One more for the “War is peace” file: Birthright Israel alumni are invited to attend a February 1st kick-off event for a new (self-described) “international movement” called Take Back Zionism. The evening's theme: "Zionism is Humanitarianism." Holocaust survivor-turned-ultra-hawk Elie Wiesel is the headliner, with an introduction by co-founding Birthright father, hedge fund demi-billionaire Michael Steinhardt. Promotional materials promise festivities will include "Israel’s Special Ops Humanitarian Task force" and "Israel's Disaster Recovery Work in Haiti, New Orleans and Sri Lankaz [sic]." Tickets are $25 a pop, $150 for the VIP reception/open bar with Wiesel. If I don't get to hold Baby Israel and hug his Haitian mother, I'm going to be very upset.
In many ways, Wiesel is the perfect front man for Birthright’s new venture. "Jerusalem is above politics," Wiesel wrotein an open letter in April, echoing Birthright’s insistent claims of presenting Israel through an “apolitical” lens. (Conveniently, being “above politics” helps render institutions immune to political challenges.) "[Jerusalem] belongs to the Jewish people and is much more than a city, it is what binds one Jew to another,” Wiesel continued, adding, “And, contrary to certain media reports, Jews, Christians and Muslims ARE allowed to build their homes anywhere in the city." Israel as exceptional, Israel as belonging not to its actual citizens but rather to diaspora Jewry, Israel as the perennial victim of the media’s slandering—it’s surprising Birthright and Wiesel don’t team up for hasbara more often.
Note that the evening’s headliner isn’t a David Grossman, someone to rehabilitate Zionism from the Avigdor Liebermans. Take Back Zionism is sponsored by the Birthright Israel Foundation-affiliated Jewish Enrichment Center, an Orthodox outfit that offers programming that ranges from challah baking to screenings of Crossing the Line: the Intifada Comes to Campus, the latest from the rabid anti-Muslim filmmaker who brought us Obsession: Radical Islam’s War Against the West. Take Back Zionism's partners are the usual right wing pro-Israel groups: Stand with Us, the David Project, AIPAC, Zionist Organization of America, and so forth. But none of this should be surprising given that Birthright co-founders Michael Steinhardt and Charles Bronfman are both former trustees of AIPAC’s one-off think tank, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.
“Take Back Zionism”—from whom? From the delegitimizers? “Contemporary discourse seeks to narrowly define Zionism and attack it by limiting its scope,” the website reads, as if to argue, “Despite what the Israel haters say, Zionism is not the suffering of Gazans, the interminable Occupation, the Judaization of East Jerusalem, the forced ghettoization of Negev Bedouin, or any other fiction-based headline.” Birthright’s “Zionism is Humanitarianism” endeavor invites young people to retreat into the Israel-right-or-wrong bunker—and then put on blinders, just to make sure there is no reckoning with the very real humanitarian crises underway between the Jordan and the Mediterranean. Take Back Zionism exudes that familiar stink of desperation that increasingly seems to emanate from everything the American Jewish establishment does these days in relation to Israel and young people. It feels like an aging generation's attempted Astroturf operation that’s grossly misjudged its desired base. Yes, the young will eat the old. I hope.
Then again, there seem to be plenty of Birthright alumni who’ve bought into what Bronfman calls “the selling of Jewishness to Jews.” At takebackzionism.org, visitors are invited to submit their own answers to the prompt "Zionism is...," which are then featured on a scrolling marquis. With casual bellicosity, one woman named Hadassah offered, "The reason we have the state of Israel, to show the Arabs it is our birthright." A visitor named Brad ventured, "Manifest Destiny of the Jews”—let’s hope, against all odds, it was intended as critique. "There are no right answers!" the website assures; it’s doubtful they’d approve a definition of Zionism that reminded visitors, as New Historian-turned-hawk Benny Morris put it unapologetically, “A Jewish state would not have come into being without the uprooting of 700,000 Palestinians…There was no choice but to expel the population.” Ditto a submission of Hannah Arendt's formulation of Zionism as "German-inspired nationalism." (Keep those words in mind when watching videos of the Birthright extravaganza known as the "Mega Event," described by one former American Birthright tour leader as "a fascist rally.")
Paging Jewish Voice for Peace: when you interrupted Netanyahu in New Orleans with correctives like “the Occupation delegitimizes Israel,” you made me proud to be young and Jewish. 73% of Birthright alumni describe their fun bus tours as “life changing”; the hawkish Israel on Campus Coalition boasts over 50% of their pro-Israel activists are Birthright alumni. On Thursday, Netanyahu announced $100 million of Israeli government funding for Birthright over the next three years, with a goal of bringing 51,000 diaspora Jews to Israel per year. JVP, please raise hell in New York on Februrary 1st and help take back the young from Birthright’s clenches. If only a bunch of left-wing billionaires would get together and realize JVP’s alternate vision of a free, ten-day Israel trip open to both Jews and Palestinians…
Good question: take back Zionism from whom? Can’t be from the gentiles because they aren’t allowed to comment on it.
Elie Wiesel is their mascot? As I’ve written here many times, I knew the family before his Nobel Prize and they derisively called him a complete phony.
It should read TAKE BACK JUDAISM.
Someone needs to form a movement: TAKE BACK JUDAISM
MRW: “…Can’t be from the gentiles because they aren’t allowed to comment on it…”
One thing is for sure — us “gentiles” haven’t had the decades of programming from the Jewish establishment and protected/overly ‘protective’[?] tribal community.
After meeting many politically active Jewish (supposedly) progressive democrats practically foaming at the mouth, and going for my throat if I’d say anything negative about Israel, or our congress critters taking Israel’s side rather the US — I have to think some ‘early imprinting’ has something to do with it? My theory anyways.
I have noticed over the years that many progressive Jews will not tolerate criticism of Israel coming from gentiles. These are people who can be extremely critical of Israel when inside the tribe. That is why Mondoweiss is so important — Phil and Adam can say things that will just be dismissed as antisemitism if it came from us. This situation is changing though — I think operation cast lead really had a major impact on openly discussing Israel.
“That is why Mondoweiss is so important — Phil and Adam can say things that will just be dismissed as antisemitism if it came from us. This situation is changing though — I think operation cast lead really had a major impact on openly discussing Israel.”
Exactly. They use their Judaism as a prophylactic to immunize themselves from the criticism and condemnation they would otherwise be due. It is cynical and disingenuous.
Exactly. They use their Judaism as a prophylactic to immunize themselves from the criticism and condemnation they would otherwise be due. It is cynical and disingenuous.
No, its’ not. It’s intellectually honest. And that’s why this blog is so appreciated. Furthermore, the two guys running this blog have become great ambassadors for their points-of-view, and because of their inclusiveness, whether Jew, Gentile, Muslim, or Atheist, they have created a bridge across these divides that is cohesive and human, a community.
You’re just pissed because it isn’t tribal enough for you, which is sooo 19th C.
Actually, hophmi, Phil and Adam are exposing those jews who use the slur “anti-semite” or “self-hating jew” as a prophylatic to cover their own lethal bigotry.
“They use their Judaism as a prophylactic to immunize themselves from the criticism and condemnation they would otherwise be due. It is cynical and disingenuous.”
So if the “new” Antisemitism is criticizing Israeli policy and actions, then would criticizing Jewish critics of Israeli policis and actions be the “new-new Antisemitism”?
This is actually the reverse case here for Americans and us American Jews. Neocons and many pro-Israeli supporters use their Judaism as a prophylactic to hurl insults againt anyone who criticizes Israeli policy.
On a lighter note, snaps for that prophylactic line. It’s one of those lines I wish I came up with.
“So if the “new” Antisemitism is criticizing Israeli policy and actions, then would criticizing Jewish critics of Israeli policis and actions be the “new-new Antisemitism”?”
Nope. Part of the theory behind the “new antisemitism” is that it is directed toward something most Jews and Jewish organizations support. It is an interesting rhetorical idea, though.
“Neocons and many pro-Israeli supporters use their Judaism as a prophylactic to hurl insults againt anyone who criticizes Israeli policy.”
Fair point. But at least more of these people walk the walk and actually do something Jewish besides being pro-Israel. Basically, if you say, “I’m Jewish, I do the High Holidays, I light Shabbat candles, and I care about Israel,”, and in the case of the Orthodox, who tend to be the most hardcore, “I’m Jewish, I go to shul every day, I give to Jewish charities, I wear a Yarmulke, I am Shomer Shabbat, and I care about Israel” I think it’s more honest than, “I’m intermarried. I do Christmas. I’m an atheist. I love Israel Shahak. I think Barack Obama’s a right-winger who sold out. I’m anti-Israel because I’m Jewish.”
Seems to me the latter is more typical of the anti-Zionist Jew. Again, my friend Paul is somewhat of a good example of an exception to this rule. Paul went to synagogue for several years. He doesn’t go too often anymore, but his love of Judaism is clear. He’s long been an anti-Zionist, one world, no national boundaries kind of guy. Paul could claim that at least some of his activism is informed by his Judaism, and I would give him some slack, because he actually has a Jewish background, and actually cares about being Jewish. But the more honest truth is that Paul’s a left-wing radical (and I’m using radical in the political descriptive sense, not in the derogatory sense), and his views on Israel reflect that and are consistent with that. Outside of Neturei Karta, I’d say that’s a fair description of most anti-Zionist Jewish activists. They are left-wing radicals with little attachment to the religion (or any religion). If they are young, their parents were most likely intermarried, and if they stepped foot in a synagogue more than a couple of times in life, it’s unusual. It’s hard to say your Judaism informs your activism when you haven’t got much of an idea of what Judaism is and have generally not shown an inclination to be involved.
They use their Judaism as a prophylactic to immunize themselves from the criticism and condemnation they would otherwise be due. It is cynical and disingenuous.
That sounds exactly like Israel’s standard operating procedure. And you seem to fall for it every time.
It’s hard to say your Judaism informs your activism when you haven’t got much of an idea of what Judaism is and have generally not shown an inclination to be involved.
But yet eee does exactly this, and as far as I have read here, you have never once criticized anything he has said. You seem to have different sets of rules for Jews depending on whether they are for or against Zionism. If they are against, then they must be religiously Jewish, or not mention that they consider themselves Jews. If they are for, then they can call themselves Jews and have absolutely no connection to the religion. Its an illogical argument and appears to be necessitated by your emotional need to erase critical Jews from the tribe.
They use their Judaism as a prophylactic to immunize themselves from the criticism and condemnation they would otherwise be due.
And who is to say what criticism and condemnation is due?
And what is it is called when Israeli apologists use the antisemitism card as a prophylactic fear tactic to immunize Israel from the criticism and condemnation it is due?
So that’s it, Hophmi? Judaism is all about varying degrees of religious observance and Israel? About going with the flow and doing what most visible Jews seem to do? Where have you been these past few thousand years? No tradition of dissent? No external influences? Did Zionism occur to Herzl in shul, while he was taking off his tefilin or studying daf yomi?
Judaism is all about varying degrees of religious observance and Israel? About going with the flow and doing what most visible Jews seem to do? Where have you been these past few thousand years? No tradition of dissent? No external influences? Did Zionism occur to Herzl in shul, while he was taking off his tefilin or studing daf yomi?”
This is predictable, but not really a response.
Judaism has a long tradition of dissent. But dissenters are not atheists who reject G-d, keep nothing, and embrace Communism. They’re serious Jews who disagree, and their disagreement have real Judaic arguments behind them.
“Did Zionism occur to Herzl in shul, while he was taking off his tefilin or studing daf yomi?”
