Marty Peretz moves to Israel. In New York Magazine. Be there or be square. I'll be square. Who's next?
Well that was flippant. I can't wait to read the piece. Have to shovel the driveway. What leaps out from a friend's report of the piece is that Peretz is a Sheikh Jarrah demonstrating Jew. Along with Moshe Halbertal. And he laments the smallness of the demonstration.
So: Marty Peretz gets to be a leftwinger in Israel. I suppose that's why he moved. He can't be a leftwinger here. No: he is Islamophobic; that tail has been pinned on the donkey. So the climate in the U.S. is changing, and Peretz feels more comfortable in Israel than the U.S. It's a great moment. It exposes the contradictions. And so when Peter Beinart reassures his friends in the Israel lobby that it is OK with him that Palestinians are second-class citizens in the Jewish state, one should ask, If you think that's such a great system, why don't you live there? We don't do that to minorities here... Marty Peretz put his money where his mouth is. Well I have to read the piece. It just hit my buttons, is all.
I hate shakeouts. They are a means of exclusion.
How is that different than what you criticize about Zionism?
Richard, nobody asked Peretz to leave. He is shaking himself out. Don’t worry, though. The door will be open when he decides to come back claiming he was just on an extended vacation.
My favorite Marty story: The Connection Man
Richard, there’s an amazing process called “thinking before you write”.
I wish I could reccomend it to you.
Mooser, I shake hateouts, in order to differentially process amazement.
Mooser, you just don’t get it. If we give up our God-given right to fire off stupid comments, THE TERRORISTS WILL HAVE WON.
Not in my America.
Mooser, occasionally I find it interesting that he is completely unable to control his content, and by control I mean basic attempts to make himself understood. Pay attention to the term he uses: shakeout.
Above he reacts clearly to this:
If you think that’s such a great system, why don’t you live there?
This must be the first time he wrote “I hate”. Interesting, since he dislikes anger so much and usually bores us with his “balanced” state of mind. So he is able to be angry too, if something gets close to him? Only doesn’t like it in others?
Besides, there is a grain of truth in what he writes. Phil’s line of thought feels commonplace. I’ve heard the argument before, quite often actually. The problem is, would Richard support the same argument against the usual target: dissenters?
RE: …there’s an amazing process called “thinking before you write”. – Mooser
MY COMMENT: And Mondoweiss’ new edit feature allows a whole ten minutes to reflect on what one has written and hopefully to improve upon it. Try it; it’s fun. Kind of like playing “Beat the Clock”!
Beat the Clock – link to en.wikipedia.org
My response to Mooser apparently didn’t make it past the censors.
Phil earlier spoke about his effort to divide families, to shake out the issue on the basis of “which side are you on?”.
Maybe he didn’t mean to evoke such a stark approach, as I’m certain that he is unwilling to utterly divide from his brothers, sisters, parents on this issue. He is too much a part of his family.
On Peretz, it seems absurd to go for the jugular at someone that IS willing demonstrate in support of Palestinian rights to some extent, as irritating as he is.
That Peretz did demonstrate at Sheikh Jarrah, presumably with people that otherwise would call him a racist, indicates to me that he has more backbone for good, for being willing to hold his humane convictions in spite of how he is spoken of, that he will not let others define his sentiments.
Differ with him if you like. Differ with me if you like.
The trivial insults are something else though.
People who posture publicly as prevaricating, insipid nincompoops often find themselves treated with unpleasant epithets. If you insist on writing such rubbish, expect to be trashed.
Thats self-talk. Enough of the petty insults.
If you disagree with my points, go ahead, respectfully, patiently and articulately.
Or, do you seek to silence me by force.
