Israelis are angry about the Chelsea wedding.
They didn't like the mingling of Jewish and non-Jewish ritual, they're fearful about assimilation and the future of the Jewish people. The thought didn't occur to them that he wanted a bigger pool than his own small tribe, and maybe he fell in love? Haaretz headlines a piece by Israel Harel, "WASPs at Last." (Harel should take a look at some of my pieces on my intermarriage!) This scolding ensues:
The numerous intermarriages attest to a desire to shake off the burden that Jewish identity entails - even in its minimalist Reform version - and assimilate into the American melting pot.
At Ynet there is also a patronizing lecture about assimilation and other bad stuff we Jews are doing, this one titled, The Jew and the Shiksa, which I'd remind you is a derogatory phrase that borders on the scatological (Leo Rosten in his book The Joys of Yiddish says it comes from Hebrew for "blemish" and promptly applies it to a servant girl).
But Ynet's writer Yisrael Wolman is shrewder than Harel and he concludes that there's nothing Israelis can do about it and, worse, they better not do anything about it. Yes, it's all about the Israel lobby in the end, isn't it? (My emphasis on the brother Madoff bit. Wow; Madoff really was all about the Jews?)
The more interesting question is what we can do: Regrettably, it appears that we can do very little. This problem is the hot potato of community leaders: They understand that the key has to do with guiding the parents, initiating Jewish social ventures, and of course, high-quality Jewish education. Much of the money that was spared after the collapse of our brother Madoff is currently invested in this struggle.
On the other hand, we Israelis have the power, as always, to cause damage: Fostering our alienation to the world’s second-largest Jewish center, ignoring its feelings, and disparaging its means of worship may accelerate the assimilation process and crudely sever a possibly last source of hope and solidarity.
Interestingly, Chelsea’s father in law is known in his extended jewish family as “the little Madoff” due to his securities scams for which he spent seven years in jail. And, of course, Chelsea’s new hubby worked for GS and now works for a hedge fund. Both her parent in laws are former US congressional reps. Israel wants to have its kosher cake and eat it too. So what’s new? Chutzpah la de da.
Funny, I did a google search for little madoff and found nothing. I think you have a knack for making shit up citizen.
he just got the terminology off a tad. try googling mini madoff mezvinsky.
My my, Schwartzman, you are quick to apply the broad bashing brush. So my week old memory changed mini to little–what’s the substantive difference? And you are extremely unimaginative. Annie had no trouble
finding my insignificant slip. Here, just for you:
“The groom’s father, Ed Mezvinsky was seated elsewhere in the barn, with his four daughters from a previous marriage. His most recent claim to fame, alas, is that he spent five years in federal prison for bilking hundreds of unsuspecting investors, including family members, out of $10 million in an elaborate fraud scheme. He was released in November 2008 but remains on parole. There is, not surprisingly, lingering bad blood in the family.
One partisan of the groom’s mother described him as a “mini-Bernie Madoff,” but don’t ask who told me this; my lips are also sealed.”
link to politicsdaily.com
“The membership of the United Methodist Church, to which Ms. Clinton belongs, is shrinking, as is that of other mainline Protestant faiths. But the church is not as concerned about intermarriage.
The Rev. Taylor Burton-Edwards, director of worship resources for the church’s General Board of Discipleship, said that “Christians are not made genetically” but through evangelization. Mr. Burton-Edwards also said that in an increasingly pluralistic America, “the notion that one has to stay in one’s group is less supported by the culture at large.””
link to nytimes.com
The bride’s mother says she is a practicing Methodist. Apparently her branch of Methodism is of the white phosphorous sect which supports Israel’s ethnic cleansing and occupation of Palestinians including Methodist Palestinians.
Hillary’s ‘white phosphorus sect’ has sound Gospel foundations — ‘And [Jesus] was transfigured before them, and his clothes became dazzling white, such as no one on earth could bleach them.’ [Mark 9: 2-3]
So maybe bombing the living crap out of Gaza will hasten the Second Coming? It beats snake-handling, I suppose, which isn’t much favored by unevangelical Methodists of Hillary’s suburban stripe.
‘Jesus wept,’ as the Gospels succinctly state elsewhere.
“in an increasingly pluralistic America, “the notion that one has to stay in one’s group is less supported by the culture at large.””
Good. It’s a filthy idea.
I don’t get it. Are Zionists really this thoroughly abusive in nature? Could you find a non-Jewish family that’s done more to aid and abet Israeli crimes, and still they object vehemently? (Obama doesn’t count, his daughters are far too young to marry off yet.)
Where’s Witty? I need him to come around and drone on about how Zionism isn’t racism when we have Jews in his camp here going hyper about “purity” of a “mixed” marriage. I could use a good chuckle.
Two thoughts. First, it is historically not at all unusual for young Jewish elites to marry young Gentile elites for obvious political/power-seeking reasons. The Clinton-Mezvinsky nuptials are hardly a harbinger of mass Jewish assimilation, which would be the end of Zionism as we know it. Second, pundits in Israel at least seem to be aware that American Zionist support is critical to the Jewish state, and that they had better not go too far in biting the hand that feeds them.
