow a modern theological term) to embody the best of contemporary values (see eg. MMK Kaplan, father of Reconstructionism). I am referring to the idea of Jewish “normality”, as a member of the “family of nations”. “Normal” nations today do not enforce cultural development through exclusion, seclusion and violence. “Normal” democracies do not have different classes of citizen, based on religion or ethnicity. The current state of affairs in Israel thus perpetuates an “abnormal Jewish condition” of its own creation (related, although not identical to the condition it sought to address). This is a paradox within Zionism that needs to be addressed.
Great post, Shmuel.
While the racism of fearing “the Palestinians” is not an appealing characteristic of modern Zionism, that is not actually what is feared.
What is feared is the violence of SOME Palestinians. It becomes racist when Israelis are not familiar enough to distinguish between the civil and the intentionally violent.
But, very sadly, the left similarly does not distinguish. It does not distinguish in their own thinking, and does not encourage the distinction among Israelis. It doesn’t say “look, these people are not your enemies, they are just civilians attempting to live a normal decent life”. It could say “this person, this ideology does threaten you, does shelter those that threaten you, will these others do not.”
Instead it states things like “open the border indiscrimminately”, or “we yeild to the vanguard of ANY Palestinian leadership”, or “boycott (with the affect of getting to know the difference between criminality and civility less likely)”.
Its what happens with blunt application of “justice” rather than actual accountability under the rule of law, color blind.
It also ignores the elephant in the room (not the only one), that there are terror movements in the world (gruesome terror), and that they OFTEN site the presence of Israel as a pebble in their shoe, and that some of those are Palestinians and have acted in grossly illegal and grossly cruel manner over an extended period, including Hamas that is in power in Gaza.
And, that the militant activist community does NOT compel a distinction within their own movements. They do not state, “If you are not COMMITTED to a non-violent approach long and short term, leave this march, leave this organization.”
They adopt the expedient “we need to gather our solidarity, we need numbers, we need motivated activists, we cannot exclude (of course except liberals, except those with 60% sympathy to Israel and only 40% to Palestine)”.
“we cannot exclude (of course except liberals, except those with 60% sympathy to Israel and only 40% to Palestine”
More like 90/10 in your case.
Not everything you say here is wrong. There are terrorists on both sides–the Israelis are the aggressors, the oppressors and have killed far more civilians and have imposed sadistic policies obviously driven by contempt for their victims. And the average Israeli seems to be indifferent to all this–in this they probably aren’t any different from most people, since we’re all prone to narcissism to some degree. The problem with Israel is that many seem to cling so hard to their victim identity that it’s even harder for them to spot their own crimes. You yourself are a good example of this, with your clear-eyed (and accurate) view of Palestinian terror as grossly immoral, combined with your constant whitewashing and apologetics for Israeli terror.
Still, there are Palestinian terrorists and thugs and this is a problem not just for Israelis, but for the Palestinians themselves. Liberation movements very often go sour after liberation when there are so many ruthless people in the leadership.
That said, this is at least partly wrong–
“While the racism of fearing “the Palestinians” is not an appealing characteristic of modern Zionism, that is not actually what is feared.
What is feared is the violence of SOME Palestinians. It becomes racist when Israelis are not familiar enough to distinguish between the civil and the intentionally violent. ”
There wouldn’t be talk of demographic threats if violence was the sole concern.
RE: “It becomes racist when Israelis are not familiar enough to distinguish between the civil and the intentionally violent.”
Luckily, thanks to the US taxpayer and the Israel Lobby that manipulates him or her by bribing US congress people and wannabes, it only becomes racist in a very physical way as in Operation Cast Lead, where the Palestinians are punished collectively–and as they are every day under the occupation of the “disputed” Palestinian territories.
“There wouldn’t be talk of demographic threats if violence was the sole concern. ”
Zionists desire to self-govern. That is a GOOD, that I support. I am that kind of a Zionist.
The manner and scope is a second question. I am NOT an expansionist Zionist, as in expansion of the state. I believe that the 67 borders with accepted minorities in both communities is the optimally just solution. And, frankly, any solution that results in ethnic cleansing of either, is a racist one.
Very subtle reasoning, Shmuel. Keep it up, it’ll put you right back where you started, and what an interesting trip it will be!
The current state of affairs in the USA thus perpetuates an “abnormal Jewish condition” of its own creation (related, although not identical to the condition it sought to address). This is a paradox within the USA that needs to be addressed.
The Kennedy brothers, JFK, BK, not fatty Meathead Ed, most recently dead, and not by assassination, shows what happens when our leaders actually lead. Or you could say it’s just coincidence. Where’s Chas Freeman, so we can ask him? He just might know more than Mooser.
RE: “She would really like it here, she would like the Jewish culture, it would remind her of her childhood in Brooklyn.” – Mother Weiss’ friend
MY COMMENT: I sould think so, since many Israeli’s (or their parents, etc) are from Brooklyn or similar places. Where does this woman think the “Jewish culture” in Israel actually came from?
So it’s still a Brooklyn nabe fighting with the schvartzes, hunh.
Phil’s a born fence straddler, ain’t he? He’ll end up like Ferdinand, the Bull.
The Jewish culture in Israel came from Europe and from Sephardic Jewry as well. Brooklyn has not contributed that much to the Jewish culture in Israel.
The anti-Zionist cause faces a very long haul. In the short term it faces a series of rhetorical traps and we need care and discretion to avoid them.
One is that anti-Semitism is supposed to go with the raucousness and vulgarity of a Munich beer hall c.1920, so that turning a social occasion towards a confrontation, with lots of anger and rhetoric, is ‘just what an anti-Semite would do’ – and it is not good to hand the opposition the dagger of ‘anti-Semitism’ with its point towards us.
Another is that anti-Zionism is still a very odd and alien creed even in those parts of Western culture that are not strongly Jewish and I’ve sometimes thought that if I mention my views with any suddenness I could easily look rather like a gleaming-eyed flying saucer enthusiast. People would sidle away.
We also have to establish our credentials as people who care about all but all human suffering and injustice, a position which is in the end incompatible with treating any particular example of sheer suffering and injustice as sacred while the rest is merely normal or secular. This is tricky because the all-purpose ‘bleeding heart’ is so easily mocked. Great care in choice of words is needed.
Where one side has to be careful while the other easily, routinely and with brassy confidence produces the same talking points the careful side is at a disadvantage. So I don’t blame Phil for mixing discretion with valour.
Hey, who can blame Phil when not one US stand-up comedian or feigned satirical tv show ever addresses the subject in the home of the First Amendment? Shouldn’t that tell you something?
Nobody touches the subject, not even Beck or Palin. They are not that rogue. Not even the black caucus.
“The Unconscious of the Congress”
And Dick Witty passes for an America Firster; indeed for a World Humanism Firster. Hey, why don’t you head down to the Army Recruitment post down in the local strip mall, it’s right there, between those two vacant shops on either side.