I often write here that Israel is in crisis; and my belief is confirmed by the growing desperation of liberal Zionists who glimpse the end of the two-state solution and with that the possible end of the Jewish state. I watch liberal Zionists because I want Jews on board in the coming transformation, I want Jewish life to change, and these liberals or their children are the Jewish swing vote; they are the Jews whose commitment to liberalism might lead them to abandon an anachronistic supremacist political ideology (Zionism) or undertake radical reform of the Jewish state.
The interesting thing about these three liberal Zionists, though, is their anxiety, and their clinging to religious and nationalist beliefs. It is important to expose these very conservative views if we are going to win over their children to non-Zionism. Sorry, this is a long post; you can skip from 1, Burston to 2, Gitlin to 3, Samuels.
1. Haaretz columnist Brad Burston gave a talk at a Seattle synagogue, sponsored by J Street, and made a sharply nationalist statement that suggests to me that if push comes to shove, Burston (and J Street) might march shoulder-to-shoulder with AIPAC. Richard Silverstein offered this report. I'm including a lot of Silverstein's comment, which is very perceptive. Silverstein:
At one point, Burston said, "About the progressive Jew who sees nothing wrong with the many Muslim nations in the world, but who cannot allow the Jews to have a single state of their own anywhere in the world, I say that person is an anti-Semite."
...I too used to be a liberal Zionist.. But it doesn’t do anyone any good. It sugarcoats Israeli reality. It in a sense infantilizes the Diaspora audience by presuming that it either can’t take or wouldn’t understand a full-bore analysis of the extremity of the political situation in Israel. At the present moment, an Israeli speaking in the Diaspora does a disservice when he makes things appear not quite as bad as they really are. Only the truth suffices in the present situation....
I’m also struck by the phrase “love for Israel” bandied about by so many liberal Zionists including Burston tonight [and by Gershom Sholem when he lectured Hannah Arendt]. One of the reasons ... I didn’t attend Daniel Sokatch’s (he is the CEO of the New Israel Fund) talk here in Seattle this month was its title, Loving Israel in Challenging Times. I find the notion that one must profess love for Israel before criticizing it to be preposterous. ...Love means that Israel cannot be something I think it should be, a normal state. Love puts Israel on a pedestal just as traditional male attitudes toward women put them on similar pedestals that prevented them from being normal human beings.
In the time when I was still on e-mail terms with Leonard Fein, he practically made a fetish out of my supposed lack of love for Israel. To him, it proved I had left the Zionst reservation because you could only express criticism of Israel out of such deep concern and affection, that your criticism would clearly be couched as that of a concerned parent for a loved one gone astray. Naturally, I don’t have patience in this hour in which Israel finds itself in extremis for such mollycoddling.
To me it is self-evident that I would not write this blog unless I loved Israel. It would simply be a waste of time to devote as many tens of thousands of hours to this enterprise as I have unless there was deep emotion attached to the subject. And there is. Many decades of my life have been devoted to Israel. I could not do so unless I loved it.
2. Here is American author Todd Gitlin, whose last book praises the idea of Jewish chosenness, writing in Haaretz the other day from the (very ethnocentric) Jewish People Policy Institute conference. Bless him, Gitlin is very impatient with the crazies at the Institute, but his own vision is itself quite nationalistic:
I recommended making a distinction between the inflamed anti-Zionism that singles out Israel's policies as uniquely racist among states, even unto the claim (contrary to many UN declarations ) that the state has no right to exist, and moreover that the Jews are not a people and are not entitled to a majority in a Middle Eastern nation, and the view (my own, as it happens ) that it is the post-'67 occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem that is illegitimate - not only because it violates international law, and not only because it is cruel, and not because the Palestinians are angels, but because the State of Israel is in default on its moral obligations....
In other words, to use a phrase much bruited about nowadays, the occupation is an "existential threat" to the Jewish people, who are a people of an idea. The danger is clear, present and growing....
[At the conference] a host of burning questions that might have been raised - to take one tiny example, whether the Jewish people are well served by the spread of settlers throughout Arab Silwan, next to the Old City wall, guarded by a private security army funded by the government to the tune of NIS 52 million per year - attracted no interest as sources of delegitimization. The profound moral question of why Jews should tolerate land grabs went unasked. The conferees were, for the most part, disinclined to discuss bedrock - even the bedrock of who the Jews are and what we stand for.
Here it interests me that Gitlin dignifies the birth of Israel as moral though it involved landgrab and ethnic cleansing-- while he condemns the post-67 landgrab. I don't know whether it is possible to maintain this position. In the view of many non-Zionists and anti-Zionists, what was so great about '48? Arabs weren't consulted despite promises by FDR to consult them; and they were against Partition, as you and I would have been. Jews were granted half the territory by the U.N. and ended up with 78 percent of it. Israel and American Jews went to war against the idea that any of the hundreds of thousands of refugees could come home to their property-- a moral savagery that continues to fester 60 years on. "The profound moral question of why Jews should tolerate land grabs went unasked," to quote Gitlin.
If you're trying to save the Jewish state, I think you have to deal more honestly with those crimes, which the unending occupation has served to unearth.
When I shared these thoughts with Ilene Cohen, she wrote to me, "The Israelis could have settled for '48 and been done. That's what the '67 borders idea is about. As we know well from our own country, many things done immorally become permanent. The Israelis believed they could do with '67 what they had done with '48, but it's not working. Different time. I'm not sure they actually understand that. Their '67 problem has not gone away and is undermining '48. They're very greedy and very stupid....
"I don't know how or when this will all resolve itself, but I do believe that Israel as we know it is in deep trouble. Every day I continue to be shocked that they get even worse...
"I think the reality is that there will be one state only if the Israelis make it so by their obstructionism. I don't think it will happen because people on both sides decide that that is the ideal but it will happen because of the Israeli apartheid regime. I really do believe that the Israelis look to be committing national suicide. How this all plays out in the coming years will not be pretty, but I think that Israeli apartheid will eventually be undone by on person, one vote...
"Personally, I think two states, with the Israelis giving up much, much more than they are willing to, would be best for all. And I think that the two states could become reasonable neighbors. But, again, the Israelis are greedy racists and won't give up till they're broken."
3. Finally, here is David Samuels at Tablet, interviewing Maen Rashid Areikat, the PLO representative to the United States. The most notable moment in the interview is when Samuels says, "Some people in both of our communities believe that a bi-national state is the right answer." A true statement. And Samuels, a Zionist, is granting honor to a new way of thinking about this problem.
Not that Samuels feels that way himself. The interesting thing about the interview is the angst of the interviewer. The piece reads like an encounter session. Samuels understands that he has to work with Areikat if he's going to save the Jewish state, but meantime he rages at Areikat about Palestinian identity and Palestinian refugees and sets out as a justification for the Jewish state a religious insistence that the Jews are a people and nation connected genetically to the Jews of Jerusalem for thousands of years, a truly dubious proposition that we would mock if Christians came forward with it.
And by the way, he hints, American Jews feel more loyalty to Israel than the U.S. (note the last, passport comment).
As I read this interview, I don't see why Samuels couldn't move toward cultural Zionism and let go of the nation-- which he doesn't want to live in anyway, just reserve as a placeholder with all the racism that entails till the next Holocaust. For as Samuels recognizes, demographically-speaking, My kind of American Jewish identity, in which Israel means very little at all, and is largely a negative, is winning out over his conservative Jewish identity (with its dual loyalty problem). After all, most American Jews have never been to Israel.
I'll shut up now. Here's a portion of the encounter. Samuels is in bold:
let me ask you this: Was there ever a Jewish temple in Jerusalem?
I’m not a historian.
I have the reference right here from the Encyclopedia Britannica. Is it wrong?
I’m not a historian. What are you trying to get to? That Jews were present then?
Were they?
President Abbas in his meeting with the leaders of the American Jewish community in June said that yes, the Jews were in the Middle East, and that one-third of the Quran talks about Jews.
Are the people who say they’re Israeli Jews today related to the people who were Jews in the time of the Quran?
It’s for historians to establish the link. I believe many Jews who lived at one point in that land continue to live in that land, and their descendants stayed in that land.
So, today’s Palestinians are the real Jews?
Everywhere in the world, Jews follow the nationality and citizenship of the country where they live. In the United States, you have American Jews, who live in the United States. You have French Jews. And this was the original argument between us and the Jews. Why can’t you be Palestinian Jews?
Is Judaism simply a religion, or are Jews also a people—like Kurds or Armenians?
That is something you have to work out for yourselves....Some of us still make the same arguments of the ’60s and the ’70s: “No, they are not a nation, they are the followers of a faith, they should live in every country as citizens of that country.”
That approach didn’t work out so well for us in Europe.
I think you have been very much influenced by the Holocaust...
So, explain why it’s impossible for the Palestinian people to recognize Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state.
We have no problem whatsoever with what Israel calls themselves. Israel can call themselves “The Great Empire of the Jewish People.” But don’t ask me to recognize that.
Why not? You want us to recognize the validity of your narrative of Palestinian people-hood....Doesn’t the U.N. partition resolution on which you base your own national claims for a Palestinian state already recognize Israel as a state for the Jews—a Jewish state?
...Publicly we are Jordanians, but deep inside we are Palestinians.
That’s how many Jews feel about the passports that they carry.
I think the mistake the Zionists made was to mistake their state for the end of history. Zionists always had a very vague understanding of real history anyway. For them it ended in AD 73 and restarted with the first aliyah in 1880 or thereabouts. Puerile.