This is a better question. Zionism is a philosophy invented by a compeltely secular guy. But again, Herzl’s program is pretty clear – a state for the Jews based on experiences in Europe and based on an idea that had been around for a very long time. And of course, Zionism is not Herzl and Herzl is not Zionism. Zionism was a Jewish movement. It had a motive – to create a state for the Jews in a world where Jews faced a lot of persecution. Herzl could reasonably say, “I’m a Jew acting on behalf on my people who have experienced antisemitism and I want to make a positive difference. So I am going to try and establish a Jewish entity based on our age-old hope of returning to Zion.”
And of course, at the beginning, a lot of Jews saw nothing Jewish about this. Herzl was a dissenter. But he persevered, and now, today, most Jews see Zionism and Israel as a big part of being Jewish.
What is the Jewish aspect of the anti-Zionist program? It doesn’t have one. It purports to by definition be based on a certain universalism (misguided as I believe that is). Its Jewish proponents are not just secular assimilated Jews. They are secular assimilated Jews who by and large have no connection to the faith and no belief in it. They cite as sources people like Shahak and Finkelstein who are openly disdainful of Jews and Judaism. On this blog, they embrace disturbing philosophies which hold Jews in America responsible for bad national policies. Dissenters in Judaism are part of the community. But these folks separate themselves out from it. They intermarry, assimilate, and adopt customs of other religions. There’s nothing inherently wrong with any of this, of course. But to do this and say, “I’m against Israel because I’m a Jew? It’s disingenuous.
precisely, herzl responded to real circumstances in europe. i might have been a zionist then. becaue of the jewish reality of the ’00s-20s
what are the real conditions of jews in the world now? where are jews unsafe? the unsafety of jews resulted in herzl’s political vision.
you’re stuck in a 116 year old program that has produced nothing but suffering for the indigenous people and therefore threats on jews. communists got tired of their booklets a long time ago
“precisely, herzl responded to real circumstances in europe. i might have been a zionist then. becaue of the jewish reality of the ’00s-20s”
I think this post from JSF seems appropriate here.
link
communists got tired of their booklets a long time ago
Great observation, but at least communism sounded good on paper, if not in reality. Zionism could only have been a nightmare in both.
“where are jews unsafe? the unsafety of jews resulted in herzl’s political vision.”
Jews are safe in the US. They are not especially safe in England, France, or Holland, though they are obviously not facing mass murder.
But Phil, your history seems to begin in 1950. Israel has been in existence 60 years in response to situation that was off and on for 1000 years. That Jews are comparative safe today is not an argument against Israel. Israel’s not a short-term project.
“you’re stuck in a 116 year old program that has produced nothing but suffering for the indigenous people and therefore threats on jews.”
Well, I think that is a very glass half-empty view. The Palestinians need not have suffered all that time, and their suffering is not the only reason Jews are threatened, and neither it is true that those threat negate the reason for Israel’s existence. Israel itself is not threatened, as people here never tire of pointing out, and there is little question in my mind, even if there are big questions in yours, that the establishment of a Jewish state has had intangible benefits for Jews as a community around the world. It is a sad fact of history that political minorities simply cannot reply on majorities for long-term survival. All of the UN protections in the world are not enough to change that fact. That the Jews went and did something about it after being decimated and built a high-functioning modern state is something that is respected around the world, even if people are upset about the suffering of the Palestinian population. I believe most people, particularly in the West, can and will continue to separate these two things, Israeli success and Palestinian rights.
Zionism was a Jewish movement.
Not according to your definition. None of the founders were religious Jews.
But to do this and say, “I’m against Israel because I’m a Jew? It’s disingenuous.
How is that any more “disingenous” than saying “I’m for Israel because I’m a Jew?
Israel considers anyone who has a Jewish grandparent or parent as being a Jew (provided of course that they don’t publicly subscribe to any other religion, atheism is allowed). Therefore, those whom Israel claims to be the State of and whom Israel privileges over others certainly have a right to dissent to that claim and that privilege and to make it know that they are dissenting on the basis of that unasked for privilege.
If you’ve got a beef with non-religious people calling themselves Jews, maybe you should take it up with Israel.
Zionism was a Jewish movement.
No, Zionism was a secular movement, originally rejected by the majority of Jews.
What is the Jewish aspect of the anti-Zionist program? It doesn’t have one.
That’s like asking what does the civil rights movement have to do with being a white American. By your own admission, Judaism has a long tradition of dissent, so why should that exclude dissent against Zionism?
Judaism has been synonymous with reverence for humanity, whereas Zionism rejects it.
They are secular assimilated Jews who by and large have no connection to the faith and no belief in it.
False again. The most vocal Jewish opponents of Zionism are themselves deeply religious and regard Zionism and a violation of Jewish teachings.
You are also being grossly disingenuous when you accuse Shahak and Finkelstein of being openly disdainful of Jews and Judaism. Nothing could be further from the truth.
But these folks separate themselves out from it. They intermarry, assimilate, and adopt customs of other religions.
Judaism has adopted customs of other religions. Do you honestly believe that the heavy garments worn by orthodox Ashkenazi Jews were inspired by the ancient Hebrews of Biblical times who lived in the desert, or by the populations in Russia who live in regions that have harsh winters?
But to do this and say, “I’m against Israel because I’m a Jew? It’s disingenuous.
it not disingenuous, it’s just very very inconvenient.
So is they are not being murdered or attacked, how do you knwo they are not especially safe? Is it all that Shariah Law that you keep reading about on your Zionist bulletin boards?
That’s not how it was intended no, but it’s headed that way.
If survival was an issue, then why are most of the world’s Jews refusing to live in Israel?
Sadly, I don’t think that Israel can, which is the root of the problem.
“Not according to your definition. None of the founders were religious Jews. ”
I didn’t say one had to be a religious Jew. I said the motivation has to be a Jewish one if one says one is being active on an issue because one is Jewish. It’s hard to say that when there is nothing you do that is Jewish except be an anti-Israel activist.
“How is that any more “disingenous” than saying “I’m for Israel because I’m a Jew?”
As I explained above, it’s disgenuous to say you’re anything because you’re a Jew when being a Jew makes a political difference when there is nothing else you do as a Jew.
“If you’ve got a beef with non-religious people calling themselves Jews, maybe you should take it up with Israel.”
I don’t, and that’s not my argument.
You have got to be fucking kidding me. What because, for instance, there are no Jewish parliamentarians in Great Britain?
This is unreal. We’re seriously going to let someone forward an absurdly false argument?
Except that you are assuming that the pro Israeli position is he only Jewish one.
That’s the kind of word salad we have come to expect from Witty.
“Except that you are assuming that the pro Israeli position is he only Jewish one.”
Nowhere do I assume that. You’re completely missing my point. My point is not there is only one Jewish position. My point is that those who claim to act in the name of Judaism should be able to back it up with something other than who their mother was.
“No, Zionism was a secular movement, originally rejected by the majority of Jews.”
But today it is accepted by the majority of Jews.
“By your own admission, Judaism has a long tradition of dissent, so why should that exclude dissent against Zionism?”
I explained that above. Dissent assumes one is part of group one is dissenting from. Anti-Zionists who are in no way practitioners or believers in Judaism are not dissenters. They’re outside of the community altogether. Dissent in Judaism assumes Jewish practice as a baseline.
“False again. The most vocal Jewish opponents of Zionism are themselves deeply religious and regard Zionism and a violation of Jewish teachings.”
They are teeny-tiny minority. The vast majority of the anti-Zionism movement in the Jewish community is not Neturei Karta.
“You are also being grossly disingenuous when you accuse Shahak and Finkelstein of being openly disdainful of Jews and Judaism. Nothing could be further from the truth.”
Have you read either one?
“Judaism has adopted customs of other religions. Do you honestly believe that the heavy garments worn by orthodox Ashkenazi Jews were inspired by the ancient Hebrews of Biblical times who lived in the desert, or by the populations in Russia who live in regions that have harsh winters?”
I’m not talking about garments here. Intermarriage is not a Jewish custom. You’re inverting what I said. The adoption by Jews of secular customs from the old world is not the same as the abandonment of Judaism wholesale through assimilation.
“So is they are not being murdered or attacked, how do you knwo they are not especially safe? Is it all that Shariah Law that you keep reading about on your Zionist bulletin boards?”
No, that’s not it. There have been a number of serious antisemitic incidents in France and England in recent years, and a sharp rise in antisemitic incidents in Europe. Throughout Europe, there are serious issues with Islamic extremists, who are much more marginalized in the US than they are in Europe.
“If survival was an issue, then why are most of the world’s Jews refusing to live in Israel?”
A plurality do, and a majority need not for Israel to be relevant. You seem to assume that the argument is either absolute apocalypse or absolute safety.
But dissenters are not atheists who reject G-d, keep nothing, and embrace Communism. They’re serious Jews who disagree, and their disagreement have real Judaic arguments behind them.
That is obviously wrong with regard to the modern era. Jewish secularism, Bundism, Zionism and (eventually) Reform Judaism (to name four of the most important Jewish movements of the 20th century), require no belief in God. Spinoza and Uriel D’Acosta attempted dissent from within, but that didn’t work very well for them. The truth is that Judaism has never – from its very inception – entailed any specific set of beliefs (except in the eyes of certain gatekeepers – blissfully or stubbornly unaware of the origins and evolution of their own beliefs – when and where they enjoyed power, generally conferred from without). I recommend the works of Yaakov Malkin (e.g. Judaism without God? Judaism as Culture and the Bible as Literature and Epicurus and Apikorsim)*.
Now Herzl was, as you say, a “secular guy” – an assimilationist, in fact. Herzl’s Zionism was catalysed by 19th-century Jewish experience (primarily a sense of Jewish powerlessness, poverty and backwardness), and was a movement of dissent par excellence (one which I, like Phil, might very well have joined had I been around at the time). Similarly, today’s Jewish dissent is catalysed by 20th-21st century Jewish experience, ranging from the Holocaust to the abuse of Jewish power in I/P. Going to shul or lighting Hannukah candles are really beside the point. The “Jewish aspect of the anti-Zionist program” (if we are to reduce it to a single concept) is, very much like Zionism in the day, redemption.
Side note 1: On Judaism informing anti-Zionism. What you interpret as “I’m against Israel BECAUSE I’m a Jew” is often simply “I’m against Zionism AND I’m a Jew”. The relevance of such a statement is obvious, in an age when Judaism is so closely associated with Zionism and support for Israel. “Not in my name” is a completely reasonable and valid position, whether you are a Satmar chusid or (like Herzl and Phil) have a Christmas tree in your parlour.
Side note 2: On gatekeeping and “who is a Jew”. a) A complaint one often hears in Orthodox and especially Haredi circles is that Reform Jews are free to do as they like, but why do they insist on calling their religion “Judaism”? b) Legend has it that former Lithuanian (i.e. anti-Hasidic) Haredi leader E.M. Shach (d. 2001), when asked what the closest religion to Judaism is, replied “Lubavitch”.
*Full disclosure: I know the translator of both works very personally ;-)
As I explained above, it’s disgenuous to say you’re anything because you’re a Jew when being a Jew makes a political difference when there is nothing else you do as a Jew.
That actually describes a large portion of the defenders of Israel. But yet you don’t seem to include them in your excommunication from the meaning of “Jew”. You’ve simply created a hypocritical distinction against those non-religious self-identifying Jews that you disagree with so you can put them outside of the affinity group that you consider superior to others. Once they are outside that group you can lump them in with the gentiles that you stereotype and denigrate as a group.
Again, if one self identifies as a Jew by heritage and if Israel commits acts in your name, as it does when it claims to be a State of all Jews, and when Israel itself defines you as a Jew as well, then I see nothing disingenous about criticizing Israel as a Jew. Do you not get the idea of “Not in my name?”