Agreed, “realistic” Zionists don’t care if Jews marry goats, so long as that Yankee love keeps flowing.
Mezvinsky doesn’t really have much of a choice who he can marry, if he wants a power marriage.Even though his mother is chean, his father was a dirty politician who was described as a one man crime wave and who spent five years in jail. Chelsea is in the same boat. They really couldn’t marry anyone else, unless they wanted to marry down, Jew or not a Jew. This way they get to keep some kind of dynasty going. Mezvinsky got the worse of the deal because he isn’t bad looking-he kind of looks like Levi Johnson. If his father wasn’t a felon, he could have done a lot better. Chelsea, on the other hand, well, she isn’t known for her looks-she looks like Lady Gaga, who also isn’t known for her looks. In fact, she made Mezvinsky sign a prenup making him pay her ten million dollars if he cheats. I think she took a good look at herself and a good look at him and made a wise decision. But why does he have ten million dollars to make that commitment? Or why did the wedding cost ten thousand a guest? It’s because both families are rich off dirty money. That fancy wedding represents so many dirty deals and betrayals-it’s like the wedding of Polly Peachum and Mick the Knife.
I thought I read it was 7 years jail time. I don’t think he’s any better looking than she is, nor do I think she looks anything like Lady Gaga (behind the makeup). I have noticed that in a lot of the photos she’s beaming away and he’s slightly smirking, as if he smells some poo coming from somewhere. I sure do agree with your concluding sentence. I am guessing purely out of the blue that Chelsea is much more naive than her new hubby. How can you be naive having worked for GS and now, a hedge fund? That’s a lot more than a blow job for POTUS.
I stand corrected; it was 5 years jail time.
Who knows? Maybe they made beautiful music up in the attic on that cruddy, cruddy couch.
And so they sail off to explore the marital continent. Goodbye, Columbus, goodbye.
Portnoy, is that you behind that moose skin and antlers?
I got no complaints.
Yeah, we noticed.
Would that be Christopher or Renaldus Columbus? Dark continent.
Mezvinsky doesn’t really have much of a choice who he can marry, if he wants a power marriage…… Chelsea is in the same boat. They really couldn’t marry anyone else, unless they wanted to marry down, Jew or not a Jew.
phew. not everyone is focused on marrying up or down. i’m sure both of them were good catches. it’s not like they were stuck w/eachother or anything.
And he’s still free to help craft more refined highly risky investment securities and she’s free to craft new laws, perhaps one making it a felony to smoke in your car if your kids are in it? Don’t get more pragmatically ideal than that in our contemporary USA.
Mini-Madoff has an interesting brother, though: link to en.wikipedia.org:
[Norton][ Mezvinsky is the brother of former Democratic Congressman and convicted fraudster Ed Mezvinsky,[2] the brother-in-law of former Congresswoman Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky, and the uncle of Marc Mezvinsky, husband of Chelsea Clinton. Mezvinsky specializes in “U.S. history between 1877 and 1920, U.S. immigration history, the Arab-Israeli conflict, the history of Judaism, and terrorism in the post-modern world”.[1] With controversial writer Israel Shahak, Mezvinsky co-authored Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel, a book criticizing the Israeli religious establishment. His views have been labelled “anti-Israel” by The Forward, and “anti-Zionist” by Israeli advocacy groups such as CAMERA.[3][4]
Yeah we had a thread about that going here a few weeks ago. Holiday dinner talk should be interesting, yes?
Oh, and there’s nothing derogatory about “shicksa”–it’s just the female equivalent of “shegetz,” which my little Yiddishe bride assures me means “honorable gentile.”
[yes, that IS an intermarriage joke]
I don’t know what libidinal impulses underlie the marriage–if Chelsea takes after her old man, she’ll presumably be boinking the servants soon. But generally speaking, the terror of intermarriage (“race mixin’,” as George Wallace used to call it) emphasizes one crucial point: progressives must resist ANYTHING that undercuts public education and encourages people to cluster with members of their tribes. NO state subsidies of any kind for sectarian or ethnically exclusive education–let adolescent jungle fever, in all its various varieties, work its magic!
LOL. Yeah: shegetz – definition of shegetz by the Free Online Dictionary:
n. pl. shkotz·im (shkôt s m) Offensive. A non-Jewish boy or young man. [Yiddish sheygets, from Hebrew eqe , blemish; see q in Semitic roots
My little Yiddishe bride too.
PS: When you two were early dating, did your MIL threaten to “pour hot boiling chicken soup” on you if you persisted in seeing her daughter? In my case intermarriage between jew and gentile was not as accepted as it is now. Her future FIL however never shouted anything similar to her–he merely sidled up to me beyond the reach of ears and murmured, “Kinda dark, ain’t she?”