With their state following so closely on from the Shoah they had a bad case of messianism and the idea that g-d was now with them as written in the Torah meaning they could do as they wish. Which they pretty much have since 1948. And most of the damage has been off the Zionist balance sheet. So it is generally ignored and is consequently very dangerous.
They have this constant referring to eternity. Statecraft is far more nuanced. You have to work on it every day. And nobody outside cares about what stories you tell your people. Zionism has always been about pushing limits, never about responsibility. For Bibi for example Israel is just a playground for his neoliberal economics ideas. No strategic thinking. Very dangerous.
Ultimately they gambled their state for YESHA and the assumption that it would all work out and the Palestinians would disappear into history. Perhaps they thought G-d would help this somehow. But he hasn’t.
I’m interested in the patterns around the Greek financial collapse. Ireland is in trouble now and if you look at the pattern of Irish bond yields over a few months they pretty much follow the pattern of Greek bond yields from early Spring. And I think it is the same for Israel. It is following the same pattern as South Africa maybe 25 years ago. And the momentum seems unstoppable.
I believe Bradley Burston lives in the EJ settlement of Gilo. If he would go AIPAC rather than welcome a long overdue injection of decency into Israeli society it says a lot more about him than it does about us goys.
Another way of looking at it is that Israel has been hijacked by morons and extremists. Look at Citibank under Chuck Prince. Same sort of thing.
And if you break Israel there won’t be a replacement. And there is no going back to 1966.
Thanks for putting these three together. Can Palestinians accept “a” Jewish state within Mandatory Palestine. My guess is, “Yes”, and in a heart-beat. Say a Jewish State the size (or twice the size) of New York City. Even Arab-rein, if that small. so I’d imagine. But Israelis want both a Jewish State with more than predominantly Jewish population (no trouble now about Shabas Goyim) and a BIG TERRITORY. And, worst, they feel entitled to both.
That is, they argue (from peoplehood, from holocaust) an entitlement to “a” Jewish State and then jump to the conclusion that this entitlement entitles them to a big state (say pre-1967 borders, or UNGA 181 borders, or Mandatory borders == today’s borders). But the first entitlement, to a Jewish State (assuming it for the moment) does not create the second entitlement, to a big territory.
So through this comment I ask the three liberal Zionists to consider what I just said and answer it AS liberal Zionists (we all know they will not be answering for the Masada-type settlers).
“That is, they argue (from peoplehood, …) an entitlement to “a” Jewish State ”
I have seen the claim that “peoplehood” (whatever that is) gives entitlement to a state, but I haven’t seen an argument for it.
You are right to interrogate in this way. Imagine a Venn diagram showing the overlap between Israeli Jews and Palestinians, where the overlap represented individuals for whom the rights of the other were seen as complementary, not antagonistic.
If we define that space as ‘supporting a one state solution’ that it is very small indeed, and has almost no Jews in it.
If we define that space as ‘supporting a one OR two state solution’ then it expands to include a majority of both Jews and Palestinians.
For there to be a peaceful resolution, that overlapping space must grow – and on both sides. The vision represented by that overlapping space needs to appeal to an increasing number of Jews who are Zionists, as opposed to waiting from them to trade labels. Because peace is an urgent necessity right now; transforming how people think and identify themselves is more of a historical process, not a political project.
thank you clench, helpful
Peace is about Israeli Jews giving up privileges and rights. The right to own all of Jerusalem. The right to steal land and water under the law. The right to torture non Jews. The right to 95% of the economic value generated in the Zionist space in any given year. The right to a first world standard of living amongst a third world native population. The exclusive right to violence.
Peace and the giving up of these rights is the only option for the survival of the Jewish state . Why would any Israeli Jew give up these rights? Call it the Zionist paradox.
seafoid ~ I agree with the rest of your paragraph but this needs a subtle tweaking. I would say:
“Peace is about Israeli Jews giving up privileges to which they have no right.”
Israel has spent decades passing bogus domestic laws that attempt to circumvent their responsibilities as a UN member state. For example we have the absurd classification of the West Bank colonies into legal (ie. approved planning) and illegal – whereas all the colonies are entirely illegal. The great task is to bring Israelis to the point where they understand their government(s) have consistently lied to them, telling them they have rights they do not.
I don’t believe this will be achieved by
further appeals to Israeli’s better judgementappeasement.Sumud
Israeli law is a sham and will have to be dismantled post occupation. Under sham Israeli law those are rights that Jews have. There is of course no moral basis to them. I love your name, BTW.
The Palestinian charter already allows Jews to obtain citizenship in a future Palestinian state.
Israeli Basic Law forbids Palestinians from obtaining citizenship in Israel. Israeli High Court decisions have also ruled that Palestinian spouses of Israeli citizens cannot obtain citizenship.
So, how do these facts fit into the two overlapping spheres?
I thought the Palestinian charter was ‘caduc’?
Despite the attempt to change the subject, I am asking the same question again.
link to haaretz.com
How do these facts fit into the two overlapping spheres?
“If we define that space as ’supporting a one OR two state solution’ then it expands to include a majority of both Jews and Palestinians.”
Sorry, I don’t see the majority of Jews seeing the rights of Palestinians as anything but antagonistic, being as one of those rights is the refugees’ right of return to their original homes and for compensation. Not sure if Palestinians agree that the “right” of Jews to immigrate to Palestine is anything but antagonistic. I don’t speak for Palestinians but equal rights regardless of creed, democracy (meaning rule by the people, not just the right to vote) might be something the majority would support, I don’t see a majority of Jews today giving more support for Palestinians to have those rights than they give to the state of Israel which blocks Palestinians from such rights.
It’s not a matter of one or two states, it’s a matter of which rights. I think you’re arguing for Palestinians to give up rights in return for peace.
>> Imagine a Venn diagram showing the overlap between Israeli Jews and Palestinians, where the overlap represented individuals for whom the rights of the other were seen as complementary, not antagonistic.
>> If we define that space as ’supporting a one state solution’ that it is very small indeed, and has almost no Jews in it.
The overlap – that is, the set of individuals “for whom the rights of the other were seen as complementary, not antagonistic” – does not change if you “define” the set; all that happens is that you’ve created a new set (“supporting a one state solution”) which will overlap partially (and, apparently, unequally) with the first set.
>> If we define that space as ’supporting a one OR two state solution’ then it expands to include a majority of both Jews and Palestinians.
>> For there to be a peaceful resolution, that overlapping space must grow …
There’s no point “growing” the set of people who support a “one OR two state solution” given that the final solution cannot be both – it is either one state or two states.
Areikat is more than an impressive man. i went to hear him interviewed a week after witnessing the olmert interview both hosted by the world affairs council. contrary to the pandering to olmert, areikat’s interview opened much like this interview with the obsession of the jewish narrative taking center stage…again. can’t they hear themselves, their myopic-ness? areikat was completely honest and upfront never shirking away or backing down, steps right up to the plate. my favorite part of the interview was after after the passport comment, so i will copy it here (the link was included in tablet):
and samuels moves right on, doesn’t offer one iota of recognition.
i engaged burston after i heaard him speak at our local synagogue . another post perhaps.
Modern Zionism was born in reaction to inhospitable “host” nations, if you’ll excuse the term. Today’s American Jews live in a hospitable host nation. In fact America at its worst was quite hospitable and the experience did not and would not give birth to Zionism. The contradiction between Israel’s purpose and the American Jewish reality cannot be resolved and this contradiction will tell over time and is useful as an argument.
The connection of a group of Jews to the fate of other Jews was never questioned hundreds of years ago although it is questioned in this blog. There are some five million Jews living in Israel. Their future looks perilous geopolitically from where I sit. For a Jew to feel for other Jews in peril might be dismissed by a Vonnegut reader as granfalloon (sp?) misperception. It might be dismissed by an American First’er as dangerous and insidious. It seems quite natural for Jews who take their prayer book or holy books with any seriousness. The secularization of the Jews, who don’t identify with the emotions expressed in the prayers and texts, inevitably leads to their alienation from Jews, Jewishness and Judaism.
wj
Arguably, Jewish leadership, Israeli leadership and zionism are doing all the imperilling of Jews in Israel!
“For a Jew to feel for other Jews in peril ”
There’s nothing wrong with that–it’s a good thing. And there’s nothing wrong with wanting Israel to be a refuge of last resort for Jews.
Where the whole thing goes sour is in ignoring the rights of Palestinians.
You seem to be stuck in quicksand-like mud with so much Jewishness, it’s no wonder you are unable to pull yourself out. Your identity is chained to an abstract concept the size of a boulder. I wish Mooser were here to say something about that Jewishness, Judaism, Jews, the Jewnator, the Jewmeister and Judaica. Why is it whenever you write about Israel it’s always me me me me me me me….?
Their future looks perilous geopolitically from where I sit.
That’s obvious. For people in search of a safe haven, they certainly went about things in an odd way – antagonising millions of people in their new neighbourhood (with the “permission” of foreign powers). Of course the Palestinian present is nothing to write home about either.
The secularization of the Jews, who don’t identify with the emotions expressed in the prayers and texts, inevitably leads to their alienation from Jews, Jewishness and Judaism.
This is a theory you have propounded here before, but it fails to account for the driving force behind Zionism: secular nationalism. Zionism was born not only of European anti-Semitism, but also of European nationalism, secularism and even the emancipation of European Jews.