For how many years have a few hundred Israeli dissidents been meeting every Friday afternoon in Sheikh Jarrah? If nothing else they do make the point that the Palestinians are not alone. Nothing to sneeze at. Peretz went there. Nothing to dismiss. The question is, why didn’t he say this when for so many years he had a powerful seat in America? Instead, he spread bigoted lies about Arabs (among other groups) from that influential seat. As an American perhaps he felt he couldn’t tell Israelis what to do. Merely scare the crap out of fellow Americans about the Arab menace, and ignore his (then, at least) country’s huge financing and UN veto support of the illegal settlements he only now has visited at least once to protest at Sheikh Jarrah. Did he ever speak or write in America about the fact those settlements, and the funding of them, even indirectly, from America, were both against official US policy and violated specific US legislation? No. He never took his American citizen’s duty seriously, but by his own muffle here, and his outspoken voice there, he certainly has shown his consistent fundamental one state allegiance. Universal humanity per se seems to have been of no concern to him at all.
I have a list of people who I would like to join him. Something tells me he isn’t renouncing his US citizenship — he would not want to be labeled a foreign propagandist in/by our media.
I’ll be square. Who’s next?
you soooo crack me up phil weiss.
;)
thanks annie but im just tryin to keep up w you and derbig mooser
I’ve read he’s been there since September, and initially planned a seven month stay. He can come back here as an American citizen anytime–if he decides to stay there for the rest of his life, he’d have to document that was precisely his intent or get a sufficiently high & wide government position. Lots of advantages in holding multiple citizenships. The New York Magazine article says he’s the kind of guy who would marry only a rich woman, and the question is asked therein whether he dumped her because her money ran out, or she dumped him for the same reason. It also notes he spends spontaneous time with kids on the street he never would’ve spent any time with in America. That could be just a sign of one of the few luxuries of age.
I think he believed all the bigoted things were true in general, when he said them (“the exception proves the rule”); I’d guess he knows many people who think the same–I’m not sure why he said them for the public record over the years, but I’d guess he could literally afford to be not PC if he felt like it; he guessed right judging how long it took, despite his position, for it to aggregate to his belated loss of cultural prestige. Looking at the totality of the character sketch provided by the article, it’s not hard to conclude his most basic trait was vanity, huge vanity.
The “Why don’t you live there?” question is asked many different ways.
In this context Phil asks of Beinart, “if he thinks it’s such a great system, why doesn’t he live there?”
First of all the question uses the wrong verb, not why don’t you “live” there, but why don’t you “move” there?
First of all the answer is, because he wasn’t born there and he wasn’t raised there. It is certainly easiest and most natural to stay in one’s native land, for cultural, familial and linguistic reasons. (Those who cite the fact that a small number of Jews have remained in Iran as proof that the regime can’t really hate Jews if they stay there, are ignoring this point as well.)
The second answer would be, because the educational, cultural and financial opportunities for an English speaking intellectual with a family are much greater in America than they would be in Israel.
The third answer would be, that one can advocate something for someone else that isn’t to one’s own tastes. Beinart can approve of the system of equality of America and not need the preferences that Israel offers Jews. Regarding the dual legal system of Israel this is obviously not the question Phil really wants to pose. He wants to ask, “How would Beinart feel if tomorrow he woke up and the laws that are used against Palestinians living inside Israel would be imposed against him?”
Currently the zeitgeist in Israel is to increase racist laws. In theory there is only one law that needs to be kept on the books that differentiates between Jews and nonJews: immigration laws. There is one other factor mentioned in the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell post and that is serving in the army. It is not practical at this point in time nor in the foreseeable future to draft all nonJews.
The fact is that the binational state is a dream. There is not one Arab country that can be named that would indicate that the binational idea would work. Regarding the binational idea one might ask the advocates, “if you think living in a Muslim majority country is so great, why don’t you move to Syria? Why don’t you move to Morocco? Why don’t you move to Turkey?” I think the question is slightly more civil than a “your momma” comment, but only slightly.
>> In theory there is only one law that needs to be kept on the books that differentiates between Jews and nonJews: immigration laws.
While it’s nice to hear that Zio-supremacism can be narrowed down to only one law, I don’t see the point. If Israel is to be egalitarian (either a secular nation of Israelis or a land of “cultural Jews” (still waiting to hear from jon s about that’s supposed to work)), then no law needs to differentiate between “Jews and nonJews”. If Israel is to be Jewish-supremacist, then why restrict inequality to just one law? Who will Israel think it’s fooling?
WJ: As usual, you make some valuable points. I would agree with you that today a binational state in Israel/Palestine looks like “a dream.”