What’s really disingenuous is Israel purporting to speak for, or to be concerned with, all Jews. It doesn’t and it isn’t, but pretending that those self-identified Jews that criticize Israel are somehow not Jewish is also quite disingenuous and a pathetic attempt to redefine all “real” Jews as those who support Israel.
hophmi- I haven’t thought through the entire issue, but on an emotional level I agree with you: I used to spend a lot of time hanging out in Union Square Park in NYC in the aftermath of 9/11 arguing the I/P issue. Quite often the anti Israel crowd would produce a Jew from their midst and say, “He’s a Jew and he disagrees with you.” And it seemed to me that Judaism or Jewishness was merely a ticket they kept in their wallet and never used ever, ever, except on the rare occasion when a discussion of Zionism came up, so they could say, “I’m a Jew and an anti Zionist.” Occasionally they would produce a Roma (gypsy) from their midst and have him state, “I too suffered genocide and I oppose Zionism.”
This was my same reaction to a video that was on this site a while ago about Jews saying that they forgo their “right of return” under the Law of Return. None of them looked like they had been to a synagogue/temple in the last decade and fewer seemed like they could differentiate between an aleph and a beit.
But I confess this is an emotional reaction to the issue rather than an intellectual reaction.
I think all people have a right to comment on the issue and all Americans especially have a right to comment on the issue and certainly in an extended discussion on the issue raising one’s Jewishness, atheism, Christianity, Islamic or Hindu faith is certainly appropriate in terms of self description for purposes of context. But very often when it is flashed like some sort of a badge, it certainly is off putting.
A specific criticism I have of this site is that it proposes to establish something other than Zionism as a basis for American Jewish identity. I don’t think that anti Zionism can be a basis for American Jewish identity. And so far there has been nothing on this site that has proposed anything other than anti Zionism as a basis for American Jewish identity.
My point is that those who claim to act in the name of Judaism should be able to back it up with something other than who their mother was.
But again, you only claim that with respect to anti-Zionists. They are the only ones you are ranting about. I suspect there are just as many, if not more, self-identified Jews whose only connection to Judaism, if one could call it a connection, is defending Israel against criticism. You aren’t applying a consistent argument, you are just applying arbitrary criteria solely to those you disagree with.
Intermarriage is not a Jewish custom.
Maybe not, but it is a hugely significant part of Jewish reality, and not without precedents (see e.g. Ezra 10 – keeping in mind that the biblical account was written from a very specific perspective). Phil’s posts on his own intermarriage are far more representative of contemporary Jewish experience (yes, Jewish experience) than discussions of the correct time to recite the Shema or how much matza one must consume at the seder (venerable Jewish customs).
And so far there has been nothing on this site that has proposed anything other than anti Zionism as a basis for American Jewish identity.
Anti-Zionism is perfectly compatible with every aspect of American Jewish life and identity not contingent upon support for Israel: culture, history, ritual, ethics (Jewishly inspired and expressed), etc. Jewish anti-Zionism is not, in itself, a basis for Jewish identity, but stems from values, beliefs and experiences that are.
When I first read Marc Ellis, I was not particularly impressed, but someone here (I don’t remember who) suggested that I reread. I have managed to recuperate my copy of Out of the Ashes, and plan to give it a try. I’ll let you know if I come across anything interesting.
“And so far there has been nothing on this site that has proposed anything other than anti Zionism as a basis for American Jewish identity.”
As a start, I would propose that being an American is a sine qua non.
Being a Jew would, perhaps, also be part of it.
And I can’t see that anything else is required.
Shmuel- An emotional answer:
I get it, latkes, dreidel and antiZionism. Bagel and lox and anti Zionism. Babel and Kafka and antiZionism. Instead of reading the NYTimes and rooting for Israel, read the NYTimes and root against Israel.
One problem is that the Jewish antiZionists have all heard of Norman Finkelstein, but comparatively few have heard of Martin Buber.
(A note on Finkelstein. I paraphrase: My mother used to say, “There are so many ‘survivors’, just who did the Nazis kill?” This statement is disgusting and just because his mother was a survivor doesn’t mean that it deserves to be repeated.)
WJ,
You write: A specific criticism I have of this site is that it proposes to establish something other than Zionism as a basis for American Jewish identity. I don’t think that anti Zionism can be a basis for American Jewish identity.
Are you brain dead? Haven’t you been on this site for a couple of years? Don’t you check out links, ever? There have been links galore offered here that describe the decidedly anti-Zionist character of American Jewish identity in the United States for over 350 years before Israel was created.
But for your edification, here are some again:
NYT, Feb 8, 1919 Anti-Zionists Protest to President Wilson
California Representative Julius Kahn sends cable to Wilson informing him of the the petition.
link to is.gd
From
link to dissidentvoice.org
Further down in the same article:
Then there’s this:
The Long—and Largely Untold—History Of Jewish Opposition to Zionism
link to acjna.org
and
link to is.gd
That doesn’t make it a Jewish position.
You’re making the assinine assumption that Zionism is Judaism. In fact, one can quite easily be one without the other. Nor does one need to adhere to baseline practices to be either.
It doesn’t matter, the monority is sufficient to disprove your theory.
Yes I have Shahak and Finkelstein and neither has ever expressed any disdain for Judaism, but criticised those who have highjacked Judaism.
They wear those garments as an expression of their religious doctrine.
On the contrary. Ther has been a sharp rise is hysteria about it, but very little antisemitism.
There are also serious issues with neo Nazis and right wing extremists.
Any safety will do and there is no evidence that Jews are safer in Israel.
You can blame this as a reaction tothe Zionist propensity to label criticism of Israel as antisemitic, especially at the time. Especially in the aftermath of 911, criticism of Israel was still taboo and charges of anti Semitism carried grave consequences.
An emotional answer indeed, WJ. The depth of one’s Judaism is not a function of one’s Zionism or anti-Zionism. There are shallow and deep Jews on both sides. Your remark about Finkelstein vs. Buber is simply more of the same stereotyping. The fact is that a vast majority of Jews of all stripes wouldn’t know Buber from Adam (or Norman), and those that would are not necessarily Zionists.
(I don’t know the context of Finkelstein’s mother’s remark, but I do know the context in which Finkelstein used it (link to normanfinkelstein.com) – to condemn the inflation of numbers of survivors cited by claims committees. He stresses that he does so, not to imply that the Holocaust wasn’t that bad, but to say that it was so bad that very few Jews actually survived. So what’s disgusting here? The possibility that the numbers of survivors may have been inflated to get more money out of Swiss banks, or the fact that Finkelstein points it out?)
My son is a conspicuously Jewish resident of Paris now, and has not experienced any overt anti-semitism. I think he experienced more in the cultural divides between Crown Heights and neighboring Bedford Stuyvesant in Brooklyn.
My mother-in-law worries though (elderly holocaust survivor residing in London), where there have been anti-semitic incidents in her neighborhood.
wondering jew, could we have the direct quote from NF? Or at least the context. The paraphrasing is unfair.
I have to admit I have been wondering about more narrow and wider definitions of survivor myself. I could imagine that for someone that actually survived the camps this could be a legitimate question. No doubt cynical. But highly understandable considering what she went through.
(A note on Finkelstein. I paraphrase: My mother used to say, “There are so many ’survivors’, just who did the Nazis kill?” This statement is disgusting and just because his mother was a survivor doesn’t mean that it deserves to be repeated.)
Again. Wondering Jew, I once researched the fate of Jewish early childhood girlfriends of my mother and found out they actually survived. These families left early. It made sense in the context of the anti-Jewish legislation due the the profession of their fathers.
And yes, I do make a difference between these victims of Nazi legislation and the people caught in the accelerating web of Nazi persecution up to the camps, labor camps, extinction camps or the Eastern Jews hunted down by the SS Sondereinsatzgruppen. Surviving the latter for me are the more narrowly defined survivors.
The characterization that “Jews extort Swiss banks” (generalization inferred) is inherent in the “Holocaust Industry” thesis.
It is NOT presented as “a few Jews defrauded”, but much more general. That is the great sin of Finkelstein’s book (that and extreme polemic within a “scholarly” work).
And, the consequences of that “great sin” are that it gets adopted, assumed, applied. As much as he resents the political application of the holocaust for indirect purposes, I’ve experienced his book and comments used similarly, to advocate for holocaust revision and/or holocaust dismissal. (“Its not really that important an event in world history”, and more directly consequent “most Jews opportunistically exploit holocaust reparation”.)
And, although I give Norman much more credit as a soul on the planet than to intend that he advocated for holocaust dismissal, the carelessness of his tone contributed to it.
Video: Finkelstein at Yale, 10.20.2005
Transcript: Q&A Session
link to normanfinkelstein.com
Thanks Shmuel, here it is in context:
You ask Wisenthal (Wiesenthal), as he was asked in Austria, how many survivors of the slave labor camps, the ghettos and the concentration camps, how many do you think are still alive. He gave a figure I quote in the book of 15,000. Ah… so Henry Freelander (Friedlander), Raul Hilberg, they said, their estimate was that about 100,000 Jews survived the concentration camps, slave labor camps, and ghettos in May 1945. And that seemed perfectly credible because I, growing up, always believed, having read the scholarship on the topic, that what the historians said about it was true, namely, it was a systematic, methodical, assembly line, industrialized extermination of the Jews. Well if it was a systematic, methodical, assembly line, industrialized extermination of the Jews, where are all these survivors coming from? My late mother used to exclaim, “if everyone who claims to be a Holocaust survivor actually is one, who did Hitler kill?”
*********************************************************
I have never touched this book by Finkelstein, maybe for the wrong reason, over-advertisement of the book on the right.
But recently started to re-read my complete Raul Hilberg collection. I simply have to admit I love the man. And yes, he helped me a lot to understand.
Finkelstein makes a great argument. And you can add Edgar Bronfman to that list of thieves that got money from Switzerland in the 90s and he was supposed to hand it over to genuinely hurting survivors in Israel. Did they get it? No.
[Foundations, legally, only have to spend 10% of their dough on their foundation issue.]
>> My late mother used to exclaim, “if everyone who claims to be a Holocaust survivor actually is one, who did Hitler kill?” Everyone you meet claims he or she was a Holocaust survivor and what truly was happening was.. the numbers were being escalated, increased, year by year … If it’s only 15,000 who are alive, then your demands for money they have a finite.. they have a limit. So the numbers kept increasing and increasing and increasing… and they had no relationship to reality. And my point was — this, this is Holocaust denial.
Well said.
Hophmi,
What is the Jewish aspect of the anti-Zionist program? It doesn’t have one.
“contemporary Jewish experience (yes, Jewish experience)”
Definitely and unfortunately true. Contemporary Jewish experience for many Jews is marked by an abandonment of the religion. Of course, contemporary experience also posits that identification as part of a group must mean something other than birth into it. And I think it’s telling that many anti-Zionist contemporary Jews would reject the religion but cling to the oldest of ideas – namely, that bloodline is the starting point for their identity, and that bloodline is so strong, that it gives them the right to criticize the majority of the community not only as a intellectual matter, but as a Jew.
MRW- The owners of the NY Times did nothing during the European genocide to spread the word, but instead were focused on minimizing it (putting it on page 20 and not on page 1). Their opposition to Zionism seen in that context paints them as people who didn’t give a damn about their fellow co religionists, whether the means was front page coverage or anything else. Did they come out in favor of increased Jewish immigration to America in the 30′s? No. They didn’t give a damn about their fellow co religionists. Maybe their opposition to Zionism was principled, but seen in this context it was nothing but crass opportunism and assimilationism.
On the general topic, the question is not whether one can have a
Jewish identity without being a Zionist, the question is whether this web site promotes any alternate means of Jewish identity. The web links you cite promote the permissibility of a mode of action based upon precedence. They do not promote a means of identity.
Hophmi,
Virtually all Jews – Zionist, non-Zionist, anti-Zionist and don’t-give-a-damn-about-Zionism-ist – are Jewish by accident of birth. The content is provided later, by upbringing and consciousness (or unthinking acceptance). To turn that into some veneration of bloodlines is simply “flipping the omelette” (making something appear to be something it is not), as the Italian expression goes.