I think Jewish nationalism as a secular movement has a limited lifespan: somewhere between 2 and 5 generations. The nationalism that was the European zeitgeist of the end of the 19th century became part of the Jewish mindset particularly because of the anti Semitism that secularized Jews encountered. Both Herzl and Pinsker would have been happy enough assimilating into their societies, if their societies would have had them, but they wouldn’t. The younger generation of Zionists were still under the influence of the Judaism of their elders, able to excise God from their lives, but unable to excise Jewishness from their selves and thus: Jewish nationalism as a replacement for Judaism.
Of course Jewish nationalism is a replacement for Judaism, but that also means that it exists independently of Judaism. We are almost 3 generations since the establishment of the State of Israel, at least as long since the last generation that was significantly “under the influence of the Judaism of their elders”, over a century since the latest emancipation and over two centuries since the secularisation process began. Yet Zionism, as an ideology is still going strong – both in Israel and abroad. With all due respect to our “post-secular” age, memories of religious attachment in previous generations fail to explain the phenomenon. The idea of secular Jewish nationalism (although often associated with religion – like many other nationalist movements), regardless of “prayers and texts”, does. The majority of Jews in Israel are still, to quote a derogatory Orthodox expression, “Hebrew-speaking gentiles”.
Shmuel- The genocide in Europe changed the dynamics of Jewish identity. I will respond at greater length later.
The genocide in Europe changed the dynamics of Jewish identity
Absolutely, but what does that have to do with connection to “prayers and texts”? It has – to a large extent – changed precisely in its replacement of prayers and texts (and a lot of other things) with belligerent ethnocentric nationalism.
Wondering Jew,
And here’s the long version of a history you don’t seem to know much about:
link to acjna.org
WJ,
And another one, particularly the last paragraphs: Gap among Jews widens on question of Zionism by Prof. Yakov M. Rabkin.
link to globalresearch.ca
mrw- I’m sorry but I’m not going to read the materials you have posted, assuming they espouse against zionism as a political movement, about which my comment says nothing. What I said was that joos feel for other Jews. There are 5 million plus juifs living in Israel and their fate matters to a second Yehudi if he takes his prayer book seriously. I’m not talking politics unless worrying about a specific population is in itself political. I can conceive of a reformed Judaism that excises concern with others that belong to the “am” as a vestige of the tribal past with some uses if applied today. But unless your references are of that sort, my statement was more religious and personal, (worrying about co religionists or fellow “am” people) and not political per se.
What exactly is your point, WJ? What does “feeling connected to the fate of other Jews” mean? Does it mean that said Jew allows other Jews to get away with murder (see Leviticus 19:17 – Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thy heart; thou shalt surely rebuke thy neighbour, and not bear sin because of him.)? Does it mean sitting idly by while Jews place themselves in mortal danger by attacking, oppressing and generally antagonising millions of people (ibid. 16 – Thou shalt not go up and down as a talebearer among thy people; neither shalt thou stand idly by the blood of thy neighbour: I am the Lord)?
Are you suggesting that Jews who are anti-Zionist are somehow indifferent to the fate of other Jews, or that it is their supposed lack of connection to Jewish tradition (unlike those who cheer Israel on) that leads them to espouse positions that endanger their fellow Jews? Where do you get this stuff from?
I would add that it is not alienation from Judaism that leads Jews to espouse anti-Zionist positions, but rather the immoral and dangerous positions espoused by the Jewish establishment vis-à-vis Israel that drive them away from Judaism.
Shmuel- To clarify my point of view.
There is a saying “my country- right or wrong” and that is something you (and to a lesser degree I) are against unless it is amended, my country- when it’s right I will support it, and when it is wrong I will work to fix its mistakes. Given the situation that the Israeli wrongs are not really in the realm of fixable mistakes in the short term, given the current voting patterns of the electorate, it becomes a bit trickier when it ends up being, when it is wrong I will abandon it to the whims of fate.
There are many ways to arrive at an antizionist point of view. One path begins with zero concern for Jewish history, past present or future and starts instead with a view towards justice (tzedek, tzedek, tirdof) or a view towards an American foreign policy that reflects America’s truest interests and then one comes across the story of the Jewish zionists versus the indigenous palestinians and the influence of money distorting people running for election’s viewpoints. This is one approach.
Another is where one starts with “Am Yisroel Chai” the “am” called Israel lives and then one realizes that if one is not careful in this assertion, one finds oneself supporting Avigdor Lieberman and the settler movement or if one is more antiZionist, one finds oneself supporting David Ben Gurion with his ethnic cleansing. Usually the belief in justice is accompanied by a belief that the “am” called Israel’s life is without meaning if not accompanied by (total or partial) justice or will not be longlived and stable unless accompanied by (total or partial) justice.
My comment regarding The diaspora Jews’ feelings towards Israel was not based on sovereignty, but rather was based on a degree of empathy. It is natural for Jews to feel empathy for their fellow Jews.
It is also natural for Jews to feel horror when a horrible act is committed by fellow Jews. If a murder occurs and the victim is no one I know, then my concern might be minimal. If in fact the murderer is someone I know, then it is my concern. When Russians kill Chechens I care, but minimally, but when Israelis kill Turks on a boat headed for besieged Gaza, I care much more. Not only because of the damage done to Israel’s reputation, but also because Jewish soldiers (theoretically my nephew) are being sent in harm’s way and neither killing nor being killed is what I want in that situation when it seems that the situation does not call for killing.
when it is wrong I will abandon it to the whims of fate
None of the Jews who write here have ever said anything of the sort. I get the impression that they are involved in the entire subject, at least in part, precisely because they want to “fix” Israel’s “mistakes”.
There are indeed many ways to arrive at an anti-Zionist point of view, but you have stressed one in particular – alienation from Jews and Judaism – one with which I happen to disagree, and even consider a kind of prejudiced smear.
As for caring more when the murderer or the victim is “someone I know”, that goes well beyond Jews. For a number of reasons, western society as a whole identifies with Israel and Israeli Jews and cares far more about them than Palestinians – or Chechens, or Pakistanis or Iraqis. (See Jerry Haber’s post: link to jeremiahhaber.com).
But you haven’t really answered my questions.
WJ, too bad you wont read them (and here’s another: link to informationclearinghouse.info ) because they point out what I think you have exactly backwards. You wrote
That secularization is Zionism, not anti-Zionism.
Shmuel- My comment was launched by this line from Phil’s post “My kind of American Jewish identity, in which Israel means very little at all, and is largely a negative, is winning out over his conservative Jewish identity (with its dual loyalty problem).”
To which I commented that the American Jewish identity that Phil can call his own is very secular and with very little empathy for fellow Jews elsewhere in the world. He was brought to the issue by his concern for America, a great country worthy of concern, but nonetheless his attraction to the issue was not born of concern for the Jews in Israel.
I think you are genuinely concerned for the Jews of Israel, for their souls and for their safety. I get that feeling from some of the other commentators here, but it certainly is not a feeling I get from everyone who comments here.
But what is your point, WJ? Is it a bad thing, a good thing or and indifferent thing for a Jew not to show particular interest in the welfare of other Jews? Is that supposed lack of “feeling” really the product of secularism? How much real concern to religious Jews of all stripes show for their fellow Jews? How much real concern do secular Zionists show for their fellow Jews outside of Israel?
The crisis of the liberal zionist is NOT that the arguments and sentiments are invalid, but that there is little non-fanatic middle ground.
That is Burston’s thesis.
There certainly can come a decision point, say if war breaks out. Are you more committed to democracy, however artlessly structured, or are you more committed to Zionism, however greedily applied?
You should ask yourself that same question to discern your honest considerations.
If war broke out and in a form that extended beyond defense for equal rights, but to either/or territory control, or that included mass murders of Jewish civilians as means, would you feel anxiety?
Is there a condition in which you would choose to be on Israel’s side in that war?
And, then similarly, a question for Bradley (and me) of if there were some action by Israel that would compel us to pick Palestinians’ side?
I can tell you that in a nationalist fight, either Palestinians OR Jews, I would defend Jews. To choose the self-defined human rights side, would be in that setting to also choose to fight against one’s family friends.
For me, there is a compelling argument to dissent in support of Palestinians, but when/if push comes to shove, to war, I would not continue to. The most that I would do is urge reform from inside as a path to peace.
That is the significance of Clenchner’s urging for peace, and Burston’s, that through the actions of intellectual leadership (which you define yourself as, in publishing this blog for so long) a middle ground, an intersection of those that do humanize the other, is maintained.
I know Burston a little (very limited correspondence). I know that he genuinely humanizes Palestinians, and is personally ripped inside when Israel pursues policies that dehumanize them. To paint him in any way as an insensitive partisan is misrepresentation, a gross and harmful one.
Thus while militant armed settlers are dishing out violence, which at times includes murder along with land theft and home destruction (because they gain from their violence, and are protected by IOF and zero legal consequences), you’ll keep your trap shut, but as soon as Palestinians start to fight back in earnest, with casualties on the Jewish side, then you’ll side with criminal, thieving, rabidly racist settlers.
Do you *really* feel such an affinity with those scum just because they’re somewhere on the furthest end of the broad spectrum of “Jewish life”?
Thats what you read in Burston? Do you read him?
Or, you think that my reaction to your immoderation is the some total of my public comment on Israel/Palestine?