Even have a mixed group in the house and replay that hilarious Seinfeld episode where the characters chat about the pros and cons, and especially the aesthetics of cut and uncut? My wife her own dialogue.
“Kinda dark, ain’t she?”
He had you pegged, huh? Oh well, he did his best.
It wasn’t easy for me, either. I’ve still got the imprint (like a little figure eight) of her Dad’s 12 gauge burned into the side of my neck.
True story: I decided, in spite of our advanced age (me 37, she 27) to go the man-to-man route, and asked Dad for her hand. I explained to him that Jews didn’t really grind up Christian babies for Matzohs and stuff like that. I promised him a lifetime supply of “National Hebrew” (I am so going to name my next horse that) franks. And I ended by saying “I hope you can support us in this” to which he replied: “Listen here Hymie, you marry my daughter, you better get a job!”
And the next thing I knew, it was “O Promise Me” and “Wilt thou, Mooser….”
And of course he had problems with my Mom, but you know how that is. She didn’t think any woman was bad enough to marry me.
Wilt thou Mooser– was there a prenup with the next horse in it?
I thought you wrote your wife was Jewish, mooser? You didn’t force her to convert, did you?
I eventually got the “Wilt thou” from my MIL, but indirectly, from her mouth to my wife’s ear. I got a lot of them.
“I got the horse right here…..”
My wife doesn’t like horses all that much, says their legs are too skinny for their bodies. She loves dogs, cats, and chickens (Not more than four, no roosters, all nusiance and animal welfare laws apply)
Don’t get me wrong, as Mooses, we have an almost infinite compassion for all our fellow creatures, if they’re cute.
My wife’s religion is none of my business really. It’s between her and God.
These people that call non-Jews offensive names like shiksa, and goyem which is used as an insulting term in Israel, would be up in arms if the term kikes was applied to them. The double standard irritates me in the extreme.
Wasn’t there a movie called Terms Of Endearment?
Miss Dee you make a very important point, maybe there should be a Gentile version of ADL, where offended Gentiles can do a “Mel Gibson” on perpetrators of anti mankind remarks and insults.
<i<"–if Chelsea takes after her old man, she’ll presumably be boinking the servants soon."
And if she takes after her Mom, hubby will be boinking the servants, and Chelsea will stand for it.
Yeah, in updated pantsuit.
The truth be told we are already married to one another, it is just that some do not know it – or refuse to acknowledge the fact. Divisions and factions are created for the benefit of the few, in reality there are no hard and fast divisions in humanity. So, if we stop doing allegiance to artificial created barriers nothing can stop the people. Unfortunately it is merely a lesson that the few have learned, this distilled interest to their advantage, when the people learn it, it is game over.
Yeah, look at the marriages between the old european royal families.
The idea is the pooling of power, they do it with fewer numbers, position, privilege, and wealth. We accomplish it by ignoring their diversions (divisions, etc.) and pooling our numbers, the people united cannot be defeated. We sit here and marvel at their publicized union, speculate on what it means, but rarely learn the lesson.
Yep, just like the old mésalliance debate. so 18th/19th century:
Example:
“‘Problems were created when impressionable young men fell in love. Venereal disease was bad, but so was a mesalliance.’ Highly-born and wealthy tourists might fall in love with women below them in class or fortune. In some cases, ‘Forceful intervention was necessary’:
George, Viscount Parker’s involvement with an Italian woman, and his failure to heed the instructions of his father, Lord Chancellor Macclesfield, led Macclesfield to mobilize the resources of British diplomacy to regain his son. The young James Stuart Mackenzie fell for the famous opera-singer Barberini and arranged to marry her in Venice. This was prevented by Archibald, 3rd Duke of Argyll, who used his friend John, 3rd Earl of Hyndford, envoy in Berlin, to have Barbarini brought to Berlin and Mackenzie banned from Prussia. She had earlier engaged the attention of Samuel Dashwood.[8]
Shelley addresses the problem of ill-advised foreign marriages in Lodore, in which Horatio Saville, the son of a nobleman, marries Clorinda, a mentally unstable Italian woman. Horatio is partly, but only superficially, ‘Italianized’ (L 168) by his wife, who refuses to accompany him to England and torments him with her ‘jealous freak[s]‘. (L 171) His father, Lord Maristow, admonishes him to return to England: ‘”your career, your family, your country, must not be sacrificed to her unreasonable folly”.’ (L 279) ”
link to erudit.org
Awww, how cute, a plutocratic wedding. It’s like Harry Potter with Jews. Chelsea is Hermoine the mudblood and Mezvinsky is a rich Ron Weasley. The Zionists are Death Eaters.
“2nd Holocaust through assimilation”
Yaniv, Israel (08.06.10)
“American Jewry is intermarrying itself out of existence. This man’s children will not be Jewish! Unless they convert back at some future point. It is a futher sign of American Jewish morality in the toliet. His family makes it through 2000 years of exile to be destroyed not by Hitler but themselves.”
