As many of you know, the Simon Wiesenthal Center is building a museum of "tolerance" on a Muslim cemetery in Jerusalem. You can see the construction walls in this picture's middle ground, amidst the gravestones.
Another branch of the LA-based Wiesenthal center is on 42d Street in New York; and last night demonstators from Jews Say No picketed the center for Islamophobia. They object to the construction as a "clear and gross violation of the human rights of all ...whose families are buried there," and also to the fact that the Simon Wiesenthal Center leadership has opposed the Islamic center in Lower Manhattan. Tolerance...
Inside the NY center, they were holding a panel on Iran and Turkey. They promoted the event with a scare poster: "Should Israel Bomb Natanz?" A friend gave me $20 to go inside, and I did.
The panel went on for an hour and a half or so and I did not hear one statement about the American people’s interest in bombing Iran or alienating Turkey. Not one. In a panel moderated by JJ Goldberg, the former editor of the Forward, with at least four Americans on stage, there was not one moment of reflection, in an American space, about what was good for the American people.
There was a lot of talk about what the U.S. must do for Israel. David Pollock of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy called on the US to sit down with Turkey to urge it to make up with Israel. David Menashri of Tel Aviv University said that Iran was a threat to the free world, and the U.S. had to talk to Iran (before stopping it from getting nuclear weapons). A staffer at Dor Chadash (whose name I didn't get, Dahlia something) called on the U.S. to "do what it should do" and attack Iran. Goldberg made the joke that Americans were coming up on their Turkey day, but that was about it.
This is the narrowness of the Israel lobby. They are really concerned, all the time, with what’s best for Israel. Amid all the discussion at the event about making a deal with the Palestinians for the sake of regional peace, there was not one reference to Palestinian human rights. Not one comment about the 43-year-long occupation and what it does to Palestinians.
The organization behind the event, Dor Chadash, is dedicated to building ties between American Jews and Israel and well, you wonder why young American Jews are headed for the exits. Self-centeredness. Pollock said that the Israelis ought to apologize to the Turks for the “unwanted deaths” of nine people on the Mavi Marmara, one of whom was an American, by the way. Menashri jumped in to say that the Israelis shouldn't apologize to the Turks, but “apologize to our own people for this unwise action.”
Kill eight Turks and one Turkish-American and apologize to yourself. Is that Jewish?
Oh and this. Someone asked Pollock from the audience what a peace with the Palestinians would achieve because then Israel was still 20 percent Palestinian and this was a recipe for "conflict inside Israel" because they are the "same family" as the other Palestinians.
A Palestinian state, Pollock said, arguably, “doesn’t solve the demographic problem, it reduces it, postpones the day of reckoning, puts it in a different context, but doesn’t eliminate the problem completely.” Because of the Palestinians' contact with brothers and cousins and the nationalistic impulse that a Palestiinian state would create. Things could go in a "more difficult or even dangerous direction... there is some risk of that." But "probably at least putting the bulk of this demographic problem across a border helps to reduce the temperature of the conflict." The upside is that Arabs in Israel prefer to be citizens of Israel, and are willing to make the practical accommodations that that requires. And Pollock thinks it's manageable for Israel to have even 30 percent Arab minority. "That’s OK, that’s quite manageable."
And you wonder why young American Jews, growing up in a multicultural society, are headed for the exits. Postponing the day of reckoning, indeed.
Phil, your analysis is so — well, sorry friend — cockeyed. Sorry to have to remind you, but at these lovely inter-familial (not the whole American family, mind, just the Jewish sliver) meetings, there is simply no NEED to mention American needs and interests, because — as you of all should well know, shame on you for pretending to have forgotten — American interests and Israeli interests are the SAME. No daylight between. Now do you remember?
So there is, of course, no need whatever to have similar meetings attended by a broad spectrum of Americans, chaired by non-Jews, with speakers who are not Jewish. It would be so counter-productive, don’t you think? I mean, if Jewish and American interests are the same, cannot they be determined, spelled out, refined, whittled, sharpened, focused more efficiently (Americans do so love efficiency!) if Jews alone do the spelling out, refining, whittling, sharpening, focusing. (And not those oddly misguided nutcases from JVP, either!)
“American interests and Israeli interests are the SAME.”
And if -per impossible – they were ever not to be the same, American interests don’t matter anyway.