But I would have said the same about South Africa when I lived in the region and wrote about it from 1978-1983. I supported the ANC and its struggle for “a nonracial, democratic South Africa,” but I would never have expected that change would happen as quickly as it did, as relatively non-violently as it did, and that the result today, despite its many flaws and shortcomings, would be as successful as it has been.
And trust me; the majority of the white people in South Africa back then did not favor nonracial democracy, and the extreme element there was every bit as fascist right-wing as the worst of the Jewish settlers in Palestine.
I’m sure you know there were differences between the two struggles. But one common element is economic, political and cultural sanctions, today known as BDS. I can certainly see how reasonable, honorable people can question the one-state solution, the exact nature of Israel’s history, and other aspects.
But I cannot for the life of me see how anyone who genuinely supports human rights for all people can possibly oppose BDS — a nonviolent strategy developed by the occupied and oppressed Palestinians themselves.
James North- First, can you recommend a book or a website that explains the thinking of the South African whites when de Klerk decided to give up the ship. What were the economic factors involved? It has to be more than just the fact that the world wouldn’t play rugby against them.
As far as BDS, I heard Gideon Levy speak in New York City about a month ago and he made two points regarding BDS. He still lives in Israel and thus he is not boycotting and thus he feels he cannot advocate it, if he is not observing the boycott. Secondly he felt that the BDS advocates should clarify that they are opposing the occupation.
He didn’t specify what he meant by that and I did not get an opportunity to ask him what he meant, but here’s my take on it. I don’t think Israel deserves BDS for its internal policies towards Palestinian Israelis nor for its refusal to allow the return of the refugees or their descendants. For its occupation of the West Bank, BDS seems a reasonable strategy.
But there are a number of problems for me. The first is that a security oriented occupation rather than a settlement oriented occupation would be justifiable (to me). Obviously the occupation is a settlement occupation, but I don’t think the BDS advocates make any such distinction.
The other problem is that I support the Jewish settlement of the Jewish Quarter of the old city and of the Western (Wailing) Wall. I know that international law does not make these distinctions and views the Western Wall and the Jewish Quarter as illegal settlements, but I cannot take that step.
I suppose that it is superfluous to state that I am not emotionally prepared to advocate BDS.
Rules of the Game
I haven’t read it personally, but it sounds like Carlin’s book, Playing the Enemy – Nelson Mandela and the Game That Made a Nation would be worth a read if you are really interested.
“I support the Jewish settlement of the Jewish Quarter of the old city and of the Western (Wailing) Wall.”
Do you support people being driven out of their homes and the homes being handed over to strangers?
Or do you just want to see more Jews living in that part of Jerusalem because it revives an ancient situation? If so, how do you feel about reviving the ancient situation of Arabs living all over Palestine?
But there are a number of problems for me. The first is that a security oriented occupation rather than a settlement oriented occupation would be justifiable (to me). Obviously the occupation is a settlement occupation, but I don’t think the BDS advocates make any such distinction.
A serious question for you, WJ. Obviously the Palestinians have a much more serious lack of security with respect to Israel than Israel has with respect to the Occupied Territories. What would be your reaction to a dual occupation (of both Israel and Palestine) by either UN forces, or NATO forces or some other outside group? The rules of the dual occupation would be that what ever methods and restrictions were applied to one side would likewise be applied to the other side. And these restrictions could be determined by the sides themselves, with the caveat that any measure one side wanted applied to the other would also apply to their own side. That would be the only “occupation” that I could see that would satisfy your “security” concerns in a truly equitable way. Anything else is privileging a side that has always had much more power and abused that power under the mostly false claim of security.
Wondering Jew, from a white South African who had wrists and shoulders broken as an 8-year-old by the security forces at anti-apartheid protests, here it is in a very small nutshell:
1. The South African business community called for an end to apartheid. Why?
(A) Because as a part of BDS, international banks called in South africa’s loans in 1985, which threatened to bankrupt the country.
(B) Because armed resistance and mass unarmed protesting de-stabilised the country sufficiently for international investers to withdraw. In fact, the mass protests of hundereds of thousands in the streets rendered the country ungovernable by the end of the 80s, and the US and Europe disapproved of violence against unarmed protesters.