BJL , USA
“Disgusting”
Yehudi, Jerusalem, Israel (08.06.10)
“ANY SMART JEW KNOWS Shikses are for fun …don’t marry them”
LAWRENCE RAP ARTISTE , SAFED ISRAEL (08.06.10)
“ANY SMART JEW KNOWS Shikses are for fun …don’t marry them”
Oh my. Oh my oh my!
Hey, I’m a Catholic who married a southern Baptist. Is she for fun? Bet your bottom dollar. Jews should reference the fun side of the equation in contemplation of marriage.
How about going back to polygamy? Didn’t OT David marry a few shikses? Would that solve the problem?
Is monogamy even Jewish?
And of course David was descended from the unpopular Moabites through Ruth. David’s historical existence has been questioned, but one of the reasons for thinking that the story might be close to the truth is that this questionable ancestry was admitted.
And indeed Rehoboam, son of Solomon and ancestor of the Kings of Judah who were sometimes God’s good servants, was also the son of Naamah the Ammonite. The Jordanian royal house might like to claim descent from her.
“Is monogamy even Jewish?”
I sure as hell hope so. Who wants to have more than one MIL?
mooser – it’s either the Christian thing — one love only — or economic restraints.
What’s MIL?
“ANY SMART JEW KNOWS Shikses are for fun …don’t marry them”
I imagine Bill Clinton kinda thought something similar in reverse when Monical Lewinsky first flashed her overstretched thong at him.
Many guys in my frat prefered Jewish girlfriends. They knew how to and would do things that most non-Jewish girls wouldn’t even consider doing to their husbands once they had married.
RE: “…the burden that Jewish identity entails…” – Israel Harel
MY COMMENT: Yet another self-hating Jew! Or is it self-pity? “Poor, poor me, burdened by my Jewish identity.” Being chosen by G-d (and having made that damn covenant) must be such a goddamn burden!
Zionists remind of “South-will-rise-again” rednecks.
Yes, we were chosen by God, to bear His burdens in the world. Unfortunately, we let Him down, and he hasn’t wanted to do much for us since then. Anybody noticed Him stopping the sun or parting seas for us lately? That’s what adultery and whoring after false gods will get ya’
Zionists never read through to the end of the book. As I remember, political nationhood was pretty much forbidden us. Or rather, if we were going to try it, we would be on our own. And we haven’t solved our little philandering and Golden Calf problems either.
Please, I don’t want to sound ungrateful. He had the option of wiping us off the map, and He didn’t. For that I am grateful, and I think we shouldn’t push our luck.
Ah, the lost cause–makes the heart flutter; to see the flag rippling in the distant wind… why should the industrial base and good financial credit have to mean so much when we got such guts, glory, and–what? God’s so feeble he can’t bear his own self-created burdens? I think I heard that before. Poppa use to say, when unbuckling his belt, “This is gonna hurt me more than you! Now, bend over!” We had to line up and bend over. It served us well. We learned our lesson.
It’s times like that when Scripture comes in handy. You should have stuffed a Dore Bible down your pants to absorb the blows.
Such profound thoughts and spiritual insights
Jumping Jehovahs! Those clinton chicks are taking over everything! They’re the goy vanguard of the secret goy strategy to dilute our pure bloodline. Pretty soon they’ll turn all of us Jewish people into goys. Run for masada and get the weapons stash. This means WAR!
Meanwhile, old lewinsky is preening, dry cleaning her leather chaps and getting ready for her next assignment….
Yeah, getta load of her now:
link to dailymail.co.uk
Hmmmm….maybe she’s been “retired”.
:D
It’s all bill’s fault, you know. He destroys women. Look what he did to hillary. That man is worse than Bluebeard.
;D
Does he still claim to be a Baptist?
I lost all respect for Hilary as a politician, when she tolerated Bill’s infidelity. And sure enough, she liked it so much she let Bush walk all over her too.
And now those sturdy Methodist table legs are supporting our dapper and eloquent Prez.
“This means WAR! “
If we go to war, we’ll have to raise the texas.
And the Ari zone too!
Much of the money that was spared after the collapse of our brother Madoff is currently invested in this struggle.
that’s very interesting indeed. maybe the lawyers for the victims should have a chat w/this author from ynet.
i read both the columns and all the kvetching that followed in the haaretz comments. some of these people are totally nuts and neurotic. it’s also amusing harel thought clinton was a wasp. even the uppercrustest of the uppercrust of arkansas society aren’t considered wasps by real wasps..
Yep. Even Bill knows he’s a hillbilly; he’s just happy he was spared the fate of his brothers, the military grunts par excellance.
Shikse is far worse than blemish, closer to disgusting or detestable.
Goy (singular; goyim is plural) is in fact innately at least neutral and in fact complimentary- a nation. Israel is referred to as a goy at times in the Hebrew bible, backing up the anti Shlomo Sands contention of the Jews as a nation. But just because its origin is positive does not mean that it is not used (at times) as a pejorative.