A Palestinian state, Pollock said, arguably, “doesn’t solve the demographic problem, it reduces it, postpones the day of reckoning
ee gads!
puts it in a different context, but doesn’t eliminate the problem completely.” Because of the Palestinians’ contact with brothers and cousins and the nationalistic impulse that a Palestiinian state would create.
is there one iota of ways israeli jews can change or take responsibility for there own part in this alienation? one suggestion there are other ways to alleviate this problem besides some reckoning requiring “probably at least putting the bulk of this demographic problem across a border“?
it blows my mind the way narratives are pushed and cajoled everywhichway except changing the status quo.
so many shades of lipstick and still the same pig.
“Kill eight Turks and one Turkish-American and apologize to yourself. Is that Jewish?”
‘Kill a Turk and rest’:
Uri Avnery on the flotilla raid and classic Jewish jokes:
“THIS EVENT points again to one of the most serious aspects of the situation: we live in a bubble, in a kind of mental ghetto, which cuts us off and prevents us from seeing another reality, the one perceived by the rest of the world. A psychiatrist might judge this to be the symptom of a severe mental problem.
The propaganda of the government and the army tells a simple story: our heroic soldiers, determined and sensitive, the elite of the elite, descended on the ship in order “to talk” and were attacked by a wild and violent crowd. Official spokesmen repeated again and again the word “lynching”.
On the first day, almost all the Israeli media accepted this. After all, it is clear that we, the Jews, are the victims. Always. That applies to Jewish soldiers, too. True, we storm a foreign ship at sea, but turn at once into victims who have no choice but to defend ourselves against violent and incited anti-Semites.
It is impossible not to be reminded of the classic Jewish joke about the Jewish mother in Russia taking leave of her son, who has been called up to serve the Czar in the war against Turkey. “Don’t overexert yourself’” she implores him, “Kill a Turk and rest. Kill another Turk and rest again…”
“But mother,” the son interrupts, “What if the Turk kills me?”
“You?” exclaims the mother, “But why? What have you done to him?”
To any normal person, this may sound crazy. Heavily armed soldiers of an elite commando unit board a ship on the high seas in the middle of the night, from the sea and from the air – and they are the victims?”
link to zope.gush-shalom.org
“…victims who have no choice but to defend ourselves against violent and incited anti-Semites.”
We fear-scarred Etruscans are in much the same position via the anti-Etruscanites, the so-called “Italians”.
Don, you really ought to give up on the Italian location. There’s some serious competition on its way, courtesy of your old nemesis. Looks like a lost Roman tribe might seek ROR in order to escape from their current oppressors:
link to telegraph.co.uk
Re the bombing, dare we ask if the anwser was yes or no or undecided?
And ain’t that an odd question for a Museum of Tolerance to ask?
The Museum of Tolerance is there to teach us to tolerate what ever Israel does.
And if you don’t tolerate it, you are an anti-Semite, and you will lose your job, your reputation, and your line of credit at the liquor store.
top 30 dishonest media pundits. The top ten should be all too familiar here to the crowd here.
Numero uno is Richard Cohen.
2. Mark Halperin
3. Tom Friedman
4. David Broder
5. Marty Pertetz
etc…
There are some serious well-known hacks on the list. I’m sure many could add more. anyway, it’s worth a laugh… :D
Almost O/T but interesting nonetheless. An extremely thorough analysis of the Wiesenthal Center’s Museum of Tolerance by Saree Makdisi:
link to abc.net.au
[You may not be able to watch online, the ABC sometimes geo-blocks content for those outside AU, but you should be able to download the video or audio. Makdisi uses visuals so the vid is best. As a last resort you should be able to get the audio here (number 196, from 21/3/2010):
link to itunes.apple.com
]
Museum of Tolerance??? Where they urge young Americans into a war where Israelis won’t die, but Americans will? These people inhabit not the Museum of Intolerance, but the Universe of Intolerance, formerly known as Israel. And they’re proud of it.
Thank you, Sumud, for the link to the Saree Makdisi talk. It’s an hour and a half well spent!
Glad you enjoyed it. I was impressed with the depth of Makdisi’s critique.
so was I, thanks, Sumud
Phil,
Good piece, but first things first: the question that you (and we) should be asking first is not “Why no mention of the American people’s interest in bombing Iran?” but “Why no mention that Iranians are human beings, and should not be subject to a fascist pre-emptive Israeli attack that will kill women, children, men, military and civilians, young and hold?”
