These times demand the Times! The NYT Book Review devotes many many pages to anti-semitism today, including this penny dreadful by Harold Bloom reviewing Trials of the Diaspora, a History of Anti-Semitism in England, by Anthony Julius:
[Julius] is a truth-teller, and authentic enough to stand against the English literary and academic establishment, which essentially opposes the right of the state of Israel to exist, while indulging in the humbuggery that its anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism. Endless boycotts of Israel are urged by this establishment, and might yet have produced a counterboycott of British universities by many American academics, whether Jewish or not. However, under British law the projected boycotts may be illegal. The fierce relevance of Julius’s book is provoked by this currently prevalent anti-Semitism...
To protest the policies of the Israeli government actually can be regarded as true philo-Semitism, but to disallow the existence of the Jewish state is another matter. Of the nearly 200 recognized nation-states in the world today, something like at least half are more reprehensible than even the worst aspects of Israel’s policy toward the Palestinians. A curious blindness informs the shifting standards of current English anti-Zionism.
I admire Julius for the level tone with which he discusses this sanctimonious intelligentsia, who really will not rest until Israel is destroyed.
I end by wondering at the extraordinary moral strength of Anthony Julius. He concludes by observing: “Anti-Semitism is a sewer.” As he has shown, the genteel and self-righteous “new anti-Semitism” of so many English academic and literary contemporaries emanates from that immemorial stench.
Oh anti-Semitism is so important that the Times devotes four pieces to it, including this review by Francine Prose of the works and life of a fourth-rate author, Irene Nemirovsky, who did not come to terms with her own anti-Semitism (that we know of, anyway; a little grace) before she died in Auschwitz. If she's so bad, why is the Times giving her space?
So eee is writing for the NYT Book Review, huh?
I thank PHILIP WEISS for this presentation… at least I saw figments of facts that anti-semitism indeed exist among the British academe and literary icons…
Why did Julius not used the word ‘intellectuals’? Does he implicitly suggest this animosity against the Jews does not belong to the realm of intellectuals?
One more thing, I really wonder, how come anti-semitism breed in the circle of British academe and writers where in fact these are the people closest to the ‘power of the pen’, and that the greatest version of the Bible was made by them during the reign of King James?
Could be some indication ‘materialism’ is prevalent among these Britons? Or if not, don’t they read, desirous, nor capable of reading the Bible in relation to the Jewish question?… These constraints could have limited their knowledge, and understanding over the Jewish question… tilting their ideas towards anti-semitism as an easier option… Indeed, it could be possible they maybe brilliant in knowing and writing at all, but could remain in the saying; ‘they maybe highly civilized, but not well educated…’
Anyone else struck by the irony of zamaaz condemning anti-Semitism in the same breath he forwards a stereotype about Britons?
Yes, thanks seeing the paradox, the irony of anti-semitism as a prejudice against the Jews, is the fact it is a prejudice itself and equally against anything including itself… thus this right to be prejudicial does not stand as a right by itself… So what is the basis of prejudice against the Jews?
Okay, for sake of argument they made an offense as what one has seen, is it not a point of justice like a court within ourselves, to determine the nature of this offense, the motive, and the circumstances that driven him to cause such offense that we may exactly know the gravity of offense, and the necessary measure to punish as well as avoid the same offense in the future? Shall we just penalize them in like manner of a mob rule or a kangaroo court?
Zamaaz is a kook, not worth responding to. What’s more interesting is that a prominent literary critic like Harold Bloom is given front page status on the NYT book review to do this. He deliberately conflates the genuine anti-semitism that pervaded Western culture in the past (and Britain, in this case) with criticism of Zionism now, while allowing that criticism of Israel is legitimate. He then takes any sting out of that criticism by saying that at least half the countries in the world are worse than Israel. That’s standard operating procedure at the NYT. I don’t have links, but it’s not the first time someone in the paper has said that criticism of Israel in Britain is anti-semitic. I knew what motivated that blanket charge because long ago I had read David Hirst’s “The Gun and the Olive Branch” and Robert Fisk’s “Pity the Nation”, both British journalists who pull no punches when describing the crimes of Israelis. I think the NYT editors want to innoculate their readers against any of that sort of journalism by labeling everything that comes out of Britain as “anti-semitic”.
(To be fair, there are or were American journalists in mainstream news organizations who are as good–Jonathan Randal who used to work at the Washington Post wrote a book about Lebanon “Going all the way” which was very critical of Israel’s behavior. He’s better known for his book on the Kurds. I’m not sure what sort of reception Randal’s book got when it came out in the 80′s.)
[ in the same breath he forwards a stereotype about Britons?]
Good. At least with these arguments of mine will both show them back their (not all Britons of course, only those within the context of the presentation of Julius) anti-semitism, and make them fell the same discomfort they do to the Jews…
Am I not shooting two birds with one stone?
No, you’re shooting yourself in the foot. It’s pretty hypocritical to accuse others of entrenched biases while pandering to stereotypes yourself.
Ironic way of phrasing it.
And besides, I have not condemned them yet that is why I was saying; perhaps, could, possibly, etc… These are just notions or initial premises. These are only openings towards reason. If you follow along and consider these logical lines, or if you would reject them, its for your judgment not mine…
‘And besides, I have not condemned them yet that is why I was saying; perhaps, could, possibly, etc… These are just notions or initial premises. These are only openings towards reason. If you follow along and consider these logical lines, or if you would reject them, its for your judgment not mine… ‘
Ah, the classic Jersey defense : ‘I’m not saying your mother’s a whore. I’m just saying she has sex for money. With people.’
Anyone else actually reading through zamazz’s comments?
This would be pronounced HOOWAH! Full full authentic effect.
I am. Witty is hasbara, but zamazz is hasbara on crack. Who could resist ploughing through his woefully-punctuated posts? He’s like an ultra-Zionist lolcat.
Even more good now that ‘we both recognize’ there is this ‘stereotyping’ indeed…
If any state has a self-determined right to define the nature of its own existence, then why did we hang Germans at Nuremberg? And we did that by applying ex post facto law! And Germans have been paying reparations for how long? Now, post Nuremberg, we have Israel, it’s right to existence defined by eee & the NYT Book Review, as Chaos says, immunized from international law? As if that’s not enought to choke on, the very UN that gave the world’s jews an authorized homeland at the expense of the natives is dissed all the time by Israel. And the US enables Israel. Drop the US UN Security Council vote and the US 7 trillion dollar support of Israel and all it does, what do you get? A better world, a world where ALL humans are equally precious.