(C) Because apartheid had some major internal inconsistencies that rendered it economically non-viable. E.g., under-educating blacks caused a lack in skilled labour, underpaying blacks caused the consumer market to be too small, etc.
2. The South African white community was re-assured by the ANC that whites could hold onto their wealth and thereby their privileged place in society. That removed the greatest worry of the whites – that the ANC were communists. Remember that, while most South Africans were racist, it wasn’t their racism that drove them to support apartheid, it was their fear of what would happen to them if the black (suspected communist) majority took over the country.
3. Rather than just rugby, white South Africans split the world into the civilised (europe and the US) and the uncivilised (African blacks, Asian Muslims, etc). Many Israelis do something similar. And being completely rejected in all spheres by the people one deems “civilised” has an enormous psychological effect.
I sent Phil a comparison piece a while ago, but then disappeared off to Afghanistan when he wanted to communicate about it. Maybe I should try again.
RoHa- Lacking a time machine, I cannot go back and undo whatever injustice was done in the “settlement” of the Western Wall and the Jewish Quarter. There is no question that my sensibilities are different than those of the IDF and if I could micromanage the past I would try to minimize pain and injustice rather than bulldoze it. My attachment to the Jewish Quarter and the Kotel (wall) are based on a combination of three things- 1. Concessions made by Palestinian negotiators at various venues, although never consumated. 2. realities that include power and Israeli politics and 3. sentimental attachment. I understand the reciprocity that you and tree (later on) suggest and my advocacy is based upon the power relationships of 2010 (plus sentiment) and not upon a concept of justice.
WJ: tree and Leigh have already anticipated much of my own response — including the reminder that the South African liberation struggle did use violence, despite certain retrospective efforts to paint Mandela as a pacifist.
I would add this: economic and cultural sanctions (the BDS of its day) gradually undermined the conviction among white South Africans that the West, particularly the United States, would make certain anti-apartheid noises but continue to stand behind them no matter what.
As long as the West confined its pressure to words, white South Africans felt no need to negotiate seriously. After all, they could just look around them and see evidence of some of the 350 U.S. corporations that had invested in apartheid. Once the sanctions campaign took off, the more intelligent among them recognized they had to make some compromises.
To me, the specifics of the BDS campaign matter less than the overall pressure. Whether we boycott cherry tomatoes from Israel or Occupied Palestine (whether you can truly distinguish between them) is, to me, not important — the increased pressure is. Every time some popular musician (sometimes people I’m too old to have heard of) announces they will not play in Israel, it adds to the pressure that shows Israelis the blank check from the United States is slowly being withdrawn.
BDS is also the only way we might be able to avoid an increase in the violence. The suicide bombings in Israel have not stopped primarily because of the wall.
Maybe I should try again.
Yes. Most definitely.
If you concede that factually, the self-declared 1948 state itself stood on colonial occupied land and that the Nakba got rid of a huge number of natives there, I will concede that Palestininas just have to bite the bullet on that providing some equitable compensation is made for forgetting about their dusty home keys forever in the interest of
the passage of time and with it the rooting of newer generations of people living there. As to if Israel “deserves” BDS for its internal policies, I give some historical black civil rights leaders in S Africa
credence over your stance when they say Israel has an apartheid system in many ways worse than the former S Africa’s. As to your separation of a security-justified occupation from a settlement occupation, what would be your criteria for such distinction? Get rid of the “hill top” settlements as over-reaching, and keep those settlements (often amounting to cities) Israel has mapped out as
required keepsakes in any peace process? Since Israel has shown it will do anything in the name of its security short of gassing the natives, and has always moved any goalposts when pressured to honor those set up, even by itself, how can BDS realistically make your paper rhetorical distinction and expect any Palestinian to be on board? As to the Jewish Quarter and Wailing Wall, you can’t view them as other than subject to Jewish settlements. What about the long historical pov by the international community that Jerusalem
is to be a city open to all three Abrahamic faiths because they all have sacred roots there? Did any western state or international agent ever authorize Jerusalem to be a de jure Jewish city? Even a de facto Jewish city? Isn’t it enough for you that Israel would get green line boundaries no state or group could ever touch without bringing down on itself the force of the world community and powerful states? The Palestinians have a perfect right not to be emotionally prepared for any Israel, but that’s overlooked from the start in your view of how things should be settled, so nobody gets to overlook your emotions in a dire matter of practical world concern?