BTW, I happen to know some anti-Zionist Jews by choice.
thanks shmuel, clarifying
MRW- Lessing Rosenwald was a member of the America First Committee, who eventually resigned because of Charles Lindbergh’s anti Jewish statements. His opposition to Zionism may have been based upon principle, but seen in this context one would have needed a microscope or Geiger counter to determine his concern for his fellow Jews, it was not immediately apparent.
the question is whether this web site promotes any alternate means of Jewish identity.
The question of Jewish identity runs through this blog “like a scarlet thread”. I take it you are dissatisfied with the answers. To paraphrase Yeshayahu Leibowitz, asking oneself what it means to be a Jew is an important part of what it means to be a Jew. Leibowitz was a lot less unequivocal about the answers.
Shmuel,
You are not answering the question. Hophmi is asking what is content that is “poured” later. To simplify the question. If you don’t believe Jews are a nation and you don’t believe in the Jewish religion, what exactly is the “content” that makes you Jewish except the bloodline?
3e,
Actually I have answered the question, although I reject its premise that anti-Zionist Jews are somehow, a priori, less “Jewish” than Zionist Jews. Anti-Zionism does not imply rejection of Judaism as a religion any more than Zionism does, and there is no inherent contradiction between anti-Zionism and belief in Jewish peoplehood. Other elements of Jewish identity can be intellectual, cultural, social, familial, ethical, and just about any other -al you like. The entire question is based on a false dichotomy and gerrymandering of Jewishness to suit Zionist ideology.
could you define nation?
Shmuel,
Your claim that “Other elements of Jewish identity can be intellectual, cultural, social, familial, ethical, and just about any other -al you like” does not really stand when you look at specific cases. Why was Tony Judt Jewish? Was his family, ethics, culture, etc. etc. any different from that of other liberal atheists? Your statement is just a generalization that is not in fact applicable in practical cases.
what does it mean to you if someone says I am Jewish, eee; how important to you is the word of some authority
>> If you don’t believe Jews are a nation and you don’t believe in the Jewish religion, what exactly is the “content” that makes you Jewish except the bloodline?
Self-(self-)determination makes one whatever one wants to be. If I self-determine that I am Jewish, then I am, and no one – other than an anti-self-determination Jew-hater – can tell me otherwise. Oy! :-)
WJ
You wrote: Did they come out in favor of increased Jewish immigration to America in the 30’s? No. They didn’t give a damn about their fellow co religionists.
That’s actually not true. I can’t upload photos from The Transfer Agreement (images of the rallies), neither can I take the time to comb the NYT morgue for links, but there was enormous debate about this. WJ, Edwin Black in his Transfer book details the back-and-forthy going on within the Zionist groups on four continents that did not want Jewish refugees going to America. Or Canada. (Jesus, Canada was a wide open pancake. It had tons of room and no problem taking refugees.)
I can’t remember the name of the Zionist group that won out, but one of them got to FDR and begged him to resist letting them in. They knew everyone would have chosen America over a perceived dustbowl in the Mediterranean. The sophisticated wealthy German Jews wanted to go to NYC (historian Gabriel Kolko details this). This canard that the US/Canada turned people away because they were Jewish has got to stop. You need to get the facts. They’re in the bibliography of Black’s 1984 first edition. It was a dark secret that certain people wanted to cover up, they wanted to hide what the Zionists actually did.
Phil,
For all practical purposes, being Jewish means being part of Jewish community. If you are an atheist but go to a synagogue in the US, you are Jewish because you are being part of your community. In Israel you do not even need to go to the synagogue because the whole community is Jewish. It is not an authority that decides if you are Jewish, it is your involvement in Jewish community and organizations.
WJ,
Knowledge of Lessing Rosenwald and his concern for Jews is way above my pay grade, and way before I was born.
mrw 10:39, there are several accounts from this era that support what you have written including hecht’s book perfidy.
so eee for a long time i was alienated from jewish community because of israel stuff. i thought almost all jews were like marty peretz. anything goes! then after iraq war i began speaking out and i found there were lots of jews who weren’t ok with how jewish identity was forming itself around zionism and israeli militarism. so now i have this jewish community, which mingles freely with other communities, in which i feel very comfortable celebrating my sense of jewish values.
so, am i in or am i out? can i stamp H on my dogtag?
In Israel you do not even need to go to the synagogue because the whole community is Jewish.
actually 20% are not. furthermore there are communities in several areas of the US that have a high density jewish population. one doesn’t have to go to a synagogue in the US to be part of a jewish community. if you don’t think secular jews in the US have communities outside of the synagogue you’d be mistaken.
Oh? Is that what was told to the Ethiopian refugees, who were forced to “convert” before being granted entry to Israel?
“And it seemed to me that Judaism or Jewishness was merely a ticket they kept in their wallet and never used ever, ever, except on the rare occasion when a discussion of Zionism came up, so they could say, “I’m a Jew and an anti Zionist.””
Look, everyone knows one reason why someone who is anti-Zionist is going to flash their “Jewish ticket” in these situations–they do it to ward off the anti-semitism accusation. And to the extent that someone cites a Jewish critic of Zionism because they are Jewish it’s for the same reason.
Your statement is just a generalization that is not in fact applicable in practical cases.
My statement was general, because Jewish identity is subjective and individual, and cannot be fit into neat little boxes.
To quote Yehshayu Leibowitz more at length (from an article entitled “I Am not a Humanist”):
So Phil (or Tony Judt or Norman Finkelstein) doesn’t pass your Jewish test. Big deal.
Phil,
What is your sense of Jewish values? What does it mean more than being a liberal atheist? I would really like to understand. So far you told us what you are against, but what are you for?
Not only can’t you guys agree on what being jewish means, you don’t seem to be able to keep chanign your mind about it. A few weeks ago eee, you were insisting that the arbiter of whetehr someone was Jewish was your rabbi and that only religious Jews are Jews.
Being an atheist but going to a synagogue doesn’t manke you Jewish, it makes you a hypocrite.
So the Israeli Palestinians are automatically Jewish?
Which contradicts what you said about youtr rabbi alone deciding who is Jewish.
Shmuel: “My statement was general, because Jewish identity is subjective and individual, and cannot be fit into neat little boxes.”
I agree with you to a point. Jewish identity is partly subjective, but not completely so. In essence, I’m not really talking about the “who is a Jew” debate.
I’m talking about what is required for people of your own community to take you seriously. And what is required is a commitment to the group you purport to be a part of that a deeper than declaring it in a cynical way.
I think you’d be more inclined to understand if you stopped evaluating my argument based on my politics. My argument isn’t a political one. I would say the same to liberal Zionists, many of whom are just as lacking in real Jewish commitment. The price is that Israel is increasingly an Orthodox place with little room for anyone with a secular outlook of any kind. That’s not something I’m happy about. But the reason is that Orthodox people don’t need to stand up and be counted. Everyone knows that being Jewish is a more serious thing for them than it is for non-Orthodox Jews.
I can say that I am one of the few people I know in the Jewish community who has spent substantial time with people across the political spectrum, from anti-Zionist to far-right Zionist, from atheist to haredi to chasid. And I base my opinion on those experiences.
So as a baseline, when you say “Not in my name”, I’d suggest that there is something substantive behind that name other than an accident of birth.
Jewish identity is partly subjective, but not completely so.
Agreed, but the parameters of inclusion are by no means clear (witness this discussion), and so are pretty subjective as well.
I’m not really talking about the “who is a Jew” debate.
Maybe not the “who is a Jew” debate, but certainly a “who is a Jew” debate. What you are saying, in essence, is that the Jewishness of Jews who support the predominant Jewish position on Israel is not relevant, while those who dissent – as Jews – had better get out their Jew creds. It reminds me of the idea that support for war is always patriotic, but those who oppose war must prove their loyalty to the collective.
If it’s about being taken seriously within the collective, there will always be someone who doesn’t like your “deviant” views, questioning your right to have and express them. Speaking for myself, I may meet your criteria for “enough Judaism” to take part in the Zionism debate as a Jew, but I will be (and have been) dismissed by many others as an outsider and even a self-hater (if only by the circular logic that an anti-Zionist must be estranged from his people).
Your sweeping generalisation about anti-Zionist Jews (your personal experience notwithstanding) is certainly inaccurate. So do we go case by case to see who is “Jew enough” to espouse anti-Zionist views as a Jew? There may be some extreme cases in which it is glaringly inappropriate for someone to take such a position, but do you really want to do the McCarthyist thing to separate the menschen from the yingelach? Better to take people at their word and respect their self-definition and connection to Judaism and to what is done by Israel in the name of all Jews.
Great reply, Shmuel, but I particularly liked your cast of thought in this, because you nailed it: What you are saying, in essence, is that the Jewishness of Jews who support the predominant Jewish position on Israel is not relevant, while those who dissent – as Jews – had better get out their Jew creds. It reminds me of the idea that support for war is always patriotic, but those who oppose war must prove their loyalty to the collective.
His opposition to Zionism may have been based upon principle, but seen in this context one would have needed a microscope or Geiger counter to determine his concern for his fellow Jews, it was not immediately apparent.
Sorry, WJ, but you are speaking from ignorance. Rosenwald was instrumental in opening up the US to Jewish (and other) refugees after WWII. US Zionists, like Stephen Wise, at the time were working against this, until after the creation of Israel in 1948, when they dropped their opposition, but still did nothing to facilitate bringing refugees to the US.
In 1943, Rosenwald accepted the invitation to become President of the American Council for Judaism, an association of anti-Zionist Reform Jews, a position he held until 1955; after that he remained Chairman of the Board. During this time, Rosenwald was also active in rescue efforts of European Jews, and urged the United States to admit large numbers of refugees, both Jew and Gentile.
link to en.wikipedia.org
Sorry for the Wiki cite, but its the first one I came across. I’ve read about Rosenwald. He was a hero. Its a shame more people don’t know his name and what he did.
WJ, you might want to read this:
Jews Against Zionism: The ACJ 1942-1948
which covers some of Rosenwald’s work helping refugees.
Even the Wiesenthal Center mentions Lessing Rosenwald, in a review of a book by Leonard Dinnerstein :
While American Zionists continued to press for admission of the Jewish DPs to Palestine, two non-Zionist organizations, the American Jewish Committee and the American Council for Judaism, prepared a campaign to persuade Congress to allow 100,000 Jewish DPs to come to the United States. Late in 1946 the Citizens Committee on Displaced Persons was formed to spearhead the movement. Jews stayed in the background of this organization as much as possible; prestigious Protestants held most of the official posts. But it was Jewish work (mainly by the American Jewish Committee) and Jewish funds (raised largely by Lessing Rosenwald of the American Council for Judaism) that made the committee an extremely effective educational and lobbying force, on both the national and local levels. To broaden its support, the CCDP soon called for help for all DPs, asking for admission of 400,000 over a four-year period. It anticipated that twenty or twenty-five percent of that number would be Jews. This step eventually brought endorsement of the CCDP’s program by over one hundred labor, veterans, Christian church, social work, and civic organizations in the United States.
For eighteen months, the strong anti-immigration sentiment that prevailed in Congress and in the nation withstood the gradually increasing public support for DP entry. Probably the most important contributing factor in the restrictionism was the high level of antisemitism then prevalent in American society; Americans generally believed that most DPs were Jews.
As Congress looked more closely at DP conditions in Europe, and as more and more non-Jews became concerned about the problem, the resistance in Congress slowly weakened. In June 1948, the Displaced Persons Act was passed, allowing for the admission of 200,000 DPs over a two-year period. But the Jewish lobby that had paved the way for the breakthrough was chagrined at the result. Legislators who were anxious to keep Jewish immigration to a minimum managed to frame the law in a way that indirectly but very effectively discriminated against Jews. The act set aside thirty percent of the openings for farmers. (This was done with full knowledge that few Jewish DPs could qualify as farmers.) It allotted forty percent of the places to DPs from the Baltic area, almost all of whom were Christians fleeing Communism. (Many of them had been pro-Nazi during the war.) And it limited the program to those who had reached the DP camps by December 1945, thus excluding a second sizable wave of Jewish survivors who had fled from Eastern Europe in 1946 and afterward.