A very conservative report on US charity flipped into Israel’s tin cup:
link to wrmea.com
The charity is actually much larger. The info is available on the internet.
The actuall total is only known by the US congressional committees who dole it out–check out who they are. I don’t think you will find Joe the Plumber.
[A better world, a world where ALL humans are equally precious.]
This is an comical idea… imagine feeding the Jews to the ‘wolves’ to make a world where ALL humans are equally precious? How can we demand the Jews to look as the Palestinians as humans, when we do not look at the Jews as humans? Are we pouring gasoline over a conflagration?
Zionism isn’t racism, huh?
Zamazz, don’t you think you are like the rest of us. Are we not all brothers and sisters, all Palestinians, all Israelis and everyone else. Our race, our creeds, our skin tones are accidents of birth, acts of biology. Welcome to the human race.
Yes, thank you for such kindness …
[Are we not all brothers and sisters, all Palestinians, all Israelis and everyone else. Our race, our creeds, our skin tones are accidents of birth, acts of biology. ]
I hope everyone here use this premises as starting point of exchanges towards positive ideas in resolving this tragedy…
“I hope everyone here use this premises as starting point of exchanges towards positive ideas in resolving this tragedy… “
Go sit on a sharp stick, stupid.
“How can we demand the Jews to look as the Palestinians as humans, when we do not look at the Jews as humans?”
That’s your problem, zamaaz, not our’s. I’m a Jew, and I look upon my fellow Jews as quite human. My wife might have some doubts, of course, but not me.
Mooser, you are a Jew? I am not a Jew either, but I do not appreciate the way people accuse the Jews, without just account of all considerations that brought them into such question… You question them to ‘bite’ back ferociously? Even dogs fight back worse than the Jews, when dangerously pushed in a corner! (The only difference is that they are legally given the ‘corner’, and in much better politically prepared position)
Racist settler colonialism is also a sewer. Everything said in its defense stinks of a foul odor.
Otto, not to mention that they have the consciousness of 19th C uneducated heathens. Would you have them over for a family barbecue? (I’m assuming the USA here.)
Tu Quoque is a very common fallacy in which one attempts to defend oneself or another from criticism by turning the critique back against the accuser. This is a classic Red Herring since whether the accuser is guilty of the same, or a similar, wrong is irrelevant to the truth of the original charge. However, as a diversionary tactic, Tu Quoque can be very effective, since the accuser is put on the defensive, and frequently feels compelled to defend against the accusation.
Huh, I should have imagined there’d be a name for this. Also, nice web site. Bookmarked for posterity. :)
Me no like. A reader calls him on his poor example and the author covers his ass in a welter of split hairs.
Yes. I agree with this idea also… in fact the truth is based on the content or validity of the statements (or words), not the kind person (whatever he is) who said it (whether he is an idiot, morom, a scum, a fool, etc.)
IN the case of accusations against Israel such as; inhuman, cruel, arrogant, insensitive, etc… These are visible indeed in many instances, but what is your basis? have you consider other factors that may have brought such circumstances? What if they are executing the provisions of their legal rights too! What if they are doing it within the provisions of their laws?
He we considered we could be suffering because we are outside of the law?
I am not accusing the accusers, I am just questioning whether they have bases based on legal justice for condemning the Jews…
For all I know justice in tis execution of the law has also the appearance of inhuman, cruel, arrogance, and insensitiveness…
Yeah. Technically the Holocaust was legal under Nazi German law, too.
How come you Zionist nuts feel compelled to attack the very foundations of modern human social justice?
“How come you Zionist nuts feel compelled to attack the very foundations of modern human social justice?”
Gosh, I wonder that, too! Gee, you don’t think it might be because the foundations of modern human social justice pretty much leaves Zionism out in the cold?
[Yeah. Technically the Holocaust was legal under Nazi German law, too.]
Yes, in fact the Holocaust was a technically a legal under Nazi German law… That is why the Nazis were condemned due such
acts.
The However, we can never compare the present Jews to the Nazis. The Jews in Europe before the WW2 were never accused of any violent struggle, nor has initiated a war against the Germans before the Nazi control… No wide-scale Jewish action can ever justify the holocaust…
Great resource there!
At least Shakespeare gave Shylock a strong will for justice, claiming his pound of flesh. How anti-Zionistic.
Re: Nemirovosky
I belong to a book club- yes, Chaos, hard to believe- and we were discussing the stories of Isaac Babel and the writer’s conflicted relationship with his own Jewish identity. The facilitator, a Russian Jewish writer herself, explained that Russian Jewish writers integrated to a large extent the antisemitism that was hardwired in Russian society so it is not surprising that Nemirovosky and other Jewish writers of her generation used a lot of antisemitic cliches in their work. They were newly emancipated and wanted to prove their Russianness.
Re : Otto’s comment.
Confirms Francine Prose critique. Use of slogans and sterotypes passing for analysis. Pathetic.
Phil, you are pulling a Nemirovsky yourself here with your antizionism. She was one of the righteous Jews for the French antisemites of the day. Just like you! Haha!
From Nemirovosky to Atzmon, plus ca change!
Noun, verb, “self-hating Jew.”
[They were newly emancipated and wanted to prove their Russianness.]
NO. not just emancipated, they are real ‘original’ Jews in one of the two dimensions of true Jewishness…
Oh, Zamaaz, don’t stop! Tell us more about the two dimensions of true Jewishness! They told me in Hebrew School (North Shore Synagogue, Syossett, LI, NY) that the two dimensions of Jewishness are 1) the food tastes like poison, and 2) the portions are so small!
But please, don’t let me stop you from expounding further, and I’m sure Rachel would love to know.
Now which dimension does these Jew-hater Jews belong? Large or small? Whatever the fate of Israel, they have a major significant role…
Rachel, you never read Nemirovosky’s book, book club or not.
What is extraordinary is how Anthony Julius and Harold Bloom do go on about the “anti-Semitism” of Shakespeare and Dickens for their introducing the world of literature to Shylock in the Merchant of Venice and Fagin in Oliver Twist, when one only needs to open the pages of the New York Times or the Jewish weekly, Forward, particularly, the latter, to read critical pieces about the Shylocks and Fagins who exist and periodically become an embarrassment (but only when exposed) in the Jewish community today.
