Once a summer for the last few years I’ve gone to lectures at the Church of the Messiah in Cape Cod in a series sponsored by the Ad Hoc Committee for Peace and Justice in the Middle East. Most of the speeches have hada pro-Arab tilt. But Sunday night was different. An appealing Jewish couple in their 70s named the Coopers, Alice and Robert, who had lived in Jerusalem for 36 years till 2008, told their story, both slender teachers, he a sociologist of language, she a teacher of English. It was a bittersweet tale but was not in the end very satisfying intellectually.
The Coopers moved over in 1972. Robert was going to do a year at Hebrew University. "We had no Zionist background, no Zionist aspiration," he said, but by the time of the Yom Kippur war in 1973 the Zionism had developed in them, and they stayed on. Robert had always felt "slightly alienated" from non-Jews in the U.S. He fell in love with the Jewish sense of belonging and the "rhythms of Jewish life." Alice, a Brearley-Radcliffe graduate, felt a strong communitarian impulse after the Yom Kippur war. Both their kids served in the IDF.
The Coopers' story had three emotional turns.
The first was Robert’s description of his service as a reservist in occupied Hebron, protecting the Cave of the Patriarchs, which of course is also a Moslem holy site, the Ibrahim mosque. The Jews were much more trouble than the Palestinians, Robert said, using all type of "shenanigans" to get into the site when they weren’t supposed to be there. He described the "hateful" presence of Jewish soldiers in the mosque during Muslim prayer; they were protecting the Israeli Arabic translators, who were there to monitor the imam's comments. And he told about ordering a very respectable lady to open her purse. There was a handkerchief in there, that was all.
"She gave me a look of such withering hatred. And who can blame her?"
In time, the Coopers took part in protests of the occupation, which threatened the very idea of Jewish democracy, as Robert said. Alice was as disturbed. She joined the women in black and held up signs that said, End the occupation.
The second emotional turn was the Coopers' description of the Second Intifada. At first they tried to deny that the violence was changing their lives in Jerusalem, but ultimately it got to them. They watched one another walk away from the door as if it might be the last time they were together. They took taxis and turned on the radio when they heard the bomb blasts, 10 in one month in June 2003 alone. They got cell phones.
This time the sense of betrayal was aimed at the Arabs. There were thousands of rockets from Gaza and Hamas was committed to Israel’s "abolition," Alice said, and she was not sure if she was for a Palestinian state any more.
The last emotional moment was when Alice thanked us for allowing her to tell her story. Her heart is still in Jerusalem, though she has been back for two years. You see, the Cooper children both live here. The children didn’t want to stay in Israel, and their daughter announced that she wouldn’t come over to Jerusalem to take care of them in their old age. The Coopers live in Brooklyn. Alice is still grieving her move.
I was frequently stirred by the talk, by its directness and simplicity, and the perfect structure, of responsive readings, but politically I felt it was too simple. Many thoughts went through my mind. I thought, this story is out of date, Zionism is out of date, do these people have any understanding of their privilege, to be able to go from one society to another and then back to their native society, while Palestinians have no such freedom? Is it really surprising that some Palestinians are firing rockets and blowing themselves up as you decide whether you feel they should have a state or not?
Robert obviously has a clue about Israel’s self-inflicted loss of legitimacy, but the dwelling on the Second Intifada reminded me of the dead end of the Israeli left. The terror seemed to justify everything that has followed, including Lieberman and Netanyahu, about whom the Coopers had little comment.
There is a bubble in Israel and these people spoke from inside the bubble. They talked about all the Arab violence but did not talk about the Nakba. During the Q-and-A they acknowledged that they had little contact with Palestinians; the two societies are utterly separated. Is that any reflection on Jewish democracy?
I wondered whether their children had become anti-Zionists. The Coopers had not completely assimilated in Israeli society. Robert said they were called "Anglo-Saxon," the Israeli word for English and Americans. Anglo-Saxon has a colonial ring to me, and there was a resonance in the Coopers’ story of another time, the era of colonial power. They are people whose lives in the end were back in their real homeland; their children were happier here. Over there was tough and a little fake too, surrounded by hostile Arab nations, as they repeated-- and connected by an umbilical to the imperial power.