That is shikse’s etymology, not its usage.
Oh look, our Jewish marriage mayven has shown up.
He’s 55, a virgin, never committed the sin of Onan, but here he is to lecture us on holy wedlock. After all, he thinks the Bible is inerrant!
And least you’re following the commandment to be fruity. A real fruitcake.
And you are wrong, dead wrong about the word “Goy”.
Mooser- what is the literal meaning of the word “goy”?
“Mooser- what is the literal meaning of the word “goy”?
Gosh, Wondering Jew, doesn’t it mean “a shit for christ”?
Sure I know, Wonderink Jew, when you call people “Goys” you are actually complimenting them. Isn’t it awful the way Gentiles misinterpret us?
No, Mooser, I only referred to you in that way. and I was dealing with the literal rather than the usage. but whatever…
I have a very selective pejorative use for goyim, it includes the people we are discussing in this post, and those who support the same current course in their support of Israel. It is an equal opportunity goyim, both Jew and Gentile.
“No, Mooser, I only referred to you in that way. and I was dealing with the literal rather than the usage.”
Oh, I see, you only called me a “shit for christ” because you like me so much. Nothing prejorative about it. Makes such sense.
Well, since you’ve decided to be so nice, I promise I will never call you a “Goy”
mooser- Keep making this blog a place to fight your personal battles. That’s a very good idea. An excellent idea. Superb!
But as you know, Wondering Jew, I’m happily married, so I don’t have all the time I would like to study theology. So could you explain to us what a “shit for christ” is. I’m sure it indicative of your deep respect for other religions, but I’m quite sure what the reference is. Please explain?
as long as we are into yiddish, someone once told me that schmuck means camel’s penis in arabic. can one of you weisneheimers set me straight?
If I explain, will you drop the personal stuff? apply your sadistic streak neither to myself nor to richard witty nor to any pro zionist on this blog?
jimby- Shmuck means penis in Yiddish. It has to do with camel only if you say, “Look at that shmuck on the camel.” (See Leo Rosten for the rest of the joke.) It is not nearly Arabic in any way shape or form.
btw weisenheimer is a pejorative with its basis in high German from the 18th Century, weisenheimer.
Mooser, you are a real prick. What are you gaining by the personal attacks? What is Phil gaining by allow them to continue?
Does it make you feel better about yourself? Seriously, that is why most people will belittle others because of low self-worth. Is this your story? or are you really just a prick?
I’m really goddamned sick of the Zionists here totally trashing various Arab groups with racist comments, then turning around and acting like wounded animals when — surprise! — the rest of us are outraged at their behavior.
Now that the conversation is really getting interesting, I have to share this. I do not know the word for a camel’s penis in Arabic but I recently discovered something even better. If you go to what you think is a female camel, a naaqa, and try to milk her and discover that it is not a female at all, there is a verb to describe that mistake: istanwaq.
Now back to Monica Lewinsky and the Mezvinskys and the Clintons.
“schmuck means camel’s penis in arabic”
Not to my knowledge..
Yep, that’s right Moosie. A favorite of my Daddy–along with wiseacre. He grew up with the Katzenjammer Kids. Also liked heine, and never heard of tukus. Natch; his Mom was German.
As to schmuck–Urban Dictionary has some nice history:
(1) That portion of one’s penis which is cut off during circumcision,a Yiddish term (an accent of the german language used by jewish people) (2) german word for “adornment” or “jewelry” (3) metaphorical meaning: a prick, an asshole, et
WJ – does shmuck (penis) have anything to do with the German noun Schmuck (jewelry), as in ‘family jewels’ (testicles)?
Chaos,
When have any of us made racists comments towards Arabs. You live in a fantasy world. You say the most outrageous baseless stuff. Show me where WJ was racist. He doesn’t agree with you so he is a racist, sounds an awful lot like you don’t agree with us so you are an anti-semite argument, don’t you think?
“mooser- Keep making this blog a place to fight your personal battles. That’s a very good idea. An excellent idea. Superb!”
Thanks. I thought you would approve.
“Goy” means “a nation”?
But what do you mean by “a nation”?
But what do you mean by “a nation”?
Exactly, RoHa.
backing up the anti Shlomo Sands contention of the Jews as a nation
Only if they haven’t actually read Sand’s book. Had they done so, they would have realised that: a) unless one accepts the Bible as literal truth, it cannot be cited as historical “proof” of anything; b) in pre-modern times, the meaning of words such as “nation” or “people” was rather fluid, denoting anything from clan/tribe to worshipers of a particular god to speakers of a particular language (cf. the Greek “ethnos” and the Latin “gens”).
Shmuel- Were the ancient Egyptians (circa 1300 B.C.) a nation according to Shlomo Sand?
WJ, how about doing some of the hard work for yourself? Sort out what types of nations there are or have been, and pick out the characteristics that make a particular group a “nation” of a particular kind.
Then we can decide whether Parsees are and Etruscans were “nations”, and know why stamp collectors and the West Brisbane Cheesecake Photographers Club aren’t.