That’s what I read in your own comment. You would pick brutal criminals who have a tenuous and extremely distant kinship to yourself, because they’re somewhere on the spectrum ‘Jewish’. What weird kind of choice is that? Say (heaven forbid) the settlers (not the IOF) commit a large scale massacre and the Palestinians attempt to fight back. Are you then on the side of Israel if a handful of soldiers and settlers are killed and wounded, despite the outrage to the Palestinians? Can you continue to defend the settlement project? If it happens in the Hebron area, do you want the settlers protected or removed once and for all? Or would you go quiet on the matter and let the IOF clear the area of Palestinians instead, if that means transporting them to Jordan or Gaza? You’re simply a racist Richard. You simply cannot even criticize Israel with even the slightest degree of harshness, it’s all mild, mild, mild with umpteen ifs and buts.
Bumble,
There are two axis’ (not axes) that Burston and other liberal Zionists address.
1. The axis of which side are you on
2. The axis of what mode of political involvement
The liberal in liberal Zionist regards the second axis as the more important, and that means that one tempers one activism, (the volume and the options) so that there is room for other perspectives and other peoples to live, to negotiate, to reconcile.
A non-expansionist Zionist (one that advocates live and let live), can negotiate successfully with a non-exclusive Palestinian solidarity – meaning that the negotiation results in genuine consent and mutual needs.
A which side are you on advocate when there are other options, pushes their activism without acknowledgement of the other, to war. (As much as they may name themselves anti-war, if they are pursuing an either/or “which side are you on” approach, they are pushing towards war, war-mongering.)
On content, I am almost always a dissenter in real life. I mostly oppose the right-wing expansionist approach, in public discussion.
On process, I am mostly a peace-seeker. I seek a mutually beneficial outcome, a reconciliation, with the assumption that each knows their best outcome better than the other, a negotiation.
“The liberal in liberal Zionist regards the second axis as the more important, and that means that one tempers one activism, (the volume and the options) so that there is room for other perspectives and other peoples to live, to negotiate, to reconcile.”‘
No zionism of any kind has ever allowed room for other perspectives and other peoples to live, to negotiate, to reconcile.
That’s the Zionism that exisst only in your imagination.
There is no such thing as a non-expansionist Zionist, becasue Zionism is founded on the principal of expasionism.
There is no Zionism what that advocates live and let live, because that would mean an end to the Jewish majority in Israel.
There is no Zionism that can negotiate successfully with because Zionism insists on it’s own exclusive Jewish solidarity. Zionism does not and can not recognize genuine consent and mutual needs, because that would mean an end to the Jewish majority in Israel.
“A which side are you on advocate when there are other options, pushes their activism without acknowledgement of the other, to war. ”
But you yourself have exemplified this very behavior on every occasion, such as the attack on Gaza when you insisted that Israel had to attack Gaza, havingalready atatcked Gaza.
You never suggested that Israel should have pursued any avenues but the violent one.
Aren’t you being a hypocrite (again)?
“On content, I am almost always a dissenter in real life.”
Almost always, except when it comes to Israel.
“I mostly oppose the right-wing expansionist approach, in public discussion.”
Except when it comes to Israel.
“On process, I am mostly a peace-seeker.”
Except when it comes to Israel.
“I seek a mutually beneficial outcome, a reconciliation, with the assumption that each knows their best outcome better than the other, a negotiation.”
Except when it comes to Israel.
Witty says to Jews: “If war broke out” how would you feel? Would you side with Israel?
Well, Mr. Passive Voice, war DID break out, and many times. Jews said, and I quote roughly, “We want a state of our own and no-one will give it to us, so we will grab it by force of arms” and war broke out early in 1948 or late in 1947 (if we ignore all the earlier anti-British terrorism which was responsible for Britain’s decision to pull out of the Mandate). In fact they said it loud and clear and as far back as 1917 (please help me with my mini-history.
And don’t forget all those “wars of choice” (as Israelis and, later, Americans called unprovoked wars of aggression) such as 1948, 1956, 1967, 1982, and later invasions of occupied Palestine and of Lebanon. And never, never forget all the Lebanese and Palestinians killed, maimed, or made homeless or orphans, all because Israel “gave itself permission” to behave lawlessly (recalling that Israel has had overwhelming military power, absolutely overwhelming, since before 1967, so that wars of these sorts were never “necessary”, never a reaction to an “existential threat”. rather closer to “this guy threatens me with a hang-nail, so I’ll wipe him and his family and his olive trees out.”)
If you are going to feel attached to Israel’s Jews every time they start a war, you are just saying “my country, right or wrong”.
And, in fact, in a war of which your family were threatened, did you ever take a side in any condition?
“And, in fact, in a war of which your family were threatened, did you ever take a side in any condition?”
When was your family ever threatened by war Witty?
“If you are going to feel attached to Israel’s Jews every time they start a war, you are just saying “my country, right or wrong”.”
Yes and Witty shoudl be applauded for admitting this for the first time. Unlike the rest of us, who have a history and tradition of protesting unprovoked wars and wars justified on the basis of lies, Witty has admitted he does not have the capacity to put his conscience before his tribe.
Of course, this admission also amounts to a declaration that Witty is incapable of accepting facts or evidence that does support his reflexive tribal stance, but we’ve all been privy to many demonstrations of that behavior, so it comes as no surprise.
“Is there a condition in which you would choose to be on Israel’s side in that war?”
Hypothetically yes.
“And, then similarly, a question for Bradley (and me) of if there were some action by Israel that would compel us to pick Palestinians’ side?”
Yes, as has been the case without exception since 1948.
“I can tell you that in a nationalist fight, either Palestinians OR Jews, I would defend Jews. To choose the self-defined human rights side, would be in that setting to also choose to fight against one’s family friends.”
The word you’re looking for is not family but tribe, nevertheless this post is the most honest I’ve seen from you.
It is an admission that you are emotionally and intellectually incapable of reasonable and objective discussion on this topic. It is an admission that you cannot accept justice, equality or the application of the rule of law, because your tribe has to come first. It is an admission that you are obliged to remain blind to facts, reason and logic, if it implicates your tribe.
Ultimately, it is an admission that you are part of the problem, not the solution and therefore incapable of contributing to a peaceful outcome.
Of course, we all knew this, but this admission is a healthy first step.
Thank you.
“It is an admission that you are emotionally and intellectually incapable of reasonable and objective discussion on this topic. ”
Its actually the oppossite. Its an honest description of my reasoning, my actual thinking, rather than the contortion of what I am asked to conform to.
I’ve described that liberal Zionism is humanism in a body, that contrasts to the politically correct.
In early discussion with Saif Ammous on this, we BOTH declared “yes, I am more concerned about my own community and family of families, than about abstracted universal justice”.
Both of us are humanists in a body, not an abstraction.
Those living in bodies are not the problem. In fact, those that live in some ideological abstraction, present more of a problem. Ideologs include jihadists, military expansionist Zionists, Palestinian nationalists and resistance.
You illustrate the failing of the left, Shingo, the construction of small tent.
There are MANY like me that in a dog fight (an either/or fight), will choose a side (Israel). That is the significance of working for peace (intersection), rather than a dog fight, creating an out, creating a path to reconcile.
When I said “Palestinian nationalists” above, I meant those for whom ONLY Palestine is their national aspiration, not “enough Palestine”.
“Its actually the oppossite. Its an honest description of my reasoning, my actual thinking, rather than the contortion of what I am asked to conform to.”
That’s like suggesting that an alcoholic ceases to have a problem around alcohol once they’ve admitted their addiction.
What you repeatedly demonstrate is that Zionism is humanism or Jews alone and thus is able to accommodate the inherent contradictions, such as the humanity of Zionism towards no Jews.
“we BOTH declared “yes, I am more concerned about my own community and family of families, than about abstracted universal justice”.”
Which clearly means that your humanity is limited and has severe pre conditions, at which time, it ceases to function and you cease to be a humanist in any capacity.
“You illustrate the failing of the left, Shingo, the construction of small tent.”
You illustrate how your tribalism limits your capacity to perceive the contradictions in your arguments. And prevents you from understanding you your own limits, hypocrisy and double standards.
“There are MANY like me that in a dog fight (an either/or fight), will choose a side (Israel).”
Yes, and most of those “like you” are ignorant, right wing tribalism who will follow their ideology, right tor wrong,without ever questioning it.
There are MANY like me that in a dog fight will question the morality of going to war or starting one, as we did with Iraq and Afghanistan.
“That is the significance of working for peace (intersection), rather than a dog fight, creating an out, creating a path to reconcile.”
Though you admit, your commitment to peace stops once the dog fight has started, hence confirming once again that you are part of the problem, not the solution.
Thinking of those that care but are more than willing to consider the needs of the ‘other’, as “part of the problem” is a larger part of the problem.
You’re idea of considering the needs of the ‘other’, is limited to the extent of what degree of suffering you are consider appropriate for them to endure.
So yes, you are a large part the the problem.
Spot on Shingo!
“I know Burston a little (very limited correspondence). I know that he genuinely humanizes Palestinians, and is personally ripped inside when Israel pursues policies that dehumanize them. To paint him in any way as an insensitive partisan is misrepresentation, a gross and harmful one.”
Richard, in all seriousness, your endorsement on that point means absolutely nothing.
To you maybe, Donald.
You haven’t met me, seen me in public presentation or discussion, or probably read Burston consistently.
“You haven’t met me, seen me in public presentation or discussion, ”
That’s quite a damning indictment of your behavior here–nobody could be expected to know the real Witty despite the immense volume of your postings.