“3. sentimental attachment. …my advocacy is based upon the power relationships of 2010 (plus sentiment) and not upon a concept of justice.”
So your sentimentality trumps justice. Just think about that position.
A law intended to preserve a racial majority for as long as possible makes sense only if that group intends to do things with the political power that majority status confers to which the other group would object. If it didn’t have that intention the majority-preserving law would be pointless. If it does have that intention the majority-preserving law can’t be the only law that serves the distinct interest of the majority, or what pretends by various artifices to be the majority.
On the other hand, there are currently critical and GREAT discussions on Jewish identity that require critical thinking and an Abrahamic attitude to my mind (magnanimous).
My contribution to the essay competition was a comment on Jewish identity, particularly the daily invocation of “I take upon myself the commitment to love my neighbor as myself” stated by all orthodox and conservative Jews, though not by many reform (who for the most part don’t pray daily).
The sets that that are included in “my neighbor” is the content. Who is “my neighbor” referred to.
In another post, there was commentary on a Rabbi Dov Wolpe, a right-wing chabadnik.
The right-wing theologians regard “my neighbor” or “my fellowman” as referring only to their known Jewish colleagues. The statement of “love my fellowman” is construed as tribal, loyal, patriotic. All that adopt loyalty to one’s cadre as primary, adopt that value, fully or not. It is limited, not magnaminous, prospectively warring.
It is a smaller set than just the set of halachic Jews (if one’s matrilineal lineage originates in a Jew, then one is a Jew). Its the set of confirmed, known, committed Jews, erring on the side of not risking aiding an opponent (in this dangerous world).
Applied to the set of Jews even, that would result in a more magnanimous formula, universal in practice if not in original attitude, that would include the possibility that anyone encountered could be matrilineally a Jew, and applied as then as a predisposition to love and accept all, erring on the side of not willing to offend someone that may be a Jew. (Even if still oriented to “us”.)
The distinction is also reflected in the two polar archetypal values of the Jewish patriarchs, Abraham’s personality referred to as generous, magnanimous in orientation (chesed), Isaac’s personality referred as disciplined, stubborn, severe, determined (gevurah). Jacob is referred to as an integration of the two, cultivated in his inner struggle and churning to reconcile his angst resulting from his deceptions of his brother Esau, and his father Isaac. It took a life, a real life, a confusing life for him to integrate those components of his upbringing, to get to “live and let live”.
Jesus’ comments are used to contrast further, to a commitment to “love one’s enemy as oneself” (also appearing in Jewish scripture and prayer). Except that he also says, “do not cast your pearls before swine”, which may be practical, but is also functionally exclusive.
“Love thy neighbor as thyself”.
It applies to Israel and advocates, to Palestinian solidarity, to all. Is it a relevant concept at all, or are we fundamentally at war? And, how do we apply it?
Self described scrappers like Marty Peretz, Norman Finkelstein, Norman Podhoretz, etc. have a difficult wrestle with this one. Fighting, by definition regards the other as enemy, not as brother.
Moving to a country that is extremist right wing doesn’t make one any more left wing than one already is. If Peretz supports some aspects of liberalism along with all aspects of Zionism, at best that makes him centrist.
RE: “… a comment on Jewish identity, particularly the daily invocation of “I take upon myself the commitment to love my neighbor as myself” stated by all orthodox and conservative Jews, though not by many reform (who for the most part don’t pray daily).
Maybe the reform don’t pray daily; certainly so as to any ritualistic manner, but the creed is in the deed; my experience in America indicates the reform often do love their neighbor as their self in what they actually do, more so than the orthodox or conservative, who appear to me to take a much less individualistic approach in appraising the value of anyone they encounter across this land. There’s a reason why it’s called “Reform Judiasm.”