Shakespeare and Dickens didn’t invent these characters out of whole cloth any more than he did others in his plays. Bloom’s defense of these anti-social creatures is essentially no different than those, like himself and Julius, who equate anti-zionism with anti-semitism. Whatever they do, the Blooms, the Juliuses, as well as some posters on this blog, tell us, Jews, as Jews, are never to be blamed. That includes even some who claim to be “anti-zionists.” For them, the real criminals behind the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians in 1948 and the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza are those who have allowed them to do it and for Chomsky and his acolytes, Zunes, Maher and David Green, it’s all the fault of the US. That’s what I have called the “Chomsky Defense,” and I imagined Gen. Augusto Pinochet standing trial and claiming that “Washington made me do it!” Was Pinochet any worse than Ariel Sharon or Menachem Begin, both of whom, when they visited the US after their bloody war on Lebanon in 1982, were welcomed and feted by the American Jewish Community leadership and returned to Israel with checks for millions from American Jews stuffed in their pockets?
Does it matter that Time Magazine refused to defend in a NY court its own reporter who claimed that Sharon was responsible for the Sabra and Shatila massacre because Sharon’s court costs were being paid by the Nakash brothers, owners of Jordach jeans, one of the magazine’s largest advertisers? Might that fact have something to do with how Time has the conflict? This is a subject that those who shield The Lobby never address.
“Chomsky and his acolytes, Zunes, Maher and David Green, it’s all the fault of the US”
They don’t say that. “The Fateful Triangle” is a damning indictment of Israeli brutality–you may disagree with Chomsky and the others about the power of the Lobby and I think Chomsky understates it, but that doesn’t give you the license to just make shit up. Half of “The Fateful Triangle” is a condemnation of Israel’s 1982 Lebanon War and there are some very critical potshots taken at the sort of people Phil would call progressive except for Palestine.
Anyway, this has the flavor of a sectarian theological dispute of the sort that lefties like to indulge in from time to time. Gets the juices flowing. I’ll step back out.
Donald
Chomsky puts the blame, ultimately, to the U.S. Israel does bad things, but they propose that its the U.S. who is dictating what to do. Israel is a group without agency.
The problem with all of this is that Chomsky glosses over the fierce infighting that occurs within the US between pro-Israeli and pro-arab policies.
Its hard to make Israel a passive actor when you look at the pro-Israeli connections between both countries.
“Chomsky puts the blame, ultimately, to the U.S. Israel does bad things, but they propose that its the U.S. who is dictating what to do. Israel is a group without agency.”
Supposing that were true, and it’s not, I don’t think Chomsky is the sort of idiot who thinks that “ultimate blame” lets the less ultimately blamed off the hook. He blames the US for the genocide in East Timor, but that doesn’t mean he doesn’t blame Suharto. In all his writings on human rights, his attention is focused on the US responsibility for supporting this killer or that, because he is an American citizen. His claim is that our government wants to suppress forces that would try and escape our direct control, so we also support allies that use violence against what we deem are “radicals”. If you look at how we have behaved in numerous other places, our support for Israel and various authoritarian Arab governments (but not others) doesn’t seem that different from the way we behave in Latin America or Asia or Africa. And there are mainstream groups in those other cases who criticize our policies as not being in our true “national interest”, just as is the case with Israel. I put quotes around the phrase “national interest” because I think it is a mystification. There is no one “national interest”–there’s the interests of some elites and others and ordinary people don’t come into it at all.
I think the Israel lobby has more power than Chomsky does, but I also don’t see US behavior towards the Palestinians as being much different from US behavior towards the Kurds in Turkey or the East Timorese, or Mayan peasants in Guatemala or Angolan peasants slaughtered by Savimbi’s forces or whatever. I think some people here have tunnel vision.
“The problem with all of this is that Chomsky glosses over the fierce infighting that occurs within the US between pro-Israeli and pro-arab policies.”
He downplays it, but you’re overstating it a bit. He has written about the conflict between William Rogers and Henry Kissinger during Nixon’s time–Rogers supported peace between Israel and Egypt, but Kissinger wasn’t interested at the time. This was part of that period before the Yom Kippur War when Sadat wanted peace and Israel didn’t.
Israel’s policies in Palestine are against international law, but “as long as the master agrees, it doesn’t matter what the law says,” he said.
And by “the master,” Chomsky largely meant the U.S. government, which continuously fails to utilize its persuasive power in the U.N. and international trade to end injustice, he said.
link to browndailyherald.com
What’s wrong with that statement, bob? In fact, isn’t that just what we all complain about here? The US is Israel’s enabler–we are the ones who act as their shield in the UN, we give them weapons, we ignore their nuclear weapons, etc… Israel would have had much more difficulty acting the way it has acted if we hadn’t been there supporting them.
And this has also been the pattern with numerous other countries, Indonesia in East Timor being one of the most horrifying. We gave the green light for the invasion and when Indonesia needed more weapons to commit genocide, we provided it.
Absolutely not. This inadvertently highlights why the dismissal of the pro-Israeli people within the US pushing for policies is so problematic. They push for these goals, and the focus stays off of them. It was a major issue in the last presidential election. You had a candidate who was with the neocons before Bush, was with the neocons afterwards. Bush’s failed policies were neocon policies. this is what people hated. Meanwhile, the leading GOP candidate was poised to bring these people back. The neocon issue was such a massive break in the election, and it was uncovered in the televised media.
This is just for the neocons, and not covering how they failed and were dismissed from Reagans favor. Again here, lack of coverage here was catastrophic for the US.
A lack of coverage of pro-Israeli elements in the US has been a critical error for Americans. Chomsky isn’t the only one at fault. This site covers media failures. We have also seen people looking to cover up this subject out of a fear of anti-semitism. There are other reasons, and many are covered in this site. So, “What’s wrong with that statement, bob? In fact, isn’t that just what we all complain about here?” Thats whats wrong with it. It goes against much of what is covered here.
So you weren’t criticizing the statement at all, but what it didn’t include–material about the neocons.
Fine, we need to criticize neocons. But one can go too far with that too. It’s not like US foreign policy was some peaceful benevolent thing spreading joy and happiness and cluster bombs to all and sundry before the neocons obtained influence.