In spite of its rank discrimination against Jews, the DP Act of 1948 turned out to be a major gain for Jewish as well as non-Jewish displaced persons. The reason was that President Truman packed the Displaced Persons Commission, which was established by the law to administer the Act, with pro- immigration people. Their goal was to get as many DPs as they could out of Europe, both Jews and nonJews, and to do so they circumvented the discriminatory intent of the law whenever necessary. As Dinnerstein phrases it, “The accomplishments of this agency showed how a government bureaucracy could undermine the thrust of congressional legislation.” (He does not, however, go into the ramifications of this tactic for representative government.)
By 1949, the Displaced Persons Commission and the Citizens Committee on Displaced Persons were pressing for new legislation, to increase the numbers allowed in and to remove the anti-Jewish aspects of the 1948 act. Public opinion and congressional sentiment were moving in that direction too. Despite a long drawn out fight against it by Senator Pat McCarran, a Nevada Democrat and the powerful chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, the DP Act of 1950 became law in the middle of that year. It authorized the entry of more than 200,000 additional DPs. And it eliminated the discriminatory restrictions contained in the 1948 act. But McCarran did manage to delay passage of the law for a year, and in the interval, many of the Jewish DPs who were still in Europe chose to move to Israel, an option that had become available with the creation of the Jewish state in 1948.
link to motlc.wiesenthal.com
In the end, only 40 percent of the DPs went to Israel. the rest went elsewhere, including the US. If the US Zionist Jews had joined in the push to bring more refugees here, instead of pushing them to Palestine, then both the refugees and the Palestinians would have been much better off today.
Finkelstein’s point that upping the number of survivors of labor camps is a form of Holocaust denial is nonsense. There were 11 million Jews in Europe before the war, 6 million were killed (approximations) that means that in theory 5 million Jews can claim to be survivors of the labor camps before there really is Holocaust denial involved in upping the numbers.
I think accuracy in financial claims and historical accounting is essential. I think rhetoric of Finkelstein’s sort is reckless.
Is that why your country is still demanding billions MORE in euros from Germany, even to this day?
from Zionism.
Zionism’s a dirty word. Although sounding like a
desperate plea, this event will attempt to resurrect
the term and re-brand it. Check their website:
link to takebackzionism.org
After the conference they will rename the term Zionism
to some other nouveau term. This will provide them with
more time to colonize. Just like J-Street’s supposed efforts, it’s another decorative strut against the collapsing foundation of Zionism.
Israel’s existence and community make me proud to be Jewish. Humanely stated dissent also makes me proud to be Jewish.
Have you read or heard Bronfman in the last 4-5 years? He criticizes many of the things that you do.
Pick your head up from the self-talk. Your tone convinces more to remain Zionists, than it does encourage reasoned convictions to oppose Zionism and/or Israel’s policies and practices.
Also, Elie Wiesel is NOWHERE near an “ultra-hawk”.
“Elie Wiesel is NOWHERE near an “ultra-hawk”.
He lied about the Nakba and he supported the Iraq War, so he’s somewhere near an ultra-hawk. Claims he hates war, but denies war crimes and supports unjust wars.
link
So just how proud are you of the Nakba, pray tell?
WAHHH! Another Zionism event! Elie Wiesel is a bad guy!
Jealousy is always unbecoming. Make your own event. Fund your own trip.
Jealousy?
wow, you’re out to lunch. I worry about you man.
WAHHH! Another anti-Zionist post! Phil Weiss a bad guy!
Jealousy is always unbecoming. Especially when it manifests it self as projection, hophmi. Make your own website . Fund your own blog. Consult with an orthopedist about that knee of yours.
Absolutely, hophmi. And while we are at it, Americans need to tell Israel to fund its own trip too.
hophmi, why would we want to organize a pathetic attempt at assuring ourselves (not others) that our supremacist, colonial ideology (we have none) is sensible?
its desperate, which is saying something given the balance of power
im wondering why in your mind, you’d characterize this article as ‘waaaahhh’ as if we’d want to ‘take back anti-Zionism’
anti-Zionism is self-explanatory. it needs no excess, PR, posh fundraisers, etc.
oh and “Elie Wiesal is a bad guy!” is a childish oversimplification, but you knew that
if they really want to take back zionism they could start by reinventing it sans the ethnic cleansing going into the future. fat chance of that.
not take back zionism
give up on zionism
with its latter day colonial venture that never should have been
There have been studies of the motivations and thought process of the Righteous Gentiles the Jews and many Gentiles admire and celebrate–and rightfully so. Many of those commenting here constantly display their own thought processes and values on the various issues that come up. For example those who think and feel more like Phil, and those who think and feel more like Richard Witty. See if any blog regulars come to mind as you digest this little piece analyzing the characteristics of those who made a positive difference in the world when it was very risky to do so: link to southerninstitute.info
Can’t think of anyone, and wouldn’t be so presumptuous as to assume what any individual would do in such a situation.
Which situation is that, hophmi?
A Holocaust situation.
Oh, you mean a Nakba situation, or the “diet” the Israelis have the Palestinian children on so many years now, and the 2-dead adults a day
deal they get from the Israelis. Naw, can’t presume what any individual is doing about that, can we?
So predictable.
No, I mean a Holocaust situation, where hundreds are dying from starvation every day or being shot to death into mass graves in forests or being shipped off to concentration camps to be gassed to death and cremated. That situation. Not a situation where there is a civil war and people allied to those who have threatened to throw you in the sea are being pushed out of town, as is common in internecine conflict.
At any rate, as you all frequently point out, there are Israelis protesting alongside Palestinians throughout Israel and the territories. There are schools where Israelis and Palestinian learn together.
Israelis and Palestinians interacted with one another regularly until the suicide bombing started. This is not a Holocaust situation, and the comparison is, as usual, completely inappropriate. You seem to be obsessed with Holocaust comparisons.
You mean like how an imprisoned population confined by military force of arms, starving, not even allowed sufficient basic needs (food, clean water, adequate shelter) put up a valiant resistance that was then met with the full military might of the occupying power?
Oh wait, are we talking about Gaza or Warsaw?
Oh yes, the Warsaw Ghetto all over again.
link to youtube.com
Yep, the Nazis set the bar; as long as Israel doesn’t go over it, that’s just fine.
is nothing beneath you. you’re mocking people living in a war zone.
“is nothing beneath you. you’re mocking people living in a war zone.”
Is nothing beneath you? Chaos is comparing a situation where hundreds, even thousands, were dying every day in a situation where they bore no responsiblity whatsoever to a situation where people elected a government who supports terrorism, are not starving to death, and who did not put up a valiant resistance, but decided to fire rockets into civilian areas.
Israelis and Palestinians interacted with one another regularly until the suicide bombing started.
And white and blacks interacted regularly in the US until the riots started. Those darkies were so happy working as maids and shoeshine men. They were always singing and laughing.
What a fantasy world you live in. The Palestinians in the occupied territories lived under a belligerent occupation for over thirty years before the suicide bombing started. They were imprisoned without charge, beaten for waving Palestinian flags, restricted from creating any economy that was not dependent on Israel, had their land stolen with no recourse, had their homes demolished for no legitimate reason, had a mostly non-violent uprising in 1987 that was quashed by extreme violence on the part of Israel, suffered multiple terrorist acts by Jewish extremists, including the bombing of its mayors, an attack on innocent college students, and innocent Palestinian dayworkers, and of course Barauch Goldstein’s attack in Hebron, and, prior to and during Oslo had Israel create the pass and closure system that strangled their livelihoods. But everything was just wonderful before the suicide bombings started. Of course, the suicide bombings started months after Israel militarily invaded all the major towns in the occupied territories and killed hundreds of Palestinians, most of whom were innocent civilians. But those Palestinian darkies were doing just fine until those bad terrorists started up for no reason.
Really, hophmi. You are more informed than that. I’d expect that kind of talk from someone who is ignorant of the situation. You’ve got no such excuse.
“And white and blacks interacted regularly in the US until the riots started. Those darkies were so happy working as maids and shoeshine men. They were always singing and laughing. ”
Again tree, you’re making another argument than the one I’m responding to, which is a comparison of the I-P conflict and the Holocaust.
“you’re making another argument than the one I’m responding to, which is a comparison of the I-P conflict and the Holocaust.”
The problem is that you started out with a legitimate point–what the Nazis did to the Jews in Warsaw was on a much larger scale than what Israel has done to the Palestinians in Gaza. But not satisfied with making a legitimate point, you then had to go on and pretend that the Palestinians brought their suffering on themselves.
It’s the same thing Hophmi. One could have argued that Jews and Germans interacted with one another regularly until the Jews declared war on Germany.
“But not satisfied with making a legitimate point, you then had to go on and pretend that the Palestinians brought their suffering on themselves.”
I’m not pretending that all Palestinian suffering is self-inflicted. But neither are the Palestinians blameless.
Recycling. Sometimes inappropriate.
“One could have argued that Jews and Germans interacted with one another regularly until the Jews declared war on Germany.”
No, one could not argue that.
No, one could not argue that.
Of course one could. You’d be wrong and offensive if you did, but being wrong and offensive has never stopped Zionists from making similar mean and ignorant statements.
But not satisfied with making a legitimate point, you then had to go on and pretend that the Palestinians brought their suffering on themselves.
Not only that, Donald, but he felt compelled to insist that a people under a violent and demeaning occupation for nearly thirty years were on a par with their occupiers, and to imply there was no suffering by the Palestinians at the hands of the Israelis until the suicide bombings. My comparison of hophmi’s statement to similarly ignorant bigoted statements about how happy the blacks were under segregation stands.
the Blacks weren’t under occupation or blowing themselves up though tree.
Neither were the Palestnians under occupation or blowing themselves up though Yonira. The occupation pre dated the first suicide attacks by decades.
“[Jerusalem] belongs to the Jewish people and is much more than a city, it is what binds one Jew to another,” Wiesel continued, adding, “And, contrary to certain media reports, Jews, Christians and Muslims ARE allowed to build their homes anywhere in the city.”
Let’s contrast a contemporary news report to Wiesel’s steaming load of horse manure:
link to sfgate.com
Yes, Mr. Masri — that’s exactly what they’re saying. And it’s final:
link to noir.bloomberg.com
So, not only are Palestinians not free to build in West Jerusalem, they can’t even buy out Jewish projects in east Jerusalem. Cries of Treason! go up when they try [which Bloomberg has tactfully omitted from Update1 of its article -- bad PR].
To avoid diplomatic embarrassment, South Africa used to designate visiting coloured foreigners as ‘honorary Europeans’ so they could avail themselves of whites-only facilities.
In the case of Mr. Masri, Israel is nakedly discriminating against a US citizen on the basis of his ethnic heritage — no ‘honorary Jewish’ status for this visiting foreigner!
One can only conclude that Israel’s hardball, uncompromising brand of apartheid exceeds South Africa’s former system in its obduracy. But this should be no surprise, from a pariah nation which has already demonstrated its willingness to shoot and kill international demonstrators.
Well, actually, it seems that Mr. Masri was outbid. That’s what happens in business.
Not really, hophmi. His bid was accepted. The racists broke the contract.
In the US, where the ways of racists are familiar to the law, if a seller made an agreement to sell to a black buyer and then backed out as happened here, the seller and the sellers agents would be fined heavily and the original agreement enforced. In fact, they’d be fined if a prospective buyer could show that a reasonable offer was turned down for racist reasons.