Anyway, it’s based on your record here that I don’t consider you a fair judge of someone else’s sensitivity towards Palestinians. Sensitivity to Palestinians takes a back seat to your need to defend Israel from harsh but accurate criticism.
“I know that he genuinely humanizes Palestinians, and is personally ripped inside when Israel pursues policies that dehumanize them.”
How can you possibly know this if you know Burston only a little? You’re clearly projecting onto Burston.
“To paint him in any way as an insensitive partisan is misrepresentation, a gross and harmful one.”
Not when the man is a hypocrite, such as yourself.
I find it very hard to get worked up about Jews in peril when the Jews in question are standing with one foot on the neck of a Palestinian. And wearing very nice sunglasses and an olive uniform.
I “prefer” a Jew who is worried about the Jewish soul and thus backs the Palestinians in the conflict to a Jew who takes more interest in college football than in the conflict. “Peril” can be taken more than one way.
I’m starting to think Moses didn’t go up a mountain. He went up a soap box and his “flock” never came down.
Hear! Hear! seafoid!
About the progressive Jew who sees nothing wrong with the many Muslim nations in the world, but who cannot allow the Jews to have a single state of their own anywhere in the world….
What a red herring. Nobody is protesting because the Jews have “a single state of their own anywhere in the world”, they’re protesting because it wasn’t established “anywhere in the world”, but in Palestine, which was already somebody else’s home, and where it could not be established and cannot be maintained except by the violent destruction of that somebody else. It really isn’t all about you Bradley, it’s about the fact that other people have rights too.
And he’s the liberal end of the Zionist spectrum…..
Burston the liberal Zionist who stood behind the IDF as it carpeted Gaza with white phosphorous.
link to haaretz.com
“Burston the liberal Zionist who stood behind the IDF as it carpeted Gaza with white phosphorous.”
Thats what you derive from the article?
I just read the article–Burston is a hypocrite and a distorter of history.
No Witty poor boy, that did not come from the article it came from him during the attack on Gaza. That is what “progressive Zionism” is all about. Don’t you get it yet, it is about killing your enemies, you know the Palestinians, oh excuse me, the terrorists or whatever composition of non-Jews you guys define as your enemy.
Burston and Israel badly miscalculated in Gaza. They never expected Goldstone to follow. They tried the old thinking with the flotilla . It flopped. Israel is like a wife beater used to slapping his missus around who is suddenly surprised when the neighbours start disparaging him.
Burston writes in that article about how world opinion has changed in favour of Israel. Everything that has happened since then suggests to me that he was wrong by 180 degrees.
Burston is a liberal only as long as his privileges are protected. Zionist liberal is an oxymoron.
>> It really isn’t all about you Bradley, it’s about the fact that other people have rights too.
Other people have the right to:
- submit to oppression and land theft;
- “humanize ‘the Other’”‘
- create “new narratives”;
- “make ‘better wheels’”; and, if they know what’s good for ‘em,
- “Remember the Holocaust!”
Anything else is maximalism, destabilization and revolution. So say the “humanists”…
Willie Brandt is an example of someone whose beliefs forced him to turn against his country, but who later, instead of being punished for this, was rewarded by a populace (that once had scorned him) by being elected to the highest government position in the land. Brandt, a German, remained an outspoken anti-Nazi even after he barely escaped from the Third Reich in 1933. Upon returning to Germany after the war, he headed the Social Democratic Party (SPD) and went on to become Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany. No reason to question his patriotism, is there? Likewise no reason to call antizionists (Jews as well as non-Jews) antisemtes, when what they’re advocating is justice for Palestine, something that’s in the interest of both Palestinians and Jews. And hust as Willie Brandt’s struggle against the Third Reich turned out to be in the interest of the German people (as well as the rest of the world), so too are Jews who join the struggle for justice in Palestine be advancing the best interests of Palestinians, Jews as well as all living creatures. That’s what thinking as a human being, rather than as a member of this or that group or entity can do for you.
I would say that Brandt’s beliefs caused him to turn against his country’s government and its supporters.
I concur, much appreciated
Thanks for the info on Brandt. One always wishes to find good examples, and his is certainly a good one. And a “Good German” too, possibly of significance to those Israelis who can remember the Nazi period with clarity.
“No reason to question his patriotism, is there?”
No reason indeed, but Willy Brandt’s patriotism was questioned in post-war Germany more frequently than I care to remember. He finally just gave up defending himself on the grounds that, for example, slipping into a Norwegian uniform (to disguise his German identity and political affiliation with an outlawed socialist party) and ending up (temporarily) as a Norwegian POW is not the same as killing German (soldiers). So yes, the term ‘traitor’ , in the legal and/or moral sense, came up frequently, and from various and opposite sides. It was used by his political opponents (and not just Nazi- and neo-Nazi parties that were outlawed in post-war Germany anyway) to discredit him as a coward who sat out the bad times abroad, a supporter of the Communist world revolution during the Spanish Civil War, a murderer of Germans who, rightly or wrongly, voluntarily or (mostly) not, fought for their country against the Soviet menace, or simply stuck around and survive as best as they could.
The Cold War didn’t help matters: How committed to democratic principles could a former member of a Marxist and life-long member of the Socialist International party be? Brandt, of course, was in the spotlight of West/East divisions as mayor of West Berlin when the Wall went up. Later, he was called a traitor for his Ostpolitik, for giving up on German unity and territorial losses in favor of Soviet expansion, for ignoring the injustice done to German expellees with his Nobel Peace Price-winning knee-fall in Warsaw, for even talking to the enemy/totalitarian regimes of the SU, Poland and East Germany.
He was an early supporter of both Zionism/Israel and reintegration of Jews into their European home countries, starting to promote both in 1938, a pivotal year wrt the increased Nazi persecution of Jews in Germany after the Reichskristallnacht. Israeli communists protested his visit in Israel (1960) with accusations against the pro-Western Brandt having become a traitor to his and their socialist ideals. Israeli politicians accused their most loyal ally of turning traitor when Brandt, in 1970 or thereabouts, sent his FM with a delegation (which included the French FM) to Israel to negotiate withdrawal ‘from THE occupied territories’. The Schuhmann paper was based on the French version of UNSC 242 and greatly upset the Israelis, resulting in a major diplomatic row. Along the same lines, Brandt and his successors had to extinguish many a fire on occasions when Israel accused Germany of talking to and trading with Israel’s enemies: Arab and Muslim countries and, of course, terrorists and the PLO. And, finally, Brandt was criticized for being much too lenient with Israel, and betraying his commitment to equal human rights and peace, by none other than his close political and personal friend, long-time Austrian (and Jewish) chancellor Bruno Kreisky, who, like Brandt, went underground and into exile to escape Nazi persecution of socialists in the early 1930′s
See also: Brandt and MK Zoabi
link to ajjp.org
Almost amusing to see how Philipp attempts to rationalize a conflict between two peoples, Israeli and Palestinians – and more broadly between Western democratic world and Arab-Muslim world – in a mere paradox of Zionism and Israel itself. And all this in order to emphasize that Zionism is an ideology of outright ethnic supremacy, no matter what orientation it has (even liberals are its victims). Conclusion: The evil is inherent to Zionism and Zionism alone – and then to Israel as a concrete result of Zionism – therefore it’s only up to Israel and Zionism to make the radical transformation of the “Jewish state” that would lead to the long desired peace with the Palestinians and Arabs as a whole.
This approach is so insidious as false and deceptive because, once again, it fails to see the reality of the Middle East in its entirety. After all, Philipp thinks he knows only the Zionists and the Israelis, but he doesn’t seem to know as well the Palestinian and Arab counterparts, of which he – as a typical example of the anti-Israel alignment – represses the attitudes, words, acts and entire political history. So what remains of the Arab-Palestinian reality is little more than an idealistic surrogate of “good people”, obviously victimized by the Zionist executioner – an image far from grasping the truth.
I wish to remind Philipp on what evanescent “guarantees” of peace and security today is based the idea of a Palestinian state. The words of Maen Rashid Aerikat are more than enough to illustrate the “seriousness” of these alleged safeguards:
Aerikat: the only time in my memory that a Jewish state was really mentioned was in the partition plan 181. Does Israel want us to go back to that? Fine.
Samuels: So, you think it would be necessary to first transfer and remove every Jew—
Aerikat: Absolutely. No, I’m not saying to transfer every Jew, I’m saying transfer Jews who, after an agreement with Israel, fall under the jurisdiction of a Palestinian state.
A: Why should I pay the price for the political movement called Zionism, which said, “It’s time to reclaim parts of Palestinian territory that at one point were home for the kingdom of David, of Israel”—which you and I know was concentrated in the northern part of the West Bank. It never was in Jerusalem, it never was on the coast, it never was in Hebron.
S: The Israelis don’t believe you.
A: They have to believe me. Because there is nothing I can give them but my word and my sincere and genuine intentions.
… You know that the issue of the rockets is really exaggerated.
I don’t personally view Iran as an enemy, to be honest with you. My only criticism of Iran is the fact that they are interfering in our internal affairs so that reconciliation and unity remains elusive.”
More than enough, indeed …..
“Almost amusing to see how Philipp attempts to rationalize a conflict between two peoples, Israeli and Palestinians – and more broadly between Western democratic world and Arab-Muslim world – in a mere paradox of Zionism and Israel itself.”
Why is it amusing Jonah? Because you woudl prefer to laugh than consider that your ideology is pre disposed to war, conflict and ethnic supremacy?