I won’t get into the percentage of blame one should grant the neocons for the Iraq War. A large one, no doubt, but I don’t know enough to get into that argument. But we’ve had plenty of other wars and massacres and injustices without any Israel Lobby influence–it’s what narcissistic superpowers do.
I took issue with this
This
and this
Read Blankfort above on Chomsky vis a vis blame and the US. Also, the last paragraph is both on what we discuss here and why it is a problem to have the viewpoint espoused in the quoted excerpt.
I’m not going to repeat everything I just typed about what Chomsky does with ALL cases where the US supports human rights violators. Evidently it made absolutely no impression . Besides, my wife wants the computer.
well, I’ll keepyour last relevant point intact without a quippy rebuttal as a measure of good sport.
Go back and read “The Fateful Triangle” like I did before writing my article on Chomsky (www.leftcurve.org/LC29WebPages/Chomsky.html) and you will see, after his harsh blasts at Israel which he still does to this day, he ends up placing the blame not on Israel or its Jewish supporters in the diaspora (who he consideres irrelevant) but on the US.
What is more important is that he bragged about openly opposing the notion of sanctions against Israel, [see article] claiming that the Israeli public would be against them, and then, in the next moment, he tells the stunned interviewer that it is the US that should be sanctioned. One assumes from that that the wishes and desires of the Israeli public are more worthy of respect than those of his fellow Americans, since it is obvious that the majority would not consent to be sanctioned (although the US fully deserves it).
Then he was also adamant about not using the term, apartheid, to refer to the conditions under which Palestinians in the OT have been forced to live. Not only has such a description been applied to their situation by anti-zionist Israelis and prominent South Africans, but it is clearly a term that most thinking Americans are familiar with and has more a pejorative connotation than does “occupation” which is itself a misleading term implying something static that is anything but.
So we shouldn’t be impressed by Chomsky’s anger over Israel’s behavior when the next minute he undercuts the efforts of others to bring it to a halt. Add to this his opposition to the Palestinian right of return and to a single state and you have the whole package neatly wrapped.
Those who wish to listen to a half-hour virtual debate between Ali Abunimah and myself vs. Chomsky, here’s the URL:
link to vomena.org
It had to be a virtual debate because Chomsky refused to debate either one of us.
I disagree with Chomsky about the apartheid word. I also know he’s a two state solution type. And if you read him talk about the early Zionists (not Judah Magnes, but people like Ben Gurion), he still seems to have romantic illusions about them.
But I think he supports some sanctions against Israel.
As for blame, what he says on Israel is perfectly consistent with what he says about every other human rights-violating ally. When he wrote about Central America he’d outline the mass murderers there and then he would focus on the US government connections. He didn’t go on and on about the essential nastiness of the Salvadoran or Guatemalan or Nicaraguan ruling classes–it was taken for granted. The same was true for East Timor or, earlier, the massacre of Indonesians by Suharto when he took over in 1965. When he writes about East Timor, he outlines the horror of the atrocities and then he focuses on how our country enabled it under several successive Presidents and the complicity of the MSM in not covering what was going on or repeating lies. He says very little about the guilt of Suharto’s regime–it is taken for granted. He concentrates on our blame.
And not so incidentally, to this very day the MSM mostly ignores the US role in what happened in Indonesia. The one exception is when they talk about Kissinger’s initial role. It’s easy to focus on one already demonized American thug. Then they skip to 1999, when Clinton and the rest of the world finally told Indonesia to get out. And Indonesia did.
So yeah, he focuses on the US blame with Israel/Palestine, because he does that with every single human rights issue he talks about. And with damn good reason.
“US role in what happened in Indonesia. ”
I meant, Indonesia’s invasion of East Timor. Though it’s also true there’s very little discussion of the US role in the massacre of 500,000 people in Indonesia itself during the 60′s.
I think the Israel Lobby is real and has more influence than Chomsky credits, but anyone who thinks there’s something even the tiniest bit unusual about the US helping some other country as they torture, kill, ethnically cleanse, and steal really needs to get out more. Our support of Israel’s crimes is utterly ordinary in most respects. (And the fact that foreign policy elites don’t all agree with the policy is also fairly ordinary.) The only difference is that because Jews are involved and Jews are normally considered liberal, we’ve got a bunch of otherwise liberal people who line up with the killers. But even then, the suppression of what has been done to the Palestinians is nothing compared to the suppression of what was done to the Timorese. I know this from personal experience–I’d mention what we had done to East Timor and until 1999, in Chomsky’s phrase, friends would look at me like I’d come from Neptune. One friend used to mock me in a friendly way whenever I mentioned it, until 1999. It was as though I was talking about some imaginary atrocities committed by orcs.
“because Jews are involved and Jews are normally considered liberal, ”
I should be more precise–some Jews are involved. And on average, Jews are liberals. And some otherwise liberal people line up with the killers and that includes people of all religions who think lining up with Israel is the proper thing for a liberal to do. Otherwise, yeah, that’s the main difference between the I/P conflict and various others–the progressive except for Palestine effect. But you can have even greater callousness in some cases where the PEP effect isn’t operative–East Timor, for example.
“It had to be a virtual debate because Chomsky refused to debate either one of us.”
Yup, I figured Chomsky would come up the winner in that little three-way. By default, no less.
Blankfort (www.leftcurve.org/LC29WebPages/Chomsky.html) and you will see, after his harsh blasts at Israel which he still does to this day, he ends up placing the blame not on Israel or its Jewish supporters in the diaspora (who he consideres irrelevant) but on the US.
Thanks. I was hoping you would post that. Chomsky will criticize Israel, but he’ll keep the ultimate blame at the U.S. Much like how Mark Regev might lament the harsh ‘response,’ but he absolves Israel by saying they were ‘forced’ by anothers action, Chomsky ultimately places the blame at the U.S.
Which part of the U.S.? Well, it certainly isn’t the pro-Israeli ideologues making policy that he likes to downplay.
Blankfort, your high fallutin fancy, shmancy writings cannot hide the fact that you are a nutbar along with you fellow fruitcake travellers, Atzmon and Mary Rizzo over there at the Palestine Think Tank blog. (oxymoron alert!)
You made yourself irrelevant with your radicalism.
Weren’t you supposed to be at the museum? Or are you still in pre-departure swoon and cavort mode still?