The Coopers said the conflict is about competing claims to the land, but are theclaims comparable? Not really, when two citizens have grown up here and graduated from Radcliffe and Harvard. The Anglo-Saxon privileged come and go, while many of the natives have no real freedom to move, let alone to send their children to universities in the U.S.
I was with my parents, who are of the Coopers' world; and I wanted to like the talk, to be supportive of a Jewish experience. But the Coopers' dream seems faded. It is hard for me to understand how Israel can be reconstituted, can gain legitimacy, until it is accepted by the lady whose handbag Cooper inspected. The spiritual and political work all lie in that direction.
they were called “Anglo-Saxon,” the Israeli word for English and Americans. Anglo-Saxon has a colonial ring to me, and there was a resonance in the Coopers’ story of another time, the era of colonial power.
Phil, this is a term Israelis give native English speakers. It carries a sense of having grater options. Unlike native Israelis who are stuck in Israel, “Anglo-Saxons” have the option of leaving for a life of relative wealth and greater personal safety. The life these immigrants left behind is the greener grass many Israelis dream of. This leaves many Israelis wondering why these Anglo-Saxons left all that behind in the first place. This comes out as envy at the foreign gadgets and clothes and also a refusal to accept these immigrants as full Israelis. Hence the special category.
Thanks Elliot. I didn’t know that, Phil
“It is hard for me to understand how Israel can be reconstituted, can gain legitimacy, until it is accepted by the lady whose handbag Cooper inspected.”
Meaning, that such legitimacy is impossible, no?
it’s a foreign country; it’s hard for me to make such a blanket statement in the context of egyptian oppression and other authoritarian regimes. im an american. there’s a lot of stuff i would never live with. the key issue for me is that the palestinians are enfranchised
Well, it turns out that many states can be authoritarian and legitimate to a large degree to many of their citizens. But colonial apartheid states will never be legitimate to the native population oppressed to maintain the privileges of the racist colonials, so Israel is never going to have this woman’s acceptance.
otto, you underestimate the Paletinians’ gifts for forgiveness as well as their passion for justice. Not the leaders necessarily; just the ordinary people. There’s much Westerners, or those who came from and/or live in the West, don’t understand about the spiritual capacities of natives – Middle Eaterners and others – who’ve had deep, centuries long roots. Especially in lands coveted by – and periodically run over by – others. I think sometimes that those of us comfortably living in “Anglo-saxon” neighborhoods fail to process why “acceptance” mean so much in certain cultures, precisely because we are hardly ever faced with the true choice of opening our hearts for real to a different collective of people. Maybe that’s why we hide behind and make laws about tolerance – so we don’t have to actually, really, feel it.
I believe Israel could have had, maybe even still can, have this woman’s wholehearted acceptance. But the price – justice – is one they are not willing to pay.
this is undoubtedly off-topic.
I just watched “Restless Conscience,” a documentary film about Germans who resisted Nazism and who attempted to kill Hitler as the first, essential act before overthrowing the National Socialist government and throwing opening the concentration camps.
The documentary was narrated by the widows or children or other family of the men involved — all of whom gave their lives for their act of conscience.
This film evoked far more compassion for Jews in Nazi Germany than all the enforced discussion of the Holocaust.
I’m glad that you heard their story, particularly the degree of change of consciousness of Israelis that accompanied the traumas of the second intifada and subsequent wave of terror.
I think you are too dismissive of the Coopers’ story (one of attempted mass expulsion, “we’ll make life miserable for them until they leave.” – the SAME story as current Zionism is accused of.)
You are right that the degree of intended reconciliation must be that deep, that sincere, that true mutual forgiveness is possible, and at such breadth that the exceptions are less than few and far between.
I contend that encouraging angers is NOT the way to achieve that degree of reconciliation, that that is the way to specifically suppress the forgiveness that is needed.
There are political components to the transition needed, but ultimately the change needed is in hearts and minds, and militancy is the enemy of that change.
Also, please note HOW recent the second intifada was. At the same time as your still very live wake-up through the war in Iraq, THAT is the time frame that that change in Israeli consciousness was cemented.
6 – 7 years ago ONLY.
You are still writing about the neo-conservatives efforts then, as if it is current (aside from suspected parallels to current relations to Iran).