“therefore it’s only up to Israel and Zionism to make the radical transformation of the “Jewish state” that would lead to the long desired peace with the Palestinians and Arabs as a whole.”
You’re playing the game of trivializing Israel’s complicit, war crime’s wars of aggression by arguing that that Israel needn’t bother putting an end to it’s bad behavior because there is no guarantee that a perfect peace will result.
“This approach is so insidious as false and deceptive because, once again, it fails to see the reality of the Middle East in its entirety.”
How so Jonah? That Arabs are animals who only understand violence?
“but he doesn’t seem to know as well the Palestinian and Arab counterparts, of which he – as a typical example of the anti-Israel alignment – represses the attitudes, words, acts and entire political history.”
And you’re such an expert on Palestinian and Arab history are you Jonah?
“So what remains of the Arab-Palestinian reality is little more than an idealistic surrogate of “good people”, obviously victimized by the Zionist executioner – an image far from grasping the truth.”
Your argument being that because Arab-Palestinians are nor all “good people”, that Israel needn’t end the victimization of them. Only the very pure deserve freedom from bondage.
“I wish to remind Philipp on what evanescent “guarantees” of peace and security today is based the idea of a Palestinian state.”
Here’s the same argument. Why should women feel secure that they won’t be raped if they insist on wearing revealing outfits?
“The words of Maen Rashid Aerikat are more than enough to illustrate the “seriousness” of these alleged safeguards”
And how are those words any more repugnant than the words we hear every day from the Israeli leaders or Rabbis for that matter? Oh I forgot, it’s OK when Israel trash talks.
“Aerikat: the only time in my memory that a Jewish state was really mentioned was in the partition plan 181. Does Israel want us to go back to that? Fine.”
Legally speaking, Aerikat has a point. After all, didn’t Ayalon and Nentenyahu just threaten the Palestinians with violence if they dared to declare independence along the 1967 borders?
Oh I forgot, it’s OK when Israel trash talks.
“Aerikat: Absolutely. No, I’m not saying to transfer every Jew, I’m saying transfer Jews who, after an agreement with Israel, fall under the jurisdiction of a Palestinian state.”
And how is that any different to statements by Lieberman or even Livni, when she said that Arab Israelis need to accept that their political future lies outside of Israel?
You’re another fine example of the inherent contradictions and hypocrisy of so called liberal Zionism Jonah.
thanks Phil
“In the view of many non-Zionists and anti-Zionists, what was so great about ’48? Arabs weren’t consulted despite promises by FDR to consult them; and they were against Partition, as you and I would have been. Jews were granted half the territory by the U.N. and ended up with 78 percent of it. Israel and American Jews went to war against the idea that any of the hundreds of thousands of refugees could come home to their property– a moral savagery that continues to fester 60 years on. “The profound moral question of why Jews should tolerate land grabs went unasked,” to quote Gitlin.
If you’re trying to save the Jewish state, I think you have to deal more honestly with those crimes, which the unending occupation has served to unearth.”
So honest. So painful to read. Ilene Cohen is spot on too.
Was just over at Glenn Greenwalds latest about the election and someone started badgering Greenwald for screening etc. Total bull. One of the most open blogs going. Greenwald even takes insults etc. But I mentioned FDL’s banning of me and inability to take criticism. Some folks jumped out and cried foul. Backed it up with some links and then went looking over at FDL. Found that all my post (years now) have been deleted. And this is what comes up
“This user has elected to delete their account and the content is no longer available.”
I did not elect to delete. Rayne and FDL did
All of the comments, discussions, some of my post had 90 comments and more. So vengeful. All because I criticized Jane Hamsher and Rayne the moderator and Phil wrote about this. Pathetic
link to seminal.firedoglake.com
Phil there was a discussion about the shadow banning of me over there recently forgot to mention it. Go over there to read Marcy Wheelers/Emptywheel’s blogs she is brilliant and open minded. More than I can say for Hamsher. Rayne and team locked opposing views from FDL. Sad
Folks over there asking about where I had gone (I believe Klynn is an attorney)
Arab Writers Strike at Daily Kos
link to my.firedoglake.com
Sorry to go off topic. Just thought this was interesting. FDL sends you to Siberia if you criticize Hamsher or the moderators.
Have noticed most of the NPR talk shows have eliminated any shows about the Israeli Palestinian conflict. Of course never see or hear anything about it on cable news.
If it were not for Mondoweiss, Race for Iran, Washington Note, Max Blumenthal, Dana, Al Jazeera, Glenn Greenwald periodically..no discussions at all. Where else do folks go for info?
Yep everyone of my post deleted by Firedoglake. No comments etc. All eliminated.
link to seminal.firedoglake.com
No agendas at FDL. Just an open, progressive blog that go after and eliminate folks who criticize or challenge and then delete all of their post. Vindictive, pathetic and oh so telling about Rayne, Jane and Firedoglake
Ed Teller/Seminal(phil Munger) everything still there
link to seminal.firedoglake.com
All of Ctuttle’s there (they come over here periodically)
link to seminal.firedoglake.com
All of Rayne’s the vindictive moderator’s are there
link to seminal.firedoglake.com
That is sad to think they would eliminate everyone who commented, linked, discussed these issues. All comments were totally deleted. What does that say about Firedoglake?
Bradly Burston is one diabolical creature. After 911 in a desperate search for international news I discovered Haaretz. It was a welcome find for someone who found the NYTimes as a source of news before. Such an incredible diversity of opinions compared to any major news outlet in the US.
But I got to know Burston. There are times that he expresses his horror at the incredible racists attitudes that characterize Israeli public opinion. Must say, good for him. But then he swings violently the other way and denounces any criticism of those same racists attitudes as manifestations of antisemitism especially if they originate outside of Israel. At one point a few years back he explicitly banned any comment that used the term “ethnic cleansings” to describe WB policies.
Such are the vagaries of the “progressive Zionist”. If that term is not an oxymoron, it definitely incorporates contradictions that no logician could unravel.
I understand that Burston is an American who graduated from UCLA. Say Bradley, don’t you think it is time to come back home and let the Palestinians and their native Jewish neighbors sort out the mess? Face it man, you have nothing to offer.
I have been reading Haaretz since 2000 and I have to say that Burston is a symbol of the change in the paper since then- a gradual drift to the hard right that followed the changes in Israeli society and allowed developments such as Jenin 2003, Lebanon 2006, Gaza 2009, Flotilla 2010, all backed by the country’s media elite including Burston.
Except that Burston’s articles in the last six months have been consistently left-leaning.
Haaretz still publishes Amira Hass, Gideon Levy, Akiva Eldar, others.
I get MORE informed by them than by anything here.
“Except that Burston’s articles in the last six months have been consistently left-leaning.”
Except when discussing Israeli agression, in which case, he has been entirely right wing….hence the contradiction between Liberalism and Zionism.
“Haaretz still publishes Amira Hass, Gideon Levy, Akiva Eldar, others.”
Haaretz ublishes right wing contributors too.
In contrast to seafoid’s “Burston is diabolical” and similar comments on Haaretz in general.
That was GW’s slogan, axis of evil, no talking, no consideration, just demonization.
Why continue the vein?
“Why continue the vein?”
Good question Witty, why do you continue that vein? After all, it is you that insists we believe the worst about Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah, and insist that they cannot be reformed or trusted.
Why are you being such a hypocrite (ie. more than you usually are)?
Its your choice Shingo.
To pursue either/or is to pursue war. Better to pursue intersection.
“To pursue either/or is to pursue war. Better to pursue intersection.”
One can’t pursue wars if one does not support them. I support no wars, whereas you’ve justified every one of the wars Israel has started.
That’s the choice you made.
If you do read the aforementioned journalists as you allege, then it’s quite disturbing that your views haven’t changed over the years. What good is that information if you choose to ignore it and pretend as though it’s mere fiction? Of course, such an assumption is based on the fact that other contributing factors like ideology or racism are not at play.
Where would Israel be without its fig leaves? Step forward Avnery, Hass and Leyv.
For how long have you been reading Ha’aretz, Richard ?
Even if Burston recently had some lefty articles what is his attitude going to be the next time Israel gets out the white phosphorous ?
I’ve been following Israel for a decade. There is no nuance. The country is following an insane policy that will end in its destruction.
People like you who profess loyalty to Israel need to be pointing this out to Israel. Otherwise your loyalty is as meaningless as Burston’s liberalism.
I’ve been reading Haaretz for 11 years, not every day but most.
I love when Burston describes the far left and Palestinian solidarity movement as dogmatic and counterproductive. And I love when Burston describes the Israeli right as dogmatic and counterproductive.
His thesis, as I understand it, is to make room for discussion and reconciliation based on pragmatic compassion for the other, and expecting pragmatic compassion for Israelis.
First there is this–
“I love when Burston describes the far left and Palestinian solidarity movement as dogmatic and counterproductive. And I love when Burston describes the Israeli right as dogmatic and counterproductive.”
Then there is this–
“His thesis, as I understand it, is to make room for discussion and reconciliation based on pragmatic compassion for the other, and expecting pragmatic compassion for Israelis.”
This is Richard’s idea of discussion and reconciliation–say that people here and people who sympathize with Palestinians are dogmatic like the rightwing settlers. Richard “loves” that. He also loves it when someone attacks Human Rights Watch or the Goldstone Report or anyone or anything else that is critical of Israeli terrorism.