“Palestine Think Tank blog. (oxymoron alert!)”
Racist.
re: Jeffrey Blankfort May 9, 2010 at 11:14 am
This post shows why I like you, Jeffrey Blankfort: you are moral to the core.
——————————
Shakespeare and Dickens didn’t invent these characters out of whole cloth any more than he did others in his plays.
Imagine the Bloom of 2050 excoriating anyone who writes about Madoff as anything less than a put-upon Jew, and accusing any writer who bases a character upon Madoff of anti-semitism because the tacit rule is that Jews are never to be called to account for their actions.
Russian Jewish writers integrated to a large extent the antisemitism that was hardwired in Russian society so it is not surprising that Nemirovosky and other Jewish writers of her generation used a lot of antisemitic cliches in their work … She was one of the righteous Jews for the French antisemites of the day.
One could say the same of Russian (and other European) Zionists. The anti-Semites lapped up their talk of Jewish “parasitism”, “abnormality” and “extraneousness”. If they could walk the walk as well – by ridding Europe of its Jews – well, they deserved the full support of every right-thinking European.
You are stretching, Shmuel.
Isaac Babel was actually embarassed by his own brothers in Russia but exalted in the Zionist concept of the New Jew who was a tall, strong , proud fighter, etc..
Fighting whom? Palestinian farmers?
Exactly, rachel. Babel bought into the same sterotypes of Jews as Weizman, Y.L. Gordon, Berdyczewski and others, denigrating the nasty, sniveling, parasitic “old Jew”, and praising – seeking to create – a “new Jew” that would be more like the Russians, Germans and Englishmen they admired for their “normal” (i.e. non-Jewish) qualities. You cannot negate the diaspora without building and despising a stereotype of the diaspora Jew.
[a “new Jew” that would be more like the Russians, Germans and Englishmen they admired for their “normal” (i.e. non-Jewish) qualities.]
Yes. for the ‘new Jew’ indeed… and they will become more like the Russians, Germans and Englishmen… However, the principal concerns of the Zionists are the Jews that desire to return to Israel and rebuild the Jewish Nation….
This ‘new Jew’ ought not to return to Israel…They should stay peacefully where they are. Israel should go forward without them, after all, they will become more like the Russians, Germans and Englishmen…
” the nasty, sniveling, parasitic “old Jew”,”
Did somebody call me?
After all, I’m button-cute, wafer-thin, rapier-sharp and lemon-fresh. Before they made me, they broke the mold!
Come on now, Mooser. You’re not parasitic or sniveling. ;)
Reminds me of Benigni’s demonstration of the superiority of the Aryan race (from about 2:00).
“exalted in the Zionist concept of the New Jew who was a tall, strong , proud fighter, etc..”
ROTFLMSKAO!!! a tall, strong, proud fighter, who can’t even achieve a replacement birth rate, and whose genes are riddled with Ty-Sachs and addled with Manischevitz! And no doubt this t., s., and p. f. New Jew was a Nobel Peace Prize winner, too.
And those are the people zamaaz tells us are human! Human? Feh! They are KosherUbermenschen!!
Nemirovosky and other Jewish writers of her generation used a lot of antisemitic cliches in their work … She was one of the righteous Jews for the French antisemites of the day
Which doesn’t make any sense at all. How could Nemirovsky be a righteous Jew if she was using a lot of Anti-Semitic cliches in her work, even if it was only for French antisemites ?
Frankly, theres quite a bit of blurring the venn diagram this way. Anti-semites will claim things like all jews, with a few exceptions, think like this. Of course, you can go on commentary and see self proclaimed “representatives” of the Jewish people claim a similar hive-mind trope, only with a few “self-hating” exceptions.
Parker: See Mearshmeir ‘s lecture.
No time to elaborate. I am off to celebrate Israel’s artistic achievements at the Gardiner Museum. Last day of a ceramics exhibit from Israel.
So many events all over the world showcasing Israel’s achievements! Truly wonderful! I hope they give you heartburn so far away in your crappy island in Mindanao or wherever you are. Not bad for a shitty little country! He?
Ciao, Zion hater (did not say anti-semite! )
Funny, the Nazis had a similar campaign blurb too.
Yes, but also the Americans, Russians, Chinese, Japanese etc. etc.
Yet, you seem to think that showing Israeli art around the world is Nazi. You are one sick person.
Zero to straw man in less than a second. Not bad, eee, but everyone can read what I actually said.
Showing art by Israelis? Not really Nazi. Closing down cultural venues of other ethnic groups? That actually rather is.
Yes and what you actually said was that Israeli showcasing its achievements is Nazi. You are quite sick.
And then you dig yourself into a deeper hole. Is closing a venue because of a court order Nazi? There are many Palestinian theaters in Israel and they operate freely. Deducing from one justified example that Israelis are Nazis is rather sick.
[Julius] is a truth-teller, and authentic enough to stand against the English literary and academic establishment, which essentially opposes the right of the state of Israel to exist, while indulging in the humbuggery that its anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism. Endless boycotts of Israel are urged by this establishment, and might yet have produced a counterboycott of British universities by many American academics, whether Jewish or not. However, under British law the projected boycotts may be illegal. The fierce relevance of Julius’s book is provoked by this currently prevalent anti-Semitism…
The fierce relevance of Julius’s book is provoked by this currently prevalent anti-Semitism
authentic enough to stand against the English literary and academic establishment, which essentially opposes the right of the state of Israel to exist
Fiercely relevant? Authentic enough to stand? Exactly who is this Anthony Julius?
Anthony Julius (born 1956) is a prominent British lawyer and academic, best known for his actions on behalf of Diana, Princess of Wales and Deborah Lipstadt. He is a senior consultant for the London law firm Mishcon de Reya.
Julius is known for his opposition to new antisemitism, the alleged expression of antisemitic prejudice couched in terms of criticism of Israel, and gives frequent talks on the subject all over the world to raise awareness. He is a founding member of both Engage and the Euston Manifesto.
link to en.wikipedia.org
In other words, he’s a pale, semi-poached equivalent of Jerkowitz.
What an ad-hominem attack?
Of course.
What are you Parker if not a pale faced semi-poached equivalent of nothing? How many books of yours has the NYT reviewed? What, that many?
What, are you required to post Surgeon General’s warnings on your posts now, eee? :)
Which literary establishment is he talking about? The Times Literary Supplement is handfast with the Zionists.