“Also, please note HOW recent the second intifada was.”
Why, so that you can divert the attention from Israel’s massacres in Labanon and Gaza that have taken place since?
Not to mention how often Israel has invaded Lebanon and Gaza. How long was Lebanon occupied by Israeli troops? We can find incidents of Israeli troops and war planes entering Lebanese and Gazan territory on a weekly basis.
Witty wants us to remember the Second Intifiada but — of course — forget the IDF massacres that triggered it.
Just to put the Cooper’s very representative testimony into personal context.
The Israeli shift right was not based on bigotry, but on fear from the traumas cruelly inflicted on them.
It is recent, and the very profound distrust of Hamas, other Gaza factions, and Hezbollah are palpable and rational, especially given both dominant factions’ confirmation that they do not regret undertaking terror on Israeli civilians, nor regard terror as a wrong, just as an ineffective tactic.
“Why, so that you can divert the attention from Israel’s massacres in Labanon and Gaza that have taken place since?”
He doesn’t even notice that the number of Palestinians killed in the second intifada was several times greater than the number of Israelis. Phil apparently didn’t think of that either–he went back to the Nakba, but you don’t have to go that far. The second intifada started out with nearly all the deaths inflicted by Israel–when the suicide bombing attacks began the ratio shrank down to about 3 or 4 Palestinian dead for each Israeli.
RW doesn’t realize it, because he shares that mentality, but to the extent that the Israeli “left” deserted the cause of peace because of terror is the extent to which they show how superficial their pro-peace feelings were and how little they valued Palestinian lives. They seem to expect Palestinians to all be Gandhis, to accept as much violence as Israel is willing to inflict, but if Palestinians repay in kind, (to a lesser degree), that shoves them over to a pro-war position.
What, totally unlike the Palestinians, who have only had to endure fear and trauma for SIXTY YEARS RUNNING?
They seem to expect Palestinians to all be Gandhis, to accept as much violence as Israel is willing to inflict, but if Palestinians repay in kind, (to a lesser degree), that shoves them over to a pro-war position.
When the Palestinians commit violence, it is due to their devotion to terrorism and death, but the Israeli warmongering and slaughtering is the result of cruel and traumatic victim-hood (inflicted by the Palestinians, of course). It is the same old narrative of eternal Jewish/Israeli victimhood: there is no such thing as an evil Israeli, only an Israeli turned evil by Palestinian evil.
Just another example of the bigotry Witty puts on display here, entirely consistent with the “liberal Zionist” camp.
>> “hearts and minds”
Person A: Win their hearts and minds! Present them the opportunity to forgive!
Person B: You’re right! We should stop oppressing them and stealing their land and colonizing it! We should we stop killing them, destroying their homes, plowing over their fields, stealing their water and denying them their human rights!
Person A: What? No, no, no!!
Person B: Oh. Then…how?
Person A: Try to “humanize ‘the Other’”. You know, make “better wheels” and draft “new narratives”.
Person B: Are you serious?!
Person A: Nah, I’m just kidding. All of that stuff is up to them to do. You and I are “generation to generation” fear-scarred. We’re victims! All we have to do is “Remember the Holocaust!”
Militancy was the preferred method of the gangs establishing the Israeli state. But that’s ok for them. It’s only when others seek to imitate their methods of change that they are decried.
Many Israelis that I met had an affinity for the British and the colonial period.
This is the part that got me:
“I thought, this story is out of date, Zionism is out of date, do these people have any understanding of their privilege, to be able to go from one society to another and then back to their native society, while Palestinians have no such freedom? Is it really surprising that some Palestinians are firing rockets and blowing themselves up as you decide whether you feel they should have a state or not?”
With all the people coming to the U.S. at will legally and ilegally, and flitting between multiple homelands, average Americans are stuck here if things go south.