I find it quite sad that a prosecuting lawyer such as hophmi seems able to excuse so much illegality when it is done in Israel. The blinders are so tight and the knee jerks so strongly that he excuses things he would never excuse in the US.
Jewish American zionists, in influential places, are “able to excuse so much illegality when it is done [for the benefit of] Israel” –and American empire.
Michael Mandelbaum is professor of foreign affairs at Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, in Washington, DC. Many of America’s future foreign policy practioners are trained at SAIS.
link to c-spanvideo.org
Listen to Mandelbaum squirm as Jacqueline Grapin pins him down on the illegality of the US-led war on Iraq: (at 37.50):
The legal term for what Israel Zeira did is ‘tortious interference’:
link to en.wikipedia.org
Of course, such offenses may not be actionable under an apartheid legal system, where ethnic identity trumps equality under the law.
Legally, Israel is a troglodytic throwback to the 19th century United States of Plessy v. Ferguson.
link to en.wikipedia.org
Wow, he had Dov Weissglas as his lawyer and still didn’t win!
I missed this when it came out but heard about it yesterday( on another thread here?). Anyone who hasn’t read it already should read it.
link to en.justjlm.org
Heaven remains heaven–there’s no dirt in Jerusalem, nor any in Israel.
that is beautiful.
What makes a hawk an ultra hawk?
In Israel it is somewhat clear. Moderate hawks make wars and mayhem, ultra hawks prefer to criticize the moderates for coddling the enemies, because they always find the “moderate mayhem” insufficient. In Diaspora? I do not know what a proper shiboleth is.
By the way, Witty, can you either give a link or useful search word to find critiques made by Charles Bronfman? I could not find any using “Charles Bronfman criticised” or “Charles Bronfman”.
Elie Wiesel is no ultra-hawk. That is a crasse revision.
I was thinking of Edgar Bronfman, not Charles Bronfman.
“Crass revision?” Like denying what took place on November 4th, 2008?
“Like denying what took place on November 4th, 2008?”
No one denies what happened on November 4, 2008. We disagree on what happened before November 4, 2008. We say Hamas was trying to kidnap another soldier. You say it was an unprovoked attack.
We say Hamas was trying to kidnap another soldier
no, you allege hamas was going to be trying to kidnap another soldier. has israel waited until hamas tried it would have been hamas breaking the ceasefire. big dif. pre emptive actions are just that.
Again Annie, please read the argument I am responding to before you respond. Chaos accused me of “denying the events of November 4, 2008.” I responded that we do not disagree about the events, but about the causes and the events before November 4, 2008.
I’d rather not get into pointless semantic arguments with you. It’s a waste of both our times.
To say nothing of the fact that Israel slaughtered six people by air craft for the “crime” of digging a tunnel.
And no one’s really explained to me how those victims were digging a miles long tunnel to Israel while standing on the surface.
I wrote that for a diaspora Jew it is hard to tell “ultra hawk” because the shiboleth of ultra hawks is to criticise, sometimes very scathingly, the mere hawk.
However, in the lyrical version Jerusalem that Wiesel produced there are falsehoods and omissions that make it rather ugly. And the central idea is this one: should Jerusalem be divided back to 1967 status or something arguably similar, to “generously” end the conflict, or should the city be marred by repression and discrimination forever (as a hawk would wish) or “purified” by some horror to come (an ueber-hawk position)?
Wiesel’s “above politics” basically means “I do not care if the policy decisions are made by hawks or ueber-hawks. Perhaps the apartheid is better and perhaps a holocaust, it is not for me to choose”.
“Wiesel’s “above politics” basically means “I do not care if the policy decisions are made by hawks or ueber-hawks. Perhaps the apartheid is better and perhaps a holocaust, it is not for me to choose”.”
Well, I think what he’s saying is that Jerusalem is an emotional issue for him rather than a political issue. I think a Palestinian might say the same thing.
I have no doubt that if a peace agreement is on the table that includes dividing Jerusalem, Elie Wiesel would support it.
RE: “If I don’t get to hold Baby Israel and hug his Haitian mother, I’m going to be very upset.” – K. Feldman
MY COMMENT: You and me both! I’m so mad at NBC’s Dr. Nancy Snyderman for not giving us any updates on “Baby Israel™”. What with the cholera outbreak and all!
I also have a question I would like to ask them having to do with the IDF’s field hospital that was up for a couple of weeks in Haiti after the earthquake.
I have read that the reason there were so many deaths as a consequence of the earthquake in Haiti was because there was so much unreinforced concrete construction — in other words, concrete without steel reinforcement (a/k/a “rebar”, short for reinforcing bar). The reason given for this was that steel rebar was not locally available in Haiti after it’s only steel mill closed a couple of decades ago. And unfortunately, imported steel rebar was too expensive for most construction.
What I want to ask them is how the IDF field hospital in Haiti just happened to be located on what Dr. Snyderman referred to as the site of an “abandoned steel factory”. Was it just an incredible coincidence? “Enquiring Minds Want to Know”
HINT: Does Gilbert Bigio make Israel look good? – link to warincontext.org
NBC News: Israeli Army in Haiti Created “The Best Field Medicine Available” (VIDEO, 02:42) ~ link to frgdr.com
“Zionism is humanitarianism”?
By Allah, if George Orwell were alive today, he would be rolling over in his grave!
I wonder, if Zionism were taken back from the Xtian fundies, how bereft would those chaps be? I mean, to who would creatures like Hagee look for approval and succor which is not coming from the rest of mainstream gentile society?
Zionism is humanitarianism = War is Peace = Up is Down
lol
“Zionism is humanitarianism”?
It certainly is. It is a movement for the benefit of Real Human Beings.
Not quite so beneficial for the subhumans, of course, but you can’t have everything.
>> It is a movement for the benefit of Real Human Beings.
Not for “Real Human Beings”, but for the “Chosen People”, who are superior to us reg’lar folk in every way. Hell, they even suffer better than we do. And, apparently, when they commit ethnic cleansing (“currently not necessary”), it’s actually moral!
They are the Real Human Beings. They matter.
The rest of us are just talking animals. We don’t.
“when they commit ethnic cleansing (“currently not necessary”), it’s actually moral!”
Which is why they are still doing it, even though it isn’t necessary right now.
What a lineup at this party.
Featuring Chabad’s very own, Rabbi Shmuely Boteach.
Can he please bring Rick Sanchez along to let us know what
he has learned about Zionism.
Sad to see Cory Booker is showing up. A lot of potential in him.
To bad his is hanging with this crew of downers. D:
Who the heck comes up with the NAMES of these so called ‘moral’ organizations?
Aaaw what difference does it make: they could call this newfangled and desperate organization ‘Pretty Good Love Of God’ and its members and leaders would STILL be a buncha despicable racists and bigots, STILL be aiders and abettors of War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity.
How absurd (yet not surprisingly desperate!) that Wiesenthal & Co would be promoting and heading such an organization. How disgraceful that old men like Mr. Wiesenthal would still hold so much hateful prejudice in their sunset years against Palestinians: them people who never did nothing to Mr. Wiesenthal or his progeny.
Mr. Wiesenthal is dead, and despite the name, was not really associated with the work of the Simon Wiesenthal Center other than lending his name to it.
they are in love with themselves
collectively, these kinds of Zionists (the ultra-rich, settler-funding, pathologically narcissistic kind) remind me of Eric Cartman from Southpark
or Eric Cantor -the house minority whip…
In the UK, a pro-Palestinian organization has got hold of the web address ‘shoah.org.uk.’ This infuriates zionists, who regard it as a trademark violation. Meanwhile, shoah.org is posting some pretty hard-hitting material:
————
In the military courtroom itself Palestinians are neither shot nor beaten. They are not ‘targeted for elimination’ nor even sentenced to death. At least not in the courtroom. But the military court is also the place where all illusions die. And hopes. Because that is where Palestinians learn that injury caused them, is no error, nor misunderstanding, but a matter of policy.
The military court is the end of ends. The last judgment. The final accusation, a-priori, of Palestinians only because they are Palestinians. And courtroom number 2, where children are put on trial, is the place beyond that end. The place where all the words end.
Courtroom number 2. The children’s court. Every Monday. On the podium, judge Sharon Rivlin Ahai. From 9 a.m. until close to 6 p.m. Boy follows boy. A boy and then another child. Wearing brown prison garb. Chained feet. Shackled hands, one hand shackled to that of another boy. Some of them are so small that their feet wave in the air when they are seated on the bench. Some of them are so small that our eyes look away. Most of them are accused of throwing stones. Molotov cocktails. Most of them are not released on bail, have not been interrogated in the presence of an adult – parent or social worker. Most of them were picked up in the dead of night. All these are violations of the international law in defense of children, even those under occupation. Most of them were arrested following denunciation, mostly by some other child, who – like them – was taken in the dead of night because someone else gave in his name. And most of them confessed, if not immediately then later on, of anything they were told to admit.
It is hard to say what it is about this terrible place that is worse than others. Which darkness is darker, more painful. Is it the mothers and their broken hearts? Or the helplessness of the father whose child is abandoned, and he has not the power to protect him. Is it the horror of the little ones, the feeling that this is a sold game in which no one cares for the truth, be it as it may, because this system does not enable one to find out the truth. That this is not really a court, but only another tool of occupation. Where Palestinians are guilty unless proven otherwise. Even if proven otherwise. Guilty because they are Palestinians.
[by] Aya Kaniuk and Tamar Goldschmidt. Translated by Tal Haran.
link to shoah.org.uk
Here is another testimony of what the “courts” are really there for in regard to the Palestinians –
“I was born in 1967, and in my mind as a child growing up, an Israeli is someone who shoots at me, questions me in prison, beats me up, or someone I see assaulting women. I’ve been jailed over 10 times in the space of four years, mostly for questioning or administrative reasons.
My sister was killed after she was assaulted by a translator in an Israeli military court. Right in front of the eyes of the Israeli justice system, the soldiers translating proceedings beat her until she fell off her chair, hit her head on the ground and died.”
WE NEED TO NATIONALIZE THE RESISTANCE
Eli Wiesel has long been viewed with contempt by almost every segment of Israeli society, albeit for different reasons. For the right and ultraright it is because Wiesel, following the war, wrote for the Betar newspaper, Betar being the youth, Hitler style, of the fascist movement initiated by Jabotinsky which before the war supported both Hitler and Mussolini, emulating them to the point of wearing brown shirts.
Maxime Rodinson described how his followers, Zionist Revisionists, as they were called, would march in the streets of the shtetl in Poland, shouting “Hitler for Germany!, Mussolini for Italy and Palestine for us!” and in the 30s the Herut Party which is what the Revisionists came to be called underwent training with Mussolini’s navy. That’s the group that our “humanist”Wiesel elected to join.
But, at a certain point, rather than take his place as a citizen of Israel, Wiesel came up with what proved to be a brilliant as well as profitable idea. He would go to the US and declare himself a stateless person and become the living embodiment of the Jewish holocaust–the only one, after all, that counted, and guilt trip the suckers here out of their tears and their dollars.
This did not sit well with his former comrades in Israel, nor with what there was of a Left which wrote very funny satires about him, predicting his Nobel prize well in advance, articles that Israel Shahak translated and which I, stupidly lent without copying to a Jewish activist in Berkeley who, supposedly was organizing a protest against Wiesel, but who turned out to be a Zionist agent which I discovered long after he told me he had accidentally lost the articles.
If one is known by the company he or she keeps, it should be pointed out that he and Kissinger are the best of friends.
To my knowledge, the only people whose lives he has defended aside from his fellow Jews, are those from Darfur, being a willing tool of the Jewish-led Save Darfur Coalition whose main purpose is to exacerbate divisions between Muslim Arabs and black Christians in Africa and in Darfur, to mislabel as genocide what are the results of a ugly and brutal civil war.
Another deeply personal resentment.