I’d like to see reconciliation too, Richard, but Israel seems very much like the white American South around 1960–they had to pressured into behaving decently. Left to themselves the best ones would have inched very slowly towards civil rights, in maybe another hundred years or so, while bridling at any criticism from any source. Burston sounds very much like the typical white Southern “moderate”. Which is why you identify with him.
“I’ve been reading Haaretz for 11 years, not every day but most.”
And still, you repeat the lies that are exposed in Haaretz.
“I love when Burston describes the far left and Palestinian solidarity movement as dogmatic and counterproductive. ”
I’m sure you do, though this goes to show the magnitude of Burston’s hypocrisy.
“And I love when Burston describes the Israeli right as dogmatic and counterproductive.”
I’m sure you do, though this goes to show the magnitude of Burston’s self delusion.
“His thesis, as I understand it, is to make room for discussion and reconciliation based on pragmatic compassion for the other, and expecting pragmatic compassion for Israelis.”
I love the qualifiers like “pragmatic compassion”, which clearly implies that it’s not compassion at all.
I spent the evening at a lecture of Karma Nabulsi and Amira Hass.
I had the privilege of a very brief conversation with Amira Hass, in which I thanked her for her witness that cut through ideology, as it does most of the time.
Speaking of Haaretz Witty,
Here is a piece denying the Nakba.
The Palestinian narrative is a falsification of history
link to haaretz.com
Are you suggesting that the fact Haaretz published it is proof that Nakba denial is a left wing stance?
P.S. – Intifada duo & Gaza exempla docent et trahunt.
That were definitively my turning point, as well as the overturning of your and Philip’s fine appeasement theories. Was Camp David 2000 such a bad ending point (or starting point) to unleash a unprecedented terror wave, with the blessing of the Rais himself? Was Israel withdrawal from Gaza such a bad ending point (or starting point) to launch thousands of rockets (Aerikat: “… the issue of the rockets is really exaggerated”)?
Who can guarantee that after the (Aerikat:)”transfer of every Jew from the Palestinian state” (in other words: ethnic cleansing) the Palestinians and their sponsors will not act in the same way as they have eloquently demonstrated in the recent past?
Perhaps – you?
As was already explained to you numerous times, your grasp of developments in the Middle East is extremely lacking.
1. Camp David: Ehud Barak admitted that he went to the 2000 Camp David talks intent on having them fail. He needed to lift the pressure off of him due to the Israeli elections that were to follow some 8 months later. Ehud Barak knew that should the talks fail, a second Intifada would break and that would give him the chance he needed to blame Arafat and use that to boost his numbers in the polls.
2. In June 2008 the Egyptian government negotiated a six (6) month ceasefire agreement with the Israeli government and with Hamas.
The terms of the agreement stipulated that (a) Hamas would cease all rocketfire into Israel. (b) Israel would open all land crossings so as to allow for the free flow of goods and aid. Hamas abided by the agreement and for the first few months of the ceasefire, rocketfire from Gaza stopped. Yet, Israel refused to meet its end of the bargain. On Nov. 4, 2008, on the same day the United States and the rest of the world was busy with the US elections, Israel launched a raid onto northern Gaza killing 7 Palestinians.
By doing so, Israel violated the terms of the ceasefire. Hamas renewed its rocket attacks, but still maintained a relative quiet compared to the number of rockets it had launched in the previous summer.
In late December 2008, Hamas communicated to the Israelis that it was prepared to extend the ceasefire agreement, provided Israel abided by the original terms of the summer agreement.
Israel ignored that offer and on the 27th of that month launched a large scale assault on Gaza.
There are no guarantees in life. You could step outside and get hit by a bus. No one can predict the future. But, if the past is any indication, then the guarantees which Israel and its gullible defenders seek are not needed given Israel’s military superiority.
Wonderfully put Avi,
Isn’t it sad how these Zionatics always churn out the same lies and BS, even though they know they are false and been sompletely debunked many times over?
I guess that is another one of those traits of Liberla Zionism. I find right wing Zionists much more willing to accept reality.
Same old excuses from the anti-Israel children schatztruhe.
1) “Ehud Barak admitted that he went to the 2000 Camp David talks intent on having them fail.”
Once it is Sharon’s visit to the Temple Mount, another Barak’s twisted Zionist mind … In fact, it is a open secret, that the terror wave called Second Infidada was planned by the Palestinian leadership – and Arafat in primis – since its return from Camp David in July 2000 (even before it left), according to Palestinians own admission. The aim was clear: to put more pressure on Israel in order to force her to capitulate to their demands. As for “the numbers in the pools” for which you blame Barak, that is in fact true for Arafat and his reputation in front of his people.
2) “In late December 2008, Hamas communicated to the Israelis that it was prepared to extend the ceasefire agreement”
Hamas didn’t renew the truce in December 2008 because as once in 2000, they believed again that Israel would capitulate to their terror attacks without reaction. They lost their bet – and the Palestinians, in 10 years of terror, their credibility as partner for peace.
You can not have your cake and eat it too:
On the one hand, to justify deliberate terror and rockets attacks, propaganda in media, mosques and schools, BDS campaigns, calls for a Palestinian State free of Jews – all this by blaming exclusively the Jewish state for the past and current situation; and on the other hand, make Israel (and me as liberal supporter of Israel) believe that there is a serious partner for peace on Palestinian side, and that the anti-Zionist camp you belong to is bona-fide when it blindly defends the Palestinian rights.
The status quo is the logical and unavoidable result of this policy of violence and confrontation. Nothing less, nothing more.
3)”There are no guarantees in life.”
Thank you for the good personal advise, but I know already for myself.
However, there are favorable conditions for building confidence and achieve peace. And I am convinced that these, also (with emphasis) on Palestinian side, are still to be met.
According to jonah, the Palestinians are supposed to sit and peacefully take Israeli aggression, Israeli theft of Palestinian land, deadly Israeli military assaults. If they sit quietly enough until there is no land left to them and all their people are dead or exiled, then they may be rewarded with peace.
Carved on their tombstone.
>> However, there are favorable conditions for building confidence and achieve peace.
Israel could lead the way by ending its aggression, occupation, land theft, colonisation, expansionism and brutality. Unfortunately, expecting the thief and the rapist to stop stealing and raping before getting down to other matters appears to be too much to ask.
>> According to jonah, the Palestinians are supposed to sit and peacefully take Israeli aggression, Israeli theft of Palestinian land, deadly Israeli military assaults. If they sit quietly enough until there is no land left to them and all their people are dead or exiled, then they may be rewarded with peace.
I believe the “humanist” term for this is “justice”.
“Israel could lead the way by ending its aggression, occupation, land theft, colonisation, expansionism and brutality. Unfortunately, expecting the thief and the rapist to stop stealing and raping before getting down to other matters appears to be too much to ask.”
It can also apply in reverse:
The Palestinians could lead the way by ending their terror attacks against civilians, propaganda and incitement to hatred, Jihadism and extremism, internal split, boycott calls and attempts to delegitimize Israel as Jewish state as well as outright denial of its right to exist.
Unfortunaltely, expecting the terrorist and hatemonger to stop terrorising and hating before to getting down to other matters appears to be too much to ask.
WARNING: to apply same rhetorical standards on the Palestinians as the anti-Zionists here nonstop do towards Israel, may lead to censorship of the post.
“The Palestinians could lead the way by ending their terror attacks against civilians, propaganda and incitement to hatred, Jihadism and extremism, internal split, boycott calls and attempts to delegitimize Israel as Jewish state as well as outright denial of its right to exist.”
They already have.
AS was pointed out to you already, the Palestinians and Hamas held to a 4 month ceasefire, and they were rewarded by an Israeli raid that killed 7 Palestinians.
Hamas have called for an end to suicide attacks.
No state has the right to exist, but the Palestinains can’t be expected to revognize a state that:
a) refuses to recognize them
b) refuses to recognize it’s borders
c) insists on occupying their territory
“Unfortunaltely, expecting the terrorist and hatemonger to stop terrorising and hating before to getting down to other matters appears to be too much to ask.”
It does, which has always been a problem with Israel. which was founded on terror, elected terrorist to lead the country and has continued such tactics to this day.
“WARNING: to apply same rhetorical standards on the Palestinians as the anti-Zionists here nonstop do towards Israel, may lead to censorship of the post.”
Not only are you a delusional Zionist, but also a paranoid one.
“If they sit quietly enough until there is no land left to them and all their people are dead or exiled, then they may be rewarded with peace.
Carved on their tombstone.”
Jonah sounds just like Witty.
1) In fact, it is a open secret, that the terror wave called Second Infidada was planned by the Palestinian leadership – and Arafat in primis – since its return from Camp David in July 2000.
Actually, it’s an open Hasbara talking point, but it’s not a fact at all.
a) Netenayhu was caught on tape he undermined Oslo
b) It has been proven that Arafat was powerless to stop the Intifada.
2) Hamas didn’t renew the truce in December 2008 because as once in 2000, they believed again that Israel would capitulate to their terror attacks without reaction.
False again.
MIDEAST: Israel Rejected Hamas Ceasefire Offer in December
link to ipsnews.net
They lost their bet – and the Palestinians, in 10 years of terror, their credibility as partner for peace.
You can not have your cake and eat it too:
On the one hand, to justify deliberate terror and rockets attacks, propaganda in media, mosques and schools, BDS campaigns, calls for a Palestinian State free of Jews – all this by blaming exclusively the Jewish state for the past and current situation; and on the other hand, make Israel (and me as liberal supporter of Israel) believe that there is a serious partner for peace on Palestinian side, and that the anti-Zionist camp you belong to is bona-fide when it blindly defends the Palestinian rights.