One thing that strikes me about the endless agonising over the way Zionism has mutated into justification for a right wing terror state is the lack of any debate about what Zionism could have been, and therefore might be in a decent future. Israel could, and should have, been a beacon for everything enlightened – tolerance, freedom, civility, respect. As the response to the Holocaust what would have been better than Jews building a country where every ethnic group was welcomed, where a future was built for all, a country that demonstrated for all the suffering, the only response was a shared, tolerant future. A beacon for hope, Israel could have been a powerhouse in the Middle East, working with with its neighbours, absorbing refugees from around the world, and showing everybody how to live. The unspoken tragedy is that instead it chose the narrowest of criteria – a state for one cultural group only, built on occupation, dispossession, war, aggression and a cult of entitlement, privilege and a ruthless indifference to the indigenous peoples of the ME. The promise of Zionism seduced many such as those above who wanted to believe such things, the reality was never thus, and it is only the unmasking of the disastrous punitive aggression that Israel now embodies that will enable the long road to redemption in a multicultural, binational state for all.
There is a very long debate on what Israel could have become. Buber had some good notions on a humanitarian zionism, but what I really found impressive was Albert Einstein’s views after reading:
link to amazon.com
One thing that was really striking was that the NY Times distorted his position in their obituary — immediately after his death he was redefined as a good zionist that supported the Jewish state (he never supported a jewish state, his view going back to the early 20s was a multicultural state with no official religion). This book goes a long way to correct his record.
But Zionism was not a response to the Holocaust. The evil was planned long before that.
What Israel could be, is still a present question. It IS what I ask here and elsewhere constantly.
“Militancy was the preferred method of the gangs establishing the Israeli state. ”
This is false. The very very vast majority of Zionist effort was in settlement, work, and establishing mutual aid support networks and institutions, SOCIAL development.
The gangs were the minority. The defense from assault though was universally applauded.
What Israel is is a far more relevant concern. And your inability to address it renders your whimsical fancies on what a “precious jewel” Zionism might be irrelevant and delusional.
So it’s laudable for European Jews to use Davidkas, but not for Palestinans to use Qassams? Gee, I guess that’s just the white man’s burden, huh.
I don’t know how you understand Zionism, justice – in my view Zionism is the claim that shares in the sovereignty of the Land belong by right to Jews, to all of them and only to them; to others only by such generosity as the rightful heirs think fit. This claim does not imply the complete exclusion of other ethnic groups but it does logically exclude any suggestion of an equal welcome, which would imply that the rightful heirs might be only an outvoted minority.
When you say ‘Jews building’ the country do you mean ‘guiding the building’ or ‘helping in building’? The latter is unexceptionable, and indeed Jews have since WW2 have helped in building many countries and cities, earning gratitude from the rest of us. That should have happened everywhere and would not have led to an Israeli state in just one place. But dire events, including the dire events of WW2, do not of themselves entitle any group, ethnic or other, to assume the guiding role – ie leadership – in any place or to subordinate others. Not that Zionism is really a response to the dire events of WW2, which it much antedates. Not that ethnic differences are real.
As one poster advised, I read a “sober” essay of Yoram Hanony. It seems that there are two versions of Zionism (it is really a matter of a degree):
1. a nation state for Jews, as everybody needs a nation state
2. a nation state for Jews, only Jews matter.
I would call version 2. soliptic Zionism. Every nationalism has some soliptic tendency, hence, this is a matter of a degree.
Israel, by virtue of superior education etc. should be as superior over neighbors as, say, Singapore over Indonesia. Better income, industry, universities etc. But “shining beacon”? No way. It does not work that way.
Solipsism is a good way to “know everything and learn nothing”. Israeli narratives are always like that: we tried good and then we learned once more that those other people are evil. Even so, we are proud of the unprecedented measures we took to minimize the casualties among the innocents.
And 2nd Intifada is one of those falsified narratives. Arafat started an intifada in the response to an unprecedented show of goodness by Barak under a pretext of a sightseeing by an Israeli political figure, and caboom! there were no unarmed demonstrations treated with utmost violence by Israel but we go directly to suicide bombings, and there are no massacres by IDF but just more suicide bombings. Soliptic narrative is simple: we were good, they were evil, it gives simple explanation why the evil happened: we were too good, and a simple lesson for the future: we must moderate are good impulses, goodness moderated by wisdom, so to speak.
One can write a short story of Vietnam war from this perspective. (I guess it was already done). Because there were some evil folks in Vietnam, JFK send our troops to advise the good folks how to deal with the bad folks. Unfortunately, bad folks duped Vietnamese good folks to be ingrates and they duped American good folks to pressure the government to be suicidally good, hence we did not bomb and kill enough bad folks and we stopped before finishing the job, even though, being good, we could win.