Phil Weiss’s position is clear: Antisemitism is a historical artifact, relevant 65 years ago, but not today. Today its relevance is only insofar as it is used as a defense against those who criticize Israel or question the one state solution as somehow inappropriate.
Along steps Jeffrey Blankforth and informs us that Shakespeare and Dickens were not Jew haters because Shylock and Fagin are typical rather than stereotypical. If Jeffrey Blankforth was a mere commentator here, I would be wise enough to leave his venom alone. But since occasionally he is allowed to post here, let me ask Mister Blankforth: who are your modern day equivalents to Shylock? If an artist produces blacks or other minorities that can be found in the headlines or on the street corner does this disprove his racism?
Which is why he doesn’t ban anyone who actually makes a genuine anti-Semitic comment on the blog, huh? And then there’s the rest of your post.
I think that’s a record for the number of straw men crammed into one inquisition.
We must not suppress the right of others to become anti-semitic… Anti-semitism is a free choice… so is Zionism…
And let’s see, at about, oh, 6,819,873,563 to about 15,000,000
we know who’s gonna win that little battle, huh?
Thanks for nuthin, zammaz.
I didn’t say that Shakespeare and Dickens were Jew haters which is unfortunately the way those who criticize Jews for anti-social behavior tend to be categorized by Jewish tribalists. I said they drew their characters from real life in which Jews were the money-lenders and Jews also ran sweat shops as other Jews would do later when they came to the US and still do. Since in the US they were able to own real property some became and remain slumlords. Certainly, the ownership of prime real estate is today a Jewish domain whether it is in New York, Chicago, or San Francisco. This is all in an area where I think any Wondering Jew should tread lightly.
You want a modern day equivalent of Shylock? I don’t know any personally but how about Lloyd Blankfein or AIG’s Maurice Greengerg of Lehman Bros. Richard Fuld? How about Penny Pritzker, Obama’s campaign treasurer who was among the first to issue sub-prime loans?
If you want a current Fagin, I give you Sholom Rabushkin:
link to chicagotribune.com and then this about how his fellow Chabadniks support this miscreant:
link to chicagotribune.com
If you really want the low down on Rabushkin here’s a link to the website of the Jewish weekly Forward which, unquielym has had the courage to expose him and other exploiters in the Jewish community:
link to forward.com
Next question.
Shylock is not a villain because he is a moneylender; he is a villain because he is a moneylender who seeks a pound of flesh when the borrower is not able to repay. I wasn’t asking who are the immoral or stupid Jewish moneylenders of today; I was asking who is like Shylock seeking a pound of flesh.
And as for Fagin, let me grant that villains like Fagin existed and continue to exist, but Dickens constantly refers to him as “the Jew”. Although this might be a convenient device designed to avoid repetition of the name Fagin, it only increases the possibility that there was an element of Jew hatred involved in this character and the portrayal.
Yes. I too look at this writing a manifestation of a ‘deeper consciousness of anti-semitism; why denote the wicked character of Fagin as Jewish? Perhaps for literary amplification; but does he meant the Jews were among the worst or the best of the villains in Britain? Does Dickens meant indirectly that Jews have this utmost character? Of course on the other hand, it was also a kind atonement for the Jews implying that no society is perfect, (including the Jews), but why pick the Jews among variety of nationals? Does he meant he knew a lot of Jews but there was no other Jewish personality that can give contrast to the character of Fagin? Though this characterization brought the Jews on a higher or wider profile, but ironically on a lasting, sad note…
WJ,
If an artist produces blacks or other minorities that can be found in the headlines or on the street corner does this disprove his racism?
One has nothing to do with the other. An eye is an eye. An ear is an ear. A heart is a heart. Seeing people for who they are is not an ism.
For every Shylock and Fagin there are hundreds of non-Jewish Shylock’s and Fagins. The fact that attention is focused on the Jewish ones is pure antisemitism. Blankfort is a raving antisemite of the worst kind.
The settlements and the Gaza blockade are not the issue. Even if Israel were in the 67 border Phil and his ilk will write about the awful Nakba and would demand BDS until the right of return is implemented. And he would always find the regular Aryan Brotherhood chaps that will use him to attack Israel specifically because of their irrational hatred.
Will this blog shut down if tomorrow the Palestinians and Israelis agree on the two state solution and implement it? Hardly. Phil will keep complaining about how unfair the solution is and that it is more important than ever to BDS Israel and delegitimize it.
Phil and Blankfort, you ain’t fooling anybody. You will not stop until there will not be a Jewish state that speaks in your name.
Cognitive dissonance at its finest. Phil and other liberal Jews need to shut up and let the “Jewish state” “speak in [their] name,” apparently.
Is this that “Jewish AND democratic” “self-determination” that Witty incessantly lauds?
The state “speaks” in Phil’s name just because it is a Jewish state. That is a lame excuse. All Phil has to say to solve his personal problem is the following: “Israel does not speak in my name”. But he takes the next step and is trying to eliminate Israel. That I don’t understand and don’t accept.
“You will not stop until there will not be a Jewish state that speaks in your name.”
And you just gave him the best reason in the world to go on fighting it.
eee, we all know you’re an “atheist” and so have no objection to transforming Judaism into a crime cult. And if you keep on insisting this crime-cult “speaks in your name” Jews will be obligated to keep on fighting it.
Maybe you should make things easier for yourself, and open up even more sources of funding, by simply making Israel a Christian-Zionist state! What possible difference could it make to an atheist?
Mooser,
Yes, label Israel a crime cult. You are sick and deluded.
Wake up and smell the coffee. In 100 years 90% of the world Jews will be in Israel. The Jews of the diaspora will mostly be assimilated. You are fighting a losing battle.
link to simpletoremember.com
eee,
The Jews of the diaspora will mostly be assimilated.
So? That doesn’t make them any less Jewish.
Mooser,
This is a different “eee” of previous posts. Entirely different grammar and writing style.
transforming Judaism into a crime cult Good line.
threee: For every Shylock and Fagin there are hundreds of non-Jewish Shylock’s and Fagins.
Where did Shakespeare claim otherwise then?
threee:The fact that attention is focused on the Jewish ones is pure antisemitism.