The status quo is the logical and unavoidable result of this policy of violence and confrontation. Nothing less, nothing more.
3)”There are no guarantees in life.”
Thank you for the good personal advise, but I know already for myself.
However, there are favorable conditions for building confidence and achieve peace. And I am convinced that these, also (with emphasis) on Palestinian side, are still to be met.
“Was Camp David 2000 such a bad ending point (or starting point) to unleash a unprecedented terror wave, with the blessing of the Rais himself?”
It wasn’t an ending point, it was a continuation of the status quo.
“Was Israel withdrawal from Gaza such a bad ending point (or starting point) to launch thousands of rockets”
I guess one could consider the fact that Israle fired 8000 shells into Gaza over the 12 months after withdrawl, together with a scortched earth policy, a turning point.
“(Aerikat: “… the issue of the rockets is really exaggerated”)?
Considering that Israel fired as many shells into Gaza in 12 months as all the rockets fired by Hamas (without any coveregae at all in the media), so yeah exaggerated woudl describe it.
“Who can guarantee that after the (Aerikat:)”transfer of every Jew from the Palestinian state” (in other words: ethnic cleansing) the Palestinians and their sponsors will not act in the same way as they have eloquently demonstrated in the recent past?”
In other words, how dare the Palestinians return the favor and do to Israelis what Israel did to them you mean?
“Who can guarantee that after the (Aerikat:)”transfer of every Jew from the Palestinian state” (in other words: ethnic cleansing) the Palestinians and their sponsors will not act in the same way as they have eloquently demonstrated in the recent past?”
It seems to me what you’re really afraid of is that the Palestinians might act in the same way as the Zionists have done: establish their state with ethnic cleansing and UN support, increase their military power with help from their allies, expand into, occupy and destroy the Jewish state, kill the Jews or establish an apartheid system, imprison them in ghettoes a la Gaza. No wonder you’re worried. But how does this get Zionism off the hook? I don’t see it. It’s a primitive ‘us or them’ logic based on the assumption that all people are the same. If they are all the same, why not have a 1 SS? Surely, there are as many moderate, liberal Palestinians as there are Zionists?
Do you know, Antidote, that the father of the nationalist Palestinian movement was a staunch nazi and Jew-hater who actively collaborated with Hitler during WW2?
not the Mufti again! Do you know that the Zionists also actively collaborated with Hitler? Show me evidence for any Jews killed because of the Mufti’s collaboration with the Nazis, or the fact that the Nazis put him up nicely in Berlin during his exile. The Transfer Agreement of 1933, in contrast, brought a substantial number of German Jews to Palestine, which did not improve Arab-German, let alone Jewish-Palestinian relations.
link to en.wikipedia.org
“Zionist factions competed for the honor of allying to Hitler. By 1940-41, the “Stern Gang,” among them Yitzhak Shamir, later Prime Minister of Israel, presented the Nazis with the “Fundamental Features of the Proposal of the National Military Organization in Palestine (Irgun Zvai Leumi) Concerning the Solution of the Jewish Question in Europe and the Participation of the NMO in the War on the Side of Germany.”
Avraham Stern and his followers announced that
‘The NMO, which is well-acquainted with the goodwill of the German Reich government and its authorities towards Zionist activity inside Germany and towards Zionist emigration plans, is of the opinion that:
1. Common interests could exist between the establishment of a new order in Europe in conformity with the German concept, and the true national aspirations of the Jewish people as they are embodied by the NMO.
2. Cooperation between the new Germany and a renewed folkish-national Hebraium would be possible and,
3. The establishment of the historic Jewish state on a national and totalitarian basis, bound by a treaty with the German Reich, would be in the interest of a maintained and strengthened future German position of power in the Near East.
Proceeding from these considerations, the NMO in Palestine, under the condition the above-mentioned national aspirations of the Israeli freedom movement are recognized on the side of the German Reich, offers to actively take part in the war on Germany’s side.’
They hanged people all over Europe after WW II for notes to the Nazis like these. ”
link to counterpunch.org
“the father of the nationalist Palestinian movement was a staunch nazi and Jew-hater who actively collaborated with Hitler during WW2?”
Even if true, so what?
Zionism was wrong from its very inception, and would still be wrong if “the father of the nationalist Palestinian movement” had been Satan himself.
Oh, Geez! You know they’re desperate when they drag out the skeleton of Husseini again.
Do you know, Jonah, that the Mufti was in exile from 1939, was appointed by the British, and had little following in Palestine?
of the nationalist Palestinian movement was a staunch nazi and Jew-hater who actively collaborated with Hitler during WW2?
“Oh, Geez! You know they’re desperate when they drag out the skeleton of Husseini again.”
They’re constantly desperate. If it’s not Husseini, then it’s Camp David 2000, if not, then it’s the 6 day war, the 1948 war, the Yon Kippur war, and if all else fails, then it’s the Holocaust.
As close collaborator of the Nazis and absolute Anti-semite he knew about the Shoah, he supported it and he did his best to prevent that Jews could reach Palestine, in other words: he was fully commited to the Final Solution, in particular of the Jews of Palestine.
link to ushmm.org
link to expatica.com
As for the Zionists collaborating with the Nazis during WW2, their pact with the devil was merely an (actually doomed) attempt to save the Jews from the Holocaust by helping them to emigrate to Palestine (with all the contradictions that such pact forcedly implied), not to implement the Final Solution, as the Grand Mufti did with great effort.
“As close collaborator of the Nazis and absolute Anti-semite he knew about the Shoah, he supported it and he did his best to prevent that Jews could reach Palestine, in other words: he was fully commited to the Final Solution, in particular of the Jews of Palestine.”
Yes he was an anti Semite.
He knew as much about the Shoah as Ben Gurion did when he said that he would be willing to sacrifice half the Jewish children in Germany to create Israel.
And Husseini’s desire to prevent Jews from reaching Palestine was no different to any state that fears being over tun by immigrants with a desire to take over the country.
“As for the Zionists collaborating with the Nazis during WW2, their pact with the devil was merely an (actually doomed) attempt to save the Jews from the Holocaust”
False on all counts.
Their pact was to drive out the British from Palestine. The transfer agreement was 13 years before the Holocaust and the overtures to Nazis Germany were part of a plot to become traitors to Britain.
Husseini played no part whatsoever in the Holocaust.
“allow the Jews to have a single state of their own ”
Do I have a state of my own? If so, it is Australia.
I was brought up in Australia, and I am a citizen. Not born here, though, and I have lived outisde Australia for a good chunk of my life.
Consider, then, an Australian Jew who was born here, and brought up here, and has lived here for most of his life. Surely he has a state of his own, and that state is Australia.
But if I do not have a state of my own, why should an Australian Jew have a state of his own?
Thinking on from the Jewish citizens of Australia, a minority in a sovereign state.
The purpose of sovereign power is surely the protection, as far as may be possible, of the lives, liberties and general rights (including the right to influence politics) of all those who are subject to it. The demand made by the sovereign that all, but all, subjects must obey the law depends on the intention of the sovereign to protect all, but all, alike. A system of discrimination on grounds of race or religion substitutes ‘some in preference to others’ for ‘all alike’ and so weakens the claim of the sovereign to be legitimate.
For this reason there can be no objection to the fact that one state or many states actually has or have a majority drawn from one race or religion, Jewish, Muslim or other, but there must be objection to any intention to make sure that this majority always stays the same, since this intention is discriminatory and negates the protection of all alike in favour of an intention to limit the influence and reduce the numbers of the disfavoured groups. Thus the demand that ‘the Xs must have a state of their own’ means ‘a state in which they discriminate against others’ and is therefore an attack on, not an expression of, universal human rights.
The right to take refuge should be extended from time to time strictly to those who are at the time in question in need. To organise things otherwise is to ignore actual need, therefore is an attack on, not an expression of, the principles of humanity.
It is impossible to build an international system on the idea that every, or even just one, racial or religious group needs at least one specific refuge permanently, not just because of trouble here and now. That would destroy in every country the idea that the sovereign power is ultimately for the protection of all those subject to it and substitute the idea that it is ultimately for the protection of the people who would, if necessary, take refuge there. We would have a riot of discrimination and citizenship divided into a first and a second class. And we wouldn’t have just a mild problem of dual loyalty at the emotional level. The sovereign power that I ultimately trust to protect my life is the power which I am, as a matter of rationality, bound to obey. The local power that I don’t similarly trust is one that cannot trust me.
To say that Jews should have the right to possess Palestine, even some of Palestine, because of an overriding need for a permanent Jewish refuge is not just conceding a minor point to Zionists, it’s conceding everything. If that is the overriding consideration then all the mistrust, discrimination and violence necessary in order to acheive the confinement and disfranchisement of the Palestinians must be justified, since if they were liberated they might give precedence to their own economic interests and might well refuse to sustain the refuge for Jews. ‘Some of Palestine’ would have to mean ‘as much of Palestine as is in the general view of Jewish people enough to sustain the refuge’ – which would in turn mean, as we have seen for decades, something very close to ‘all of it’.
“To say that Jews should have the right to possess Palestine, even some of Palestine, because of an overriding need for a permanent Jewish refuge is not just conceding a minor point to Zionists, it’s conceding everything.”
It is saying that putative future harm to Jews is more important than current actual harm to Arabs.
Just “we matter and you don’t*” all over again.
(*Thanks again, Selina.)