“The Coopers said the conflict is about competing claims to the land, but are the claims comparable?”
Then Phil proceeds to denigrate the claim of the Coopers on the land, for the Coopers have a home in America, so how can their claim on the land really compare to those that cannot choose between America and the land.
But there are somewhere between 5 and 6 million Jews living in Israel and maybe 5 to 15% of them have dual citizenships comparable to those of the Coopers (if that approximation is wrong, correct me). The Zionist movement was not born in America and it was not born so that American Jews can have the choice that the Coopers possess. The movement was born of necessity and the vast majority of Israelis do not have two homes, they have their home in Israel and nowhere else. The Coopers are the exception and not the rule.
>> The Zionist movement … was born of necessity …
From Jewish Virtual Library (link to jewishvirtuallibrary.org
>> Zionism, the national movement for the return of the Jewish people to their homeland and the resumption of Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel …
Not much “necessity” there.
>> In the late 19th century, the rise of religious and racist antiSemitism led to a resurgence of pogroms in Russia and Eastern Europe, shattering promises of equality and tolerance. This stimulated Jewish immigration to Palestine from Europe. Simultaneously, a wave of Jews immigrated to Palestine from Yemen, Morocco, Iraq and Turkey.
Immigrated to Palestine? PALESTINE?! Who are the people behind “Jewish Virtual Library” and why are they self-loathing Jews? PALESTINE?!
Gotta love how “shatter[ed] promises of equality and tolerance” for Russians, Eastern Europeans, Yemenis, Moroccans, Iraqis and Turks of the Jewish faith led them to take over – let’s be clear about this – PALESTINE and, in turn, shatter promises of equality and tolerance.
Then again, those foreigners were “generation to generation” fear scarred victims, even the ones that couldn’t “Remember the Holocaust!” (Is that even possible?) ;-)
Compare and constrast with: “isolated incident” and “a few bad apples.”
What necessity? And how has Zionism solved that?
The physical threat to Jewish lives? – Israel is the least safe place on the planet for Jews. And it endangers Jewish life elsewhere too.
Normalizing Jewish life with non-Jews? – Israel is the least normal place on the planet for Jewish life. And it poisons Jewish life everywhere else too.
Normalizing Jewish communal life? – Israel has the most vicious intra-communal strife. And it stirs up the rest of the Jewish world too.
Phil’s piece is actually hopeful. He offers the road of redemption: make the lady happy and all will be well. It’s up to Israel to figure out how to make the lady happy.
Elliot-
I wrote that the movement (Zionism) was born of “necessity”. The necessity is self evident to anyone who has read the history of Europe between the years 1881 to 1945. It can be argued that in the current period that necessity no longer exists, but there is no question that when Zionism was born there was a necessity.
As far as normalcy, obviously the conflict with the Palestinians is not normal.
Yet where else on the planet is the Sabbath celebrated from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday? Where else on the planet is “Have a nice weekend” referred to as “Shabbat shalom”. And how can you compare the Jewish communal life elsewhere on the planet to Israel? Are there five million Jews in as small an area elsewhere in the world? No. Can things be done to alleviate the communal strife and can certain policies be pinpointed as worsening communal strife? Of course.
But to offer up Israeli communal strife as abnormal when there is no comparable situation is just a cheap argument.
Phil’s road to redemption is viewed by most Israeli Jews as a road to anarchy, civil war or expulsion. (Arafat’s famous- “The Jews will pack their suitcases” rather than all Jews who cannot trace their lineage to pre 1917 report to Lydda airport tomorrow.) The only reason his road deserves any consideration is that all the other roads are pretty lousy as well.
Not so famous apparently. When some Palestinian asked Arafat why he had signed the Oslo accords he was reported to have replied, “You will see. The Jews will pack their suitcases.”
In the first three decades of the Zionist movement, most Jews did not move to Palestine. They fled Eastern Europe to Western Europe and the Americas. Initially, it was overwhelmingly, the rebellious teenagers who came to Palestine. Israel’s behavior to the “Diaspora” Jews has been adolescent ever since. They demand our money and then tell us where to get off.