I like that he urges compassion. If he adds up the weight of who deserves more compassion, or sufficient compassion, in the determination of policies than I or you, so be it.
You can argue against his conclusions without trashing the man, hypocrisies and all. (“Let him who is guiltless cast the first stone”, even if one’s political assessments nail it – which I don’t think yours do.)
But he doesn’t. He urges that Obama sit back allow the ethnic cleansing of Jerusalem to continue unabated because the name Jerusalem appears nowhere in the Koran.
Jeffrey Blankfort and Richard Witty,
Witty, you dare to accuse Blankfort of “Another deeply personal resentment?”
I know things about Elie Wiesel that you will never know, and I have proof. Jeffrey only touches on the truth of him here, and I can tell you Jeffrey is being generous in his writing of him. When Wiesel is dead, I am going to come out with what I know. The only reason I am not doing it now is because of his family, who dine out on Wiesel’s fame to keep body and soul together. The depth of Wiesel’s deception is inexorable and shameful. [And what Wiesel is doing now is trying to recoup the dough he lost with Madoff. He'd say anything.] I have even made arrangements in my Will and by other means, should I get hit by lightning tomorrow, to have this truth come out.
“The only reason I am not doing it now is because of his family, who dine out on Wiesel’s fame to keep body and soul together.”
Give us all a giant break. You sound like the guy who posts flyers in Foley Square claiming he has proof that 9/11 was a CIA conspiracy. What allegiance do you have to Elie Wiesel’s family? Don’t make accusations like this unless you can back them up.
Ad hominem, heal thyself.
“Ad hominem, heal thyself.”
Please. It’s not ad honimem to point out the problem with arguing that you have dirt but that you’re not going to tell us what it is. MRW effectively says: “I have dirt on Elie Wiesel and I’m just holding onto it until he dies out of respect for his family. I really have it, I do. Just wait till he dies. Because, you see, it’s much more courageous and respectful of me to start defaming him AFTER he’s dead so there’s no chance he can actually defend himself.”
As I said, give us all a giant break. This doesn’t pass the smell test. People who have proof present it. People who have conspiracy theories claim they have proof and then don’t present it.
“The only reason I am not doing it now is because of his family, who dine out on Wiesel’s fame to keep body and soul together. ”
What does this even mean? That you’re holding back to protect the right of Wiesel’s family to profit off his image? C’mon. What allegiance do you have to them?
Present thy proof.
where do you get ‘conspiracy theory’ out of this. why are you associating it with 9/11? yes, this is an ad hominem.
Ok Annie, whatever.
If I said I had dirt on Ali Abunimah/Mahmoud Abbas/place prominent visible Palestinian here that no one else knew, that I was holding onto it out of respect for his family, because his family depends on his image (as if I was some important big shot who could actually have a meaningful impact on Wiesel’s image), but that I would release it once Wiesel was dead, what would your reaction be?
And Annie, you really need to learn to read and get off your high horse. I was not associating MRW’s claim with 9/11. I was comparing it to a guy in New York who puts up posters all over the place claiming 9/11 was a CIA conspiracy and that he has proof that it was (which, of course, he doesn’t include on his flyer).
That is not ad hominem. It is attack on the credibility of someone who claims he has a smoking gun that someone is deceitful and deceptive, and then not presenting his proof. If this were a debate on whether Elie Wiesel was deceptive, and MRW got up and said “Elie Wiesel is deceptive and I’m not presenting the proof I have” I would be within my rights to argue that such a claim lacks credibility and compare it to the example of the 9/11 CIA-conspiracy guy.
I have to agree with homphi, but then again who is MRW?
He’s not promoting a blog or trying to bring people to his site.
curious, indeed.
It is attack on the credibility of someone . got it. attacking the credibility of someone by comparing them to putting up posters all over the place claiming 9/11 was a CIA conspiracy is a form of ad hominem.
mrw makes a claim but not disclosing the proof, a person claiming the cia caused 9/11 is not producing proof, people claim they saw flying saucers offer no proof, people claim a martian came into their bed last night but offer no proof….. therefor mrw is like a conspiracy theorist who sees martians too?
you’re just desperate. what mrw said could be true and it could not but we do not even know the nature of this information so how can we assume it involves a conspiracy theory? as for what my reaction would be if the same was said about ali abunimah or phil weiss or anybody i would say frankly it has little bearing on this discussion because how can we judge something sans any evidence? if mrw was running all over the internet posting this repeatedly on every site everyday i might compare that to making posters and plastering them thruout the neighborhood. i’m over discussing it w/you. it’s silly.
I was not comparing a source to one who holds similar views. I was comparing the argument of a source to one who makes similar arguments, mainly the presentation of a bombshell claim along with the claim that proof resides only within that source, and the refusal of that source to reveal the proof. This is the nuance you’re missing. It is nothing personal against MRW. It is against his form of argument. Got it now?
“mrw makes a claim but not disclosing the proof, a person claiming the cia caused 9/11 is not producing proof, people claim they saw flying saucers offer no proof, people claim a martian came into their bed last night but offer no proof….. therefor mrw is like a conspiracy theorist who sees martians too? ”
Nope. MRW makes a claim without disclosing proof. Jeff Ross (the CIA caused 9/11 guy) makes a claim without presenting proof. Arguments that are based on a claim without accompanying proof are not credible. Therefore, MRW’s claim is not credible just as Jeff Ross’s is not credible.
“you’re just desperate. what mrw said could be true and it could not but we do not even know the nature of this information so how can we assume it involves a conspiracy theory?”
In my experience (and I think in the experience of most people here and elsewhere), when one says “I’ve got dirt but I’m not telling you what it is” our instinct is to question the credibility of said dirt.
“if mrw was running all over the internet posting this repeatedly on every site everyday i might compare that to making posters and plastering them thruout the neighborhood. ”
I really don’t think you’re getting my point. It doesn’t have anything to do with the form of the dissemination of the argument. It has to do with the argument itself.
>> what mrw said could be true and it could not but we do not even know the nature of this information so how can we assume it involves a conspiracy theory?
hophmi’s point appears to be that, without proof, MRW’s claim of possessing information damning to Wiesel is of no more tangible value than a similar claim of “possession without proof” made by a conspiracy theorist. I have to agree.
In my opinion, Wiesel is a weasel, and I’m curious to see MRW’s damning information…but until he makes it available, I can only assume that it doesn’t actually exist.
(Note: This post was not intended as an attack on MRW’s credibility in general, just an expression of doubt relating to this one particular matter.)
bombshell? whatever. my idea of a bombshell is claiming all these armies invaded israel when in fact they didn’t. as talknic recently reminds us:
The Arab states invaded PALESTINE, after Israel had been declared Independent of Palestine. They attempted to expel Jewish forces already in Palestine, before Israel was declared.
mrw’s was one post in a thread w/almost 100. i think you are making a mountain out of a molehill. g’bye
hophmi
January 12, 2011 at 10:15 am
(1) Read the archives if you’re that interested. I discussed this over two years ago.
January 12, 2011 at 11:48 am
(2) Your analogy with outing Palestinians does not equal my situation.
(3) I’m protecting friends, not foes.
Isaac Asimov on Elie Wiesel:
I publicly expressed my view on this only once, and in delicate circumstances. It was in May 1977. I was invited to a round-table discussion whose participants included Elie Wiesel, who survived the Holocaust and hasn’t spoken about anything else since. That day, he irritated me by claiming that you couldn’t trust academics, or technicians, because they had helped make possible the Holocaust. What a sweeping generalization that is! And precisely the kind of remark that antisemites might make: “I don’t trust Jews, because once, Jews crucified my Savior”.
I let the others argue for a moment while I brooded over my resentment; then, unable to contain myself any longer, I spoke up: “Mr. Wiesel, you’re wrong; the fact that a group of people has suffered appalling persecution does not mean it is inherently good and innocent. All that the persecution proves is that this group was in a position of weakness. If the Jews were in a position of strength, who knows if they wouldn’t become persecutors?”
To which Wiesel replied, very angrily: “Give me one example of the Jews persecuting anyone!”
Naturally, I was expecting this. “At the time of the Maccabees, in the second century BCE, John Hyrcanus of Judea conquered Edom and gave the Edomites the choice of conversion to Judaism, or death. Not being idiots, the Edomites converted, but afterwards they were still treated as inferiors because even though they had become Jews, they were still originally Edomites”.
Wiesel, even more upset, said: “There is no other example.”
“There is no other period in history where Jews have exercised power”, I replied. “The only time they had it, they behaved just like the others.”
That put an end to the discussion. I would add however that the audience was entirely on the side of Elie Wiesel.
I could have gone further. Alluded to the fate of the Canaanites at the hands of the Israelites in the time of David and Solomon, for example. And if I’d been able to predict the future, I could have mentioned what is happening in Israel today. The Jews of America would have a clearer understanding of the situation if they could imagine the roles reversed: with Palestinians governing the country and Jews throwing stones at them with the energy of despair.
link to lawrenceofcyberia.blogs.com
Wiesel’s denial of reality comes from his belief in the moral supremacy of Jews. He had a choice. He could either accept that Jews in power in Israel have shown to be just as capable of repression as any other group, or he could deny the truth and continue his delusions of moral supremacy. He went with the delusions.
“Let him who is guiltless cast the first stone”
Does that mean you’ve turned over a new leaf Witty and will stop complaining about rockets and terrorism?
one’s birthright
one among equals
no better than anyone else
until the last chain is broken
a slave
“And, contrary to certain media reports, Jews, Christians and Muslims ARE allowed to build their homes anywhere in the city.”
Wiesel is right. What he fails to mention however, is that ALL Jews (citizens and non-citizens) are allowed to build their homes anywhere in Jerusalem, while only SOME Christians and Muslims (Israeli citizens) are allowed to build their homes anywhere in Jerusalem. Among those who are NOT allowed to build their homes anywhere in Jerusalem are the vast majority of Palestinians born in Jerusalem itself.
Thanks, Shmuel. I guess that shows the compassion Witty loves so much.
Here’s an example of Wiesel’s “compassion”, from an essay “Jerusalem in my heart” that he wrote for the Jan 24 2001 New York Times.
—————————————————————
“The Palestinians also insist on ”the right of return” for more than three million refugees. On this question, Israel is united in its refusal. It may be necessary to recall the history of this Palestinian tragedy. In 1947 Israel accepted the plan for the division of Palestine; the Arabs rejected it.
In 1948, David Ben-Gurion reached out to what was to be the Palestinian state. Not only did the Arabs reject the proffered hand; they sent six armies to strangle the newly born Jewish state. Incited by their leaders, 600,000 Palestinians left the country convinced that, once Israel was vanquished, they would be able to return home. I have seen their children in the Gaza refugee camps; their fate can leave none of us indifferent. It is imperative that we resolve this problem. But the solution of a mass return is unthinkable. To many Israelis, that would be tantamount to suicide, just as cutting Jerusalem from its roots would be spiritual suicide.
What I am about to say I say with great sadness: After seeing on television, during the Intifada, the faces of young Palestinians twisted with hate, it is more difficult than ever before for me to believe in the Palestinians’ will for peace. It is not that they want a smaller Israel; they want no Israel at all.
——————————————-
So immediately after saying we should recall the history, Wiesel starts telling the most shameless lies blaming Palestinians for Israeli crimes. There’s no moral distinction between this and Holocaust denial.
“Wiesel starts telling the most shameless lies blaming Palestinians for Israeli crimes. There’s no moral distinction between this and Holocaust denial.”
The Arabs did reject the partition plan.
They did attack Israel to try to prevent its founding in 1948.
The only questionable thing here is how the refugees left. It is a contentious issue, and Wiesel is on one side of it. Those who say everyone was ethnically cleansed according to a detailed plan are on the other side of it. Scholars like Benny Morris say it was a mix – some ethnic cleansing, some fleeing.
It is politically extreme hyperbole to compare this with Holocaust denial.