If you do that, we might start taking your “Jews are a nation” claim seriously. Until then, I, at least, will continue to mock.
WJ,
Sand’s point is not that there were no human groups in antiquity that might be defined as “nations” today, but that the concept itself was not yet well-defined. Use of the word “goy” or “am” or “gens” in ancient texts thus offers no real indication of the nature of the group in question.
Roha- If I ask Shmuel a question and he is willing to answer it civilly, I don’t see what purpose is served by your demand that I study an issue except that puts you in the position of demanding something of me and you feel comfortable demanding when you take time off from mocking.
Although a self concept that involves an undefined term might not fit your demand of intellectual soundness, I do not think it is worthy of mockery and your mockery is primarily to satisfy your own emotional needs rather than the needs of the situation. The Jews define themselves as an “am” or as a “goy”. Specifically those Jews who pray the traditional prayers consider themselves an “am” and a “goy”. This is insufficient to serve as a license to a piece of land, but it is relevant in terms of predicting the behavior of this group. The cheesecake society can be predicted to act in a certain manner because they view themselves as a certain type of society and religious Jews, or Jews who take the Jewish texts of Torah and the prayerbook and law books with some degree of seriousness, also view themselves a certain way and we can predict their behavior based upon their self concept.
You do not view their self concept to be rigorous enough to achieve a consistency that enables you to deal with their self concept as something that needs to be acknowledged as valid or approaching validity. But certainly if it can predict actions, it is useful to know what their self concept is. Thus the fact that “goy” and “am” and praying about Jerusalem and the ingathering of the exiles and relating to fellow Jews as part of the “am” is not enough to change the status of the Jews from merely a set of beliefs in a falsehood to you, but it should be relevant enough for you to see that it has an effect on the behaviors of those people.
WJ,
Sand does not question the kind of current Jewish self-definition to which you refer, but rather asserts that it is a modern invention. In other words, a Jew using the word “goy” or “am” in prayer two or three hundred years ago would not have understood it in the same way as a Jew today (in prayer or otherwise). He also argues that the development of the modern idea of the Jewish people (on which Zionism is based) entailed a good deal of manipulation and wishful thinking by people who should have known better, and that popular notions have gone even beyond the sometimes careful definitions of ideologically-motivated scholars.
Shmuel- I would have to reread Sand, an unpleasant prospect, in order to pinpoint what he is trying to accomplish in the present tense regarding Jewish identification with Israel. I know that Tony Judt, olov hashalom, (PBUH), saw Sand’s hypothesis as something that might enable the disentanglement of America’s Jews from the cause of Israel.
In fact the average Orthodox Jew in Brooklyn supports Israel unless they belong to a group that specifically adjures support of Israel. The reason: identification with the Jewish people. The average secular Jew in Manhattan is far less likely to support Israel. The reason: lack of identification with the Jewish people. The cause of the identification of the Orthodox Jew: traditional prayers and beliefs. The cause of the lack of identification of the secular Jew: lack of prayers and beliefs. (Of course there is an element of the clash of values of liberalism that the secular Jew believes in and the path of Israel, whether innate or superficial, which is not liberal.) But the lack of connection to Jews because of lack of belief is a key factor involved.
A conceptual definition of a “people” is not sufficient to define what one may conceive themselves to be, no matter the number and is certainly no charter for statehood. What has happened particularly in the case of Israel is brought about by privilege and power, and the support of those with privilege and power through a colonial charter.
One could even look at an aboriginal cannibalistic tribe and ascertain a strong “belief” that causes them act a certain way. However, since they do not have the power nor support of those in power they cannot invade the USA (as an example) by some colonial activity and force themselves nor they ways upon the people of the said region. Consistency of activity does not necessarily bequeath validity in the form of a “people,” nor does the atrocious activity toward the indigenous population confer rights to act thus with impunity in this said course.
If the matter were the Torah as standing that would be one matter, but it is the myriad derivations in the “law books” (as you say) that read as cockeyed as the Catholic Magisterium and the contradictory hodgepodge of the Papal Bulls! It is not a mistake that such various atrocities have come from the Vatican city as well as Israel. Behaviors understood completely in light of this reality.
…which would make Jewish nationalism inherently theocratic in nature, WJ.
Thanks for the help in demonstrating that, inadvertent though it probably was.
Further, anyone who does a cursory study of the period where religious rule held sway to see the misery it elicits. The wide spread persecutions, crusades, murder by declaration of “heresy,” superstitions of those mildly “different,” and inquisitions visited upon us by anointed religious nuts.
So then, by all means, lets go back to that – is that the logic? This is a case positive of what happens when any religious conviction draws close to the seat(s) of power (or the declaration of religious convictions for advantage). No, I think we have a “rich” enough history of misery in regard to religiously driven states, and one would have hoped that modern enlightenment should make us run in the exact opposite direction when someone asks for a religio-centric nation.