Allez, so you agree that there are two jews the category you created here. Well, I don’t count this way, but you go ahead. Please, exactly, how is your category defined?
eee,
For every Shylock and Fagin there are hundreds of non-Jewish Shylock’s and Fagins. The fact that attention is focused on the Jewish ones is pure antisemitism. Blankfort is a raving antisemite of the worst kind.
Park your bullshit substandard thinking some place else.
Everybody,
And he would always find the regular Aryan Brotherhood chaps
Chaps? This is not our regular 3e. Has to be an Israeli account that the Ministry uses to weigh in on.
Hmm. The subtle difference in semantics didn’t escape my notice but let’s not jump to conclusions too quickly.
Before I read your comment MRW I was thinking eee sounded more intelligent (less hit-and-run) that previously..
In 100 years 90% of the world Jews will be in Israel.
Or 0%. Don’t count your Jews before they’re hatched.
Shmuel,
Give it a rest. Your defeatist attitude is pathetic plus unreasonable. If you look at what Israel has accomplished in 62 years, your projection of the annihilation of Israel in 100 years makes no sense.
Eee, <i.what Israel has accomplished in 62 years
Which of course it could not achieve on its own, without my tax dollars and my agreement to outfit Israel with weaponry to feed its vision of becoming a world power. Israel couldn’t even survive with Jewish donor dollars alone. It needed the goyim’s help.
So start telling the goddam truth. And show a little gratitude.
MRW,
Gratitude to you? Who are you anyway? Why do I owe you anything?
And the goddam truth is that Israel has been accepted to the OECD.
link to ynetnews.com
Israel welcomes and appreciates foreign investment, but does not need charity from anybody, American or Jewish. Israel is a great place to invest as even Warren Buffet has found out.
We have built a great country in 62 years while having to fight for our existence. Just compare what we have accomplished relative to our neighbors and the trillions they received in oil revenues.
“Israel welcomes and appreciates foreign investment, but does not need charity from anybody”
But takes it anyway and keeps asking for more…
“Israel is a great place to invest as even Warren Buffet has found out.”
Even though Israel is suffering a brain drain as skileld workers are abandoing the country.
“We have built a great country in 62 years while having to fight for our existence.”
On stolen land yes.
“Just compare what we have accomplished relative to our neighbors and the trillions they received in oil revenues. ”
Achieved? Israel would be a 3rd world country without foreing aid.
Again dream on. Israel grew the fastest in the periods that it received less foreign aid.
The Israeli high tech based economy is a thing of beauty. You cannot even begin to grasp the strengths of Israel’s economy, the creativeness of its people and the worldwide connections and networks that Israelis established around the world.
“Again dream on. Israel grew the fastest in the periods that it received less foreign aid.”
False. Try again and provide evidence next time.
“The Israeli high tech based economy is a thing of beauty.”
Entirely subsidized and financed by the US.
“You cannot even begin to grasp the strengths of Israel’s economy”
No you can’t because it is tiny and unsustainable, which is why Isral recioved the most aid of any country in the world and still can’t afford tpo pay for it’s own weapons.
“the creativeness of its people and the worldwide connections and networks that Israelis established around the world. ”
Yes, it’s called charity.
Dream on. You are blind as a bat and just keep spewing falsehoods.
But that is ok. Israel’s enemies have always underestimated it.
Israel grew the fastest between 1948 and 1967 when it was receiving very little foreign aid.
“Israel’s strong commitment to economic development and its talented work force led to economic growth rates during the nation’s first two decades that frequently exceeded 10% annually. The years after the 1973 Yom Kippur War were a lost decade economically, as growth stalled, inflation soared and government expenditures rose significantly. ”
link to en.wikipedia.org
“Israel grew the fastest between 1948 and 1967 when it was receiving very little foreign aid.”
So the rate of growth in Israel is slower now than it was in 1967. that’s actually very disturbing from Israel’s POV.
Israel is a 3rd world state that survices off foreign aid and charity.
Oh and it also survives on massive loan guarantees from the US ie. loans it doesn’t repay.
You are a funny person. Spewing your nonsense especially on the day Israel is accepted into the OECD. Oh well, keep living in your fantasy world.
“Oh well, keep living in your fantasy world. ”
Sure. Remind me of your fanasty wolrd when your apartheid state has one person working for every 4 that are on government welfare.
Your patheic little aparthid state is a time bomb waiting to self destruct, Enjoy it while you can.
Who the hell are you trying to fool really?
Reparations Agreement between Israel and West Germany
Implementation
Despite the protests, the agreement was signed in September of that year, and West Germany paid Israel a sum of 3 billion marks over the next fourteen years; 450 million marks were paid to the World Jewish Congress. The payments were made to the State of Israel as the heir to those victims who had no surviving family. The money was invested in the country’s infrastructure and played an important role in establishing the economy of the new state. The reparations would become a decisive part of Israel’s income, comprising as high as 87.5% of the state income in 1956.
Defeatism? I was just pointing out your arrogance. I have no idea where things will stand in I/P in a century’s time.
in 100 years i hope an israeli and a Palestinian can travel from Eilat to Ankara by car or better yet light rail train, with a detour in Damascus ;)
Yonira,
This is one of the most common “peace” fantasies expressed by Israelis, but it is so far removed from Palestinian visions as to be somewhat of an oxymoron. Palestinians want rights, dignity, freedom, redress. Israelis want open borders (not really, but they would really love to drive to Europe). This difference in visions is part of the reason that peace is not particularly likely.
screw it then Shmuel back to the status quo
Do you see anything other than the status quo happening, yonira?
Ah yes, the false dichotomy of the hostage taker with a gun to somebody’s head.
Yonira – I have travelled by rail from Amman to Damascus (took a bloody long time), and could have gone on to Ankara or Istanbul if I’d wanted to.
When the Hejaz railway was built, Eilat didn’t exist. It’s merely the Israeli photocopy of Aqaba, separated by, at most, 500 yards.
I once swam across the border between Aqaba and Eilat, and brought back half a dozen bottles of Maccabee beer, which I offered to friends as proof of my daring expedition.
I regret to say they only drank half a bottle each, even though it was free. All of them preferred the local Jordanian (Amstel) brew.
Maccabee beer is not good, thanks for the story, that is hella interesting stuff :) you’ve lived a pretty cool life!