There is nothing questionable about the fact that Israel refused to allow the refugees to return, and Wiesel is totally clear in his position on that. “Unthinkable.”
Unconscionable.
Any state that requires creating 3/4 million refugees in order to exist does not deserve to exist.
“The Arabs” did this, and “the Arabs” did that and “the Arabs” want to erase “the Jews” from the face of the earth, huh? You can’t even decouple your racism from your language, so thoroughly is it embedded in Zionist rhetoric. You have no right to accuse us of politically extreme hyperbole when you constantly equate the Arabs, as a whole racial entity, with Nazi Germany.
And the fact is, hophmi, you willingly deny shoahs (Israel’s language about what they do to the Palestinians, not mine) as long as they are never inflicted on Jewish people.
““The Arabs” did this, and “the Arabs” did that and “the Arabs” want to erase “the Jews” from the face of the earth, huh?”
The Arab states vocally and repeatedly rejected the partition plan through the Arab League. They would not deny that they did. I have no idea why you think it is racist to say this. What language do you prefer? Do you think “Arab League” is a racist term?
The Arab states, together, launched a joint attack on Israel in 1948 in an effort to prevent it from coming into being. Again, this is history, and the Arabs themselves, collectively and individually would not deny this.
I don’t believe I claimed that Arabs “want to erase ‘the Jews’ from the face of the earth.” I have claimed that prominent Arab leaders said things similar to that in the 1940s.
“You have no right to accuse us of politically extreme hyperbole when you constantly equate the Arabs, as a whole racial entity, with Nazi Germany.”
Please show me where I have “constantly equat[ed] the Arabs, as a whole racial entity, with Nazi Germany.”
The only questionable thing here is how the refugees left
oh please! he appeals to our fears w/ “the faces of young Palestinians twisted with hate“. where’s his sense of shame? as israel pulverized the palestinians w/tons of ammunition where’s his condemnation of that? what twisted contorted faces do israelis have for their constant continued violations of international law for these same civilians? the only questionable thing my ass.
Annie, you’re making a different argument than those above, who compared Wiesel’s statement to Holocaust denial. I’m responding to accusations that Wiesel’s statements contain outright falsehoods.
“And the fact is, hophmi, you willingly deny shoahs (Israel’s language about what they do to the Palestinians, not mine) as long as they are never inflicted on Jewish people.”
Sigh. “Shoah” is not “Israel’s language” about what they do to the Palestinians. It is Matan Vilnai’s word, and is typical of the often crass way Holocaust language is thrown around by people in Israel. It is, in short, hyperbole.
People here are right about one thing. Israelis do tend to use Holocaust-related language overmuch, both to describe the threats they face and to describe their enemies. The problem is that some of you seem to want to take it all literally when it suits your purposes.
The problem with “the Arabs” is indiscriminate use to refer to both Syria and Palestinian peasants.
It is unclear.
It’s been long established that you’re forwarding a false narrative. Zionist militants had already ethnically cleansed at least a dozen Palestinian villages before any neighboring army set foot in Palestine. Whereas Arab nations vociferously disapproved of the partition… it was Zionists who violated it.
ok, let’s take a look:
“Wiesel starts telling the most shameless lies blaming Palestinians for Israeli crimes. There’s no moral distinction between this and Holocaust denial.”
ben gurion reached out by ethnically cleansing villages. hundreds of thousands of refugees were pouring into neighboring countries before any arab states responded. palestinian didn’t leave because they were incited by their leaders. the palestinians had every reasonable inclination to assume once hostilities had settled down they would be allowed to return to their homes in accord w/international law. weisel has told shameless lies by ommission, the re telling of this myth excluding israel’s culpability in the expulsion of palestinians amounts to denial of ethnic cleansing. denial of the nakba and of course is very much akin (alike) to denial of the holocaust.
grow up.
I’m responding to accusations that Wiesel’s statements contain outright falsehoods.
you mean this:
Wiesel starts telling the most shameless lies blaming Palestinians for Israeli crimes.
wiesel lied by omission when he completely evaded mentioning israeli participation in the expulsion of palestinians from their homes and villages and you know it. no one here claimed he outright lied so that is just word games on your part. you’re choosing to frame it in such as way as to evade dealing with the actual accusation, to divert. you’re trying to set parameters around the discussion to evade facing reality. it won’t work.
“Zionist militants had already ethnically cleansed at least a dozen Palestinian villages before any neighboring army set foot in Palestine. ”
“hundreds of thousands of refugees were pouring into neighboring countries before any arab states responded.”
And the armies came to protect the Palestinians, right? We all know that’s not true.
“the palestinians had every reasonable inclination to assume once hostilities had settled down they would be allowed to return to their homes in accord w/international law. ”
Since international law does not accord an absolute right of return when the exercise of such a right would be destabilizing, I am not sure the Palestinians expected to return regardless of the outcome of the war. I am almost certain that had the result been an Arab victory, the Jews would not have been permitted to return to their homes.
“weisel has told shameless lies by ommission, the re telling of this myth excluding israel’s culpability in the expulsion of palestinians amounts to denial of ethnic cleansing.”
“denial of the nakba and of course is very much akin (alike) to denial of the holocaust.”
Well, I don’t agree with you. The Nakba is a much less studied, much more disputed event than the Holocaust is, leaving aside for a moment that the events themselves are in no way comparable.
And again, and I don’t think this can be emphasized enough, the Nakba took place during a civil war in which people from both sides were displaced, an event far more common to internecine conflict than the Holocaust, a straight slaughter of 12 million innocent defenseless people that was in some ways meticulously planned and documented by the perpetrators, was.
“The problem with “the Arabs” is indiscriminate use to refer to both Syria and Palestinian peasants.”
Again, I’m curious as to which phrase is appropriate. Arab commentators would use the same nomenclature as I do, I think.
the Nakba took place during a civil war in which people from both sides were displaced
the nakba is still taking place and only one side is being displaced.
The Nakba is a much less studied, much more disputed event than the Holocaust
i could care less if it’s still being studied and disputed. hundreds of thousands of people were driven from their homes and land.
Since international law does not accord an absolute right of return when the exercise of such a right would be destabilizing, I am not sure the Palestinians expected to return
something tells me most palestinians were not up on international law during the expulsions, what i say stands, palestinians had every reasonable inclination to assume they would be allowed to return. if that has not sunk in after all these years you’re deluding yourself.
“i could care less if it’s still being studied and disputed. hundreds of thousands of people were driven from their homes and land. ”
In the context of a civil war, where displacements are common. You said refusing to blame Israel for the Naqba was akin to denying the Holocaust.
“what i say stands, palestinians had every reasonable inclination to assume they would be allowed to return. ”
I’m curious. Do you think they expected the Jews to let them back or expected the Arabs to let them back?
In the context of a civil war, where displacements are common. You said refusing to blame Israel for the Naqba was akin to denying the Holocaust.
try harder. use copy paste and do not paraphrase me making silly statements i would never make. i did not and would not characterize the nakba as a ‘civil war’.
Do you think they expected the Jews to let them back or expected the Arabs to let them back?
i think they believed the situation was temporary, that whether it was egypt, jordan, the international community or whoever. it would not be allowed to stand they would be permanently expelled from their land. they still think that as do many others, in fact international law supports that theory. recent myths would have us believe all the jews for the last 2000 years thought their own expulsion from the land was temporary also, so what’s the big deal in palestinians believing their own expulsion is temporary? but i know where you’re going w/this question.
You sound angry, Annie.
I didn’t paraphrase you. “In the context of a civil war” is my response to your comment, not a paraphrase of your comment.
“i think they believed the situation was temporary, that whether it was egypt, jordan, the international community or whoever.”
That’s not really the question. My guess is that they didn’t expect to go back if the Israelis won the war.
“they still think that as do many others, in fact international law supports that theory.”
Perhaps. But it sort of conflicts with UNSC 242, a binding resolution that envisions two states for two peoples, not one state for two peoples, or two states for one people.
“recent myths would have us believe all the jews for the last 2000 years thought their own expulsion from the land was temporary also, so what’s the big deal in palestinians believing their own expulsion is temporary? but i know where you’re going w/this question.”
I don’t know about all, but certainly many.
The Palestinians are free to believe whatever they would like to believe. They will just have to believe it in a state of their own, not in Israel.
“I’m curious. Do you think they expected the Jews to let them back or expected the Arabs to let them back?”
Yeah, I do, at least in the cases where people left because there was fighting going on and not because they were the victims of a deliberate expulsion. There had been violence before and wars don’t always lead to ethnic cleansing. The entire process (the people who left voluntarily and those who were forced out) became ethnic cleansing when they weren’t allowed to return to their homes.
“i did not and would not characterize the nakba as a ‘civil war’.”
I think the nakba did occur in the context of a civil war, and then later as an opportunistic war by external Arab states to landgrab.
The Palestinian vanguard (not so much the neighbors as the militants) did attempt to ethnically cleanse Jews from the land, and over and extended period.
My sense is that the majority of actual expulsions occurred in that context, in tactical (and harsh) genuine and rational military strategies. The characterization of orchestrated ethnic cleansing is false, even if supported in revised retrospect by observations that people were thinking about the consequences of different demographics.
If you study Lebanese history, or Syrian, or really any in the area in which there are critical balances of demographics, you’ll find that all parties are concerned with the demographics, and actually have sufficient imagination to think it out into the future.
Zionists doing similar is not a description of evil, so much as a description of strategic thinking, that ALL military thinking must be.
The time that the then temporary expulsions became permanent was in late 49 and early 50′s with the three laws that institutionalized the prohibition from return, and prohibition from assertion in courts, and then opportunist expropriation of “abandoned” lands.
The result was harsh, unjust. The intention at the time was more rational and defensive, as immediately following the 48-9 war, there were MANY Arab snipers (called “infiltrators”) that were not seeking to return, but seeking to drive the Jews out (you know “ethnic cleansing”).
The reason that I use the term “not necessary in the present” is because it is conclusive to my mind that Israel’s existence is not threatened by infiltration in the same way that it was in 1950.
Many Israelis regard my confidence as unfounded, supported by their experience of the never ending effort to employ violence directed against civilians to achieve the aims of “dissent”. That the second intifada severely escalated the tactics that formerly characterized the post 48 tactics, convinced very many Israelis that peace with Arabs/Palestinians was impossible. They concluded that they were not facing civil dissent, oriented to reform/change, but hatred (to use the hated word).
That the words used here to describe Palestinians experience is similar, is not a sign of maturation of the movement.
For example, I was personally very disappointed that Omar Barghouti was quoted here as urging that the Hebrew University be boycotted. The Hebrew University that was purchased, developed, occupied (by Jordan) and ethnically cleansed, before Omar Barghouti was born.
Again, I’m curious as to which phrase is appropriate. Arab commentators would use the same nomenclature as I do, I think.
hophmi – I think the phrase must be qualified for clarity. If you mean Syria and Eygpt, then “the Arab states” would be more clear than “the Arabs.” In this case, I’d think “Palestinians” would be more clear than “Arabs.”
The Arab state armies did come to protect the Palestinians, but primarily to defeat the Jewish settlers and allow the refugees to return home – which is to say, get them out of the neighboring states into which they had been driven. I’m quite sure they did not intend to allow the Jewish settlers to remain if they had won. I also suspect they did not intend to allow the establishment of a Palestinian state, at least Jordan didn’t.
Replying to hophmi’s earlier Wiesel apologetics–
The war between Palestinians and Israelis (or whatever one would call them before May 1948) began in late 1947. Arguably it was simmering even before then. The Arab armies entered into it after May 1948, after hundreds of thousands of Palestinians had been driven from their homes. So that’s one point.
The debate about the refugees has, as you say, three factions. One faction is represented by Wiesel, who denies that Israel did anything wrong. This is completely ludicrous. The serious