I got a hearty laugh out of: “A friend gave me $20 to go inside, and I did.”
I really love reading your stuff.
“Menashri jumped in to say that the Israelis shouldn’t apologize to the Turks, but “apologize to our own people for this unwise action.””
Wow, this guys has taken shooting and crying to a whole new level.
Why are anti-Zionists holding back on going after Zionists for putting Israel-first and never mind whether or not this harms America? After all, in the few instances when U.S. leaders* even hinted at dual loyalties, the Israel Lobby has gone into near panic mode. Had the subject been pursued on those occasions, the power of said lobby might have been curtailed.** Unfortunately U.S. presidents deploy the dual loyalty issue on rare occasions only and as a kind of shot across the bow. But does this mean anti-Zionists should hold back? Isn’t it time we stopped pulling our punches? The Israel Lobby has the same dual loyalties that members of the German-American Bund had during and before WW II. – loyalty to the U.S. of A. versus loyalty to a fascist racist state. True, back then Congress went after the Bund, whereas, today Congress is in bed with the Israel Lobby. but all that means is that it’s up to us anti-Zionists to raise the dual loyalty issue. Not once, twice, three times, but every time we have an opening through which we can deliver this message to the public.
*President G.W. Bush in 1992 and more recently with the statements by General David Petreaus, among others, that Israel’s intransigence vis a vis negotiations to end the Mideast conflict are endangering U.S. troops in Afghanistan as well as our national security
**if my memory serves me correctly, after G.W. Bush raised the dual loyalty issue, polls showed that the public supported him.
yourstruly wrote:
“Why are anti-Zionists holding back on going after Zionists for putting Israel-first and never mind whether or not this harms America?”
Well while I am a Zionist (but not one who believes Israel has a right to the occupied territories), I am also one who believes that the U.S. ought never subordinate its interests to Israel and so think this is just a very trenchant post. Indeed maybe one of the most important that’s been written here for a long time.
I.e., claiming that Israel is acting “racist” is one thing, and “colonialist” is another, and on and on, but to me the universal acid that exists is not trying (vainly) to convince the American people of same in the hope they will change their disposition towards Israel. After all I think most agree that the American people as a whole just don’t consider Israel all that much at all in the first place. And it’s proven worse than useless trying to move our legislators and politicians off the knee-jerk pro-Israel reservation via such arguments.
However, I suspect, it’s a different ball of wax altogether with both our people and our so-called “leaders” to argue that being, say, pro-settlements is in fact putting another country’s interests ahead of our own. While I suppose there may be worse nightmares for our politicians and opinion-leaders and etc., certainly among the worse is being loudly and repeatedly said to be betraying the U.S. in favor of a foreign power. *Any* foreign power. Much less being loudly and repeatedly charged with that when it’s backed up with credible argument.
Moreover, I also think it’s mostly not even been a matter of being afraid to be called anti-semitic that has reigned this charge in: As yourstruly has pointed out, when the charge has any substance at all it tends to make create simple panic instead of attack. Instead indeed I think it’s more just been a matter of sensibilities: That it’s somehow just too rude to say anything like this. And yet of course that’s exactly what an opponent wants to happen with the most devastating argument against them, so why the hell ought they be obliged?
In any event I got, so to say, a place to START that’s even more powerful than what Phil describes happened at this Tolerance Museum get-together: As I noted in another thread, it was remarkable to me that the ADL and the NJDC would send a letter to every U.S. congressperson urging ratification of the START treaty with Russia simply because it would benefit Israel.
That is, forget the nuke concerns of U.S. citizens, think instead of the impact on Israel.
Not arguable, not deniable, not nothing: Just the blatant putting of Israel’s interests even above those of U.S. citizens on an issue of … nuclear importance, period.
(And what the hell does nuke-treaty negotiating have to do with the ADL’s alleged mission anyway? … thus revealing just how deep the rot has gotten.)
Great post, yourstruly. Solid freaking thinking. Instead of seeing this or that Israeli-American partisan confronted with a million signs accusing them of betraying “jewish” values, I think I’d rather see ‘em just confronted with one saying they are betraying America, period, and then see the reaction. Let’s see them ripping up *that* sign on videotape that then appears on Youtube.