Oh, and by the way, these periods of religious rule were totally predictable (as you say wj), not much has changed to this day.
(Of course there is an element of the clash of values of liberalism that the secular Jew believes in and the path of Israel, whether innate or superficial, which is not liberal.)
Don’t underestimate the values component, which may prove more significant in the future than the identification factor, as liberal Jews become increasingly aware of the illiberality of Israel and Zionism. I am hoping there will also be a shift within the progressive Orthodox community, which also has a serious (but changing) PEP problem.
Imagine if you will two seders. At one seder they say, “Next year in Jerusalem” and maybe one participant in the seder graduating high school this year will in fact next year be if not in Jerusalem but somewhere in Israel studying Torah. (They might refer to Yom Ha’atzmaut as Yom Ha’atzamos, but they will be in Israel not waving a blue and white flag.) At the second seder they say, “Next year in Jerusalem” where only one person at the seder has ever been to Israel and everyone else will try to explain how at one time this meant Jerusalem but in fact now means a world of equality.
Don’t underestimate the identification factor.
Even the identification factor is a matter of values, WJ, in the sense of tribalism trumping universal ethics (or the rejection of universal ethics altogether).
Identification – and particularly national-religious identification (the anti-Zionist Yom Ha’atzomos crowd is a little more complex than you intimate) – is undoubtedly a key element in support for Israel/Zionism, but is it “good for the Jews?” Is a kind of identification that leads to/entails racism and ultra-nationalism the kind of Judaism you would like to see? Is another kind of identification possible (caricatures of liberal Jews aside – I got my fill of them in yeshiva, thanks)?
If we are to predict actions on the basis of a self concept, we have to have at least a rough idea of what that concept is, and what it implies. Simply labelling it “am” or “goy” does not tell us what that concept is. Labelling it “nation”, and asking whether the Egyptians were a nation, does not help either.
“Don’t underestimate the identification factor.”
Be fruitful and multiply, Wondering Jew.
I have to insist on a more thorough and critical reading of history, VR: it was not all about religion all the time, and religion was not, and is not now, all bad all the time.
that view eviscerates the strength of your argument.
So what, God’s view is that there are two nations, the chosen one and the other one, the goyim? All made in God’s image? Freaky!
I think that the overall view of the Hebrew Scriptures is that the alienation of humanity from God had to be overcome in stages, beginning with one special nation whom God would specially direct and might therefore be the target of divine anger if it backslid. Perhaps both an intelligible and a splendidly tragic view, though also a very dangerous one.
I’m beginning to sense what a terrific challenge Paul laid down when he asked ‘Who shall lay anything to the charge of God’s elect?’ (The man could write.) It was now us Christians who were the chosen ones and we weren’t going to slide back.
Joke going around:
Overheard at the big wedding last weekend:
Hillary wanted to play the perfect Mom, so she asked Chelsea… “Have you had sex with Marc?”
Chelsea said…. “Not according to Dad”
One can only hope that the increasing rate of interracial and cross-religious marriages in the U.S. will bring about more tolerance among all races and relgions, as well as a dampening of absolutism, especially among some who adhere to the Abrahamic religions.
Thank you. This is the most rational post on this thread.
i’m reading Haggai Ram’s “Iranophobia: The Logic of an Israeli Obsession.” It’s tough to read and keep your equanimity. The people Ram describes are dangerously psychotic, and he describes broad swathes of Israeli society.
Anyway, one of the themes seems to be a kind of Israeli identity struggle to cast of Abraham and embrace Moses. Israelis really don’t want to be perceived as Middle Eastern. As I understand Ram’s thesis, in Europe Jews were identified with Middle East and felt like outcasts. They want to recreate Europe in Palestine — a Europe where they will not be outcasts but be in charge. Mizrahi Jews upset that apple cart since Mizrahis remind Ashkenazi Jews of themselves in Europe.
As well, Israelis seek a scapegoat, a “folk devil;” — or a ram caught in the thicket, to sacrifice so that Jews can spare their own lives/children’s lives.
Ram does not suggest a resolution to the deep psychotic need Israelis have to destroy Iran.
It’s very real, according to Ram.
really frightening.
Truth and Reconciliation: that seems to me to be the only way out of this horrible psychological mess: an intervention, confrontation; confession, apology, restitution. Israel should be required to pay restitution to Palestinians, to Gaza, to Lebanon, to US, and to Iran. Israel should be required to conduct its state under supervision for the next twenty years until they can prove that they’re no longer homicidally psychotic.
“Truth and Reconciliation: that seems to me to be the only way out of this horrible psychological mess: an intervention, confrontation; confession, apology, restitution.”
I am glad restitution was mentioned, otherwise you end up in the same boat as South Africa presently, “reconciliation” with enduring poverty and the wealth of the nation in the same pockets as before the surface change (a small bit of fat, a management class of black people, for insulation around the abiding moneyed elite). However that was not enough in South Africa, the neoliberal wrecking crew had to come in and put the people further into debt, and did not ask a dime of the elite few. Lets make sure another repeat does not take place in Palestine.