The Zionist movement did precious little to save the millions it might have in the 1930s. So, I don’t see what great contribution Zionism made then towards Jewish safety.
Regardless, as you wrote, that was then and this is now. Buber and Magnes opposed the Jewish state after your cut-off date of 1945. The mainstream Zionists went ahead anyway.
Being dysfunctional into your 60s isn’t charming. It’s long past time to rethink the whole enterprise.
The peace of Shabbat comes at the expense of Secular Jews, and the peace of Jewish Holydays in Israel is bought at the expense of Palestinians. How peaceful is Shabbat for a secular Israeli family that can’t drive freely on Saturday? As you well know a Jewish holyday = a lockdown for the Palestinians. We’ll see that all over again in a couple of weeks.
As to your final point, sure some Jews will leave rather than relinquish control, but Israel will be a different and much better place. What does it matter if a million Jews leave. Israel will still be bigger than it was before the Russians came.
Spell it out. Why was it necessary for a bunch of European Jews to take over Palestine and drive out the locals?
Then Phil proceeds to denigrate the claim of the Coopers on the land, for the Coopers have a home in America, so how can their claim on the land really compare to those that cannot choose between America and the land.
I do believe that Phil was referring to the Palestinians here, not the Coopers to the Israeli Jews. I am lead to believe this as Phil goes on to compare the Coopers to “natives who have no real freedom to move” or “to send their children to universities in the US,” both of which refer apparently to Israeli imposed restrictions on the Palestinians, not Jews in Israel or Palestine as you go on to rant about.
“necessity” – more lies that people tell themselves to justify their wrongdoing.
Phil
This is not for post but information, it is the leading search on yahoo. Hitler was Jewish
here from Forward
link to forward.com
and here from the Dailty Telegraph
link to telegraph.co.uk
His Grandfather referred to as Frankenberger was probably Solomon Rothchild for whom his grandmother worked as a housemaid for in Vienna.
“Hitler was Jewish”
Nothing in that link shows that at all.
It suggests that some of his ancestors were modern black Africans* and some were modern Jews. It says nothing about him being Jewish.
(*All our ancestors seem to have been ancient Africans. I claim Kenya as my ancestral homeland! I shall set up the state of RoHania there.)
RoHa
You evidently didn’t read the articles, the headlines are
“Hitler ‘had Jewish and African roots’, DNA tests show”
“Hitler Likely Had Jewish and African Roots”
and the last line of both articles says
“His father, Alois, is thought to have been the illegitimate offspring of a maid called Maria Schickelgruber and a 19-year-old Jewish man called Frankenberger”.
“Hitler’s father, Alois, is believed to be the illegitimate child of a maid and a 19-year-old Jewish man”.
Its not important other than one can surmise that at that time the chip his father would have on his shoulder that may have been transfered to his son. After all being illegitimate in the 19th Century was a scandal.
I did read the articles. That’s how I know that they did not say that Hitler was Jewish.
They say that one of his grandfathers might have been Jewish. But that was an ancestor, not Hitler himself.
Try reading them yourself.
>> They say that one of his grandfathers might have been Jewish. But that was an ancestor, not Hitler himself.
Some would argue that having a Jewish ancestor would make Hitler part of the Jewish “nation”, a “long-term exile” Israelite and “generation to generation” fear-scarred.
It’s a shame others didn’t try to humanize him and to make “better wheels”… ;-)
If Hitler is to be recruited as prime illustration of the meaning of the ridiculous insult ‘self-hating Jew’ I’d have some reservations. I understand it’s quite difficult to find much anti-Semitism in the pre-war Hitler, so it doesn’t really seem to be something he learned from his family. He seeme to have no difficulty in serving under the Jewish officer who recommended him for Iron Cross Class I.
A degree of anti-Semitism was indeed in the air that Hitler breathed in pre-War Vienna but anti-Semitism in intense form was a logical post-war outcome of declaring the proposition ‘Germany has been defeated’ to be merely a Big Lie – it wasn’t defeat, it was a stab in the back and since it was a stab in the back the knife had to be wielded by someone.
Hitler isn’t an example of someone ashamed of his ancestry but of someone who was utterly carried away by nationalist propaganda and is this respect is a dire warning to others. Whether he believed his own propaganda or merely used people who did believe it is more of a question.