At the back of Irene Nemirovsky’s first book, which I read from cover to cover, is an explanation of her life in the Ukraine (which is what they call Russia in this review.) It explains how the Ukraine is where Stalin sent the Jews; it was Russia’s Jewish ghetto, if you will, except that it was not. Kiev was a vibrant society.
Nemirovsky grew up in an upper middle class environment in which ‘Jewish’ was not an issue, class was. Everyone was Jewish around her, so who gave a damn.
I would not call her a fourth-class writer; who did? Phil? Francine Prose?. I still cannot get her stories (in the book) of the flight from Paris out of my mind, the characters, the odd details. At the time I read the book (summer 2005) I had no clue who this writer was. I was at a cottage. This was summer reading. I knew nothing about Nemirovsky being rediscovered. I read the book because it was available, it was there, and my eyes needed something. I stayed up all night to finish it. She completely enthralled me. And then I discovered she was writing her stories contemporaneously. She literally turned yesterday’s events into a short story.
Also, what got me is that her mother was living in Nice at the time. She showed up at her mother’s doorstep begging for help, begging to hide out there with her family so they wouldn’t be sent to the camps. And her mother would not let her in.
Anthony Julius’s books has plenty of problems without Harold Bloom’s review. (I recommend to all the reviews in Britain’s Independent and Guardian newspapers.) Julius also has many strengths that Blooms screed effectively obliterates.
Bloom focuses and champions exactly that part of Anthony Julius’s book that is weakest.
As for Bloom’s claim: “Of the nearly 200 recognized nation-states in the world today, something like at least half are more reprehensible than even the worst aspects of Israel’s policy toward the Palestinians. A curious blindness informs the shifting standards of current English anti-Zionism.”
1. Easy to make sweeping assertions if you don’t offer any actual examples.
2. Without giving us an example of what he considers might be one of the “worst aspects of Israel’s policy toward the Palestinians,” we have less than no way to evaluate what Bloom is saying.
3. Nevertheless, we can guess. Bloom is an apologist for Israeli atrocities. He, like Elie Wiesel and Alan Dershowitz and many other blind supporters of Israel, offers token acknowledgments of Israeli crimes (“not very nice things” in Wiesel-speak). Israel is committing far too many atrocities to pretend that everything Israel does is perfectly good and justified.
4. Finally, it doesn’t matter a great deal how Bloom would spell out his vague assertions. He is wrong on the facts. “At least half” of 200 nations? Utter nonsense. And of course the standard response applies to Bloom. No other nation is receiving as much US aid as Israel. No other nation has been doing what Israel has for over 40 years.
The plausible candidates for “as bad or worse” than Israel? China, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Egypt, Iraq, Afghanistan, Russia and … the United States. Those are the obvious ones. Only China, the Sudan, Russia and … the United States are really plausible candidates. Hardly half of 200.
Anti-Zionism IS anti-Semitism. To hate national rights for the Jews, is to hate Jews, period. To pretend otherwise is just sophistry and that is an insult to the intelligence.
“Anti-Zionism IS anti-Semitism.”
False, because most Zionists are not Semites. There are many anti Zionist Jews, meaning your statement is ludicrous.
“To hate national rights for the Jews, is to hate Jews, period”
No, it’s to hate Israeli nationalism, period.
“To pretend otherwise is just sophistry and that is an insult to the intelligence”
You’d need inteligence to know the difference NormanF. Sorry you missed out.
I think there is truth to the statement that anti-Zionism is anti-semitism.
There are three layers to anti-semitism (many more actually):
1. Jews that are racially Jews are not acceptable (so that includes assimilated and self-identified)
2. Jews that are conspicuously Jews and assemble in segregated Jewish communities are not acceptable
3. Jews that self-govern in state institutions with protective defense are not acceptable (Zionism)
If it were possible to be Jewish communally and not require a state to protect cultural Zionists, then maybe state Zionism would be unnecessary. That hasn’t born out historically or currently. The state is then an extension of Jewish cultural self-determination.
Maybe it is a self-fulfilling cycle. Or, maybe it is true that Jews are not histofically afforded the right to live as peers with Arab or European states.
Anti-Zionism is no more anti-semitism, then anti Nazism was hatred of Germans.
“Jews that self-govern in state institutions with protective defense are not acceptable”
Please write this in English Witty. For someoen who thinks fo himself as an intellect, your grammar is a cacophony or tangled sentences.
“If it were possible to be Jewish communally and not require a state to protect cultural Zionists, then maybe state Zionism would be unnecessary.”
It is. There are Jewish communities throughout the Disapora.
“‘The state is then an extension of Jewish cultural self-determination.”‘
No it’s an extension of a secular poitical movement.
“Or, maybe it is true that Jews are not histofically afforded the right to live as peers with Arab or European states.”
And maybe you’re simply raising irelevant,baseless and stupid arguments.
Just remember that you willingly made yourself and your progeny culpable to Israel’s crimes by equating Judaism with Israel.
Yes.
[I think there is truth to the statement that anti-Zionism is anti-semitism]
To hate the Jews (in general scope) is anti-semitism. This reasonably includes the zionist Jews. But not all zionist are Jews (for there are Christian Zionist too; for all Bible-based Christians recognize the premium of restoring Jewish Jerusalem ), but only the Jewish zionists have the ascendancy to struggle for the restoration of Jewish Jerusalem). Thus, technically anti-zionism is not only anti-semitism but anti-Christianity as well.
But the fact that the ‘true/complete/practicing/pious/spiritually convicted’ Jews recognize the need to restore the Jewish Jerusalem, anti-semitism (referring to practicing Jews) signifies as well anti-zionism. Or more specifically among the true practicing Jews, anti-Zionism is anti-semitism as well.
Anti-semitism even has relative meaning. Though this meant hatred against all Jews, the hatred is ‘by context’ targeted only to the practicing Jews which live by the defined Jewish culture distinction. (This meaning supposedly excludes the atheist / progressive/liberal Jews as they are not beholden to the practice of the Jewish traditions and culture anymore. Otherwise they practicing would, according to the prescriptions of the Torah, become Zionists by conviction).
The atheistic Jews, ‘liberal’ anti-zionist jews are technically considered NOMINAL Jews (people counted as Jews only by virtue of incident of birth, but not by conviction).
Then they will react adversely to this views; Are you a Jew? That you presumed to know better than them? Then I will answer, I only based my understanding on the way you as Jews behaved over these Jewish issues, nothing else…