Haven’t the whites left S Africa in droves since liberation of that state from their control? Word is rape’s a prime mover of that exodus. Is that made up by David Duke? There’s a bunch of interviews on YT of white S Africans and they say why they’ve been leaving since the land was made free.
Looks like S Africa has the most rapes per capita:
link to nationmaster.com
Note: In some cultures it’s much harder to claim rape and make it stick than in others. Legal defenses to rape vary. Recall, as an example, the recent Arab accused of rape by a jewish Israeli because he did not her he was not a jew when she came on to him on the street. In Japan, rape is a rare charge, and rarely admitted.
Whenever there is colonial activity driven by racial ideas of superiority and inferiority there has always been the fear of rape by the indigenous. You see the same statements in the language of the early American colonists, especially in their expansion stages.
The fact of the matter is that there is no need for a high white population for the neoliberal nightmare to be a reality. Ownership of resources within the world trade pool is driven by corporate means – where one can own major shares and not be extant in the given region. I know families here who have huge shares in Anglo industries which have parlayed their wealth all over the world.
The reason why the condition is terrible among the majority black population in South Africa has nothing to do with rape, it has everything to do with the fear of the ANC when it took office, the fear that business would flee if it followed through with its promises. Mandela did not want the same strangulation and isolation that would have been invoked by the good ol’ boys of trade which has occurred, as an example, in Zimbabwe. That is because this “world market” has no intention of leveling any playing field when it come to the indigenous in Africa, and that is why Mandela never applied the promises of the charter:
“The national wealth of our country, the heritage of South Africans, shall be restored to the people;
The mineral wealth beneath the soil, the Banks and monopoly industry shall be transferred to the ownership of the people as a whole;
All other industry and trade shall be controlled to assist the well being of the people;
All people shall have equal rights to trade where they choose, to manufacture and to enter all trades, crafts and professions…”
For a dose of reality I suggest you look at the evidence, the first individual to notice it and do a documentary was John Pilger, and even the hope that he envisioned for the future has been crushed in the current course (the building of homes and medical access, etc). In regard to this sites concern, I am saying we do not need a repeat of what has happened in reality in South Africa as a final result. There is no denial of BDS here, nor that Zionism in its current state and as a project must cease, I just do not want to see the same outcome –
APARTHEID DID NOT DIE
Speaking of Iranophobia:
link to ynetnews.com
Is that supposed to be a good reason to nuke Iran, Schwartzman? Do you not understand the irony of Israel burning Iranian Jews to a crisp in their zeal to wage a 21st century Crusade?
Why is that a threat to either Israel or the US? Ahmadinejad is right about the political abuse of the Holocaust and 9/11 to justify Israeli/US aggression, colonialism and imperialism. Of course that doesn’t mean either event was a fabrication, nor does Ahmadinejad saying so pose a military threat to either Israel or the US. Besides, Islamophobia started long before Ahmadinejad. See this interview with Ram:
link to eastwest-review.com
Phil, I thought I wasn’t allowed to draw any conclusions from the large number of insulting terms in Rosten. Are we allowed to draw conclusions from the way they are used?
(Leo Rosten … says it comes from Hebrew for “blemish” and promptly applies it to a servant girl).
A blemish mars perfection. Pop those pimples or you’re a gonner.
Discussion of the Chelsea Clinton-Marc Mezvinsky wedding has omitted an interesting fact: the intermarriage rate between Jew and Gentile (in the US) is quite high. About half of US Jews are getting married to Gentiles these days.
This ought to be further disproof of the claims that anti-Semitism is rising to dangerous levels, etc. etc.
These days, most US Jews have lives that don’t differ very much from the lives of their Gentile neighbors. People fall in love, and with diminishing anti-Semitism, and no laws forbidding it, people are going to intermarry.
Some of the emotional invocations of “the Jewish people” coming from the camp of the Israelis and their supporters seem to image that this is like 19th century Poland. It isn’t. It’s 21st century USA.
[These remark applies to the 90% of US Jews who are not Orthodox. I'd make an exception for the Orthodox, who are like the Amish. For them, intermarriage really is still a Big Fucking Deal.]
Neither the Israelis nor anybody else can stop intermarriage of US Jews. To do that, they’d have to pass laws forbidding it. There used to be laws on the books of about half of US states outlawing unions of blacks and whites. Some states also had separate laws forbidding unions of whites and Filipinos, and other combinations. California had a law forbidding marriage between whites and Chinese.
In the Israeli Knesset years ago, the rightwingers proposed a law that would make sex between Jew and Gentile a criminal act, punishable by jail time. It didn’t pass, but came alarmingly close. As the bill’s opponents pointed out, the precedent for such laws in the Nuremberg laws in Nazi Germany.
The bill to make sex between Jew and gentile came alarmingly close? I don’t think so. Tell me what the vote was, fiction writer.
to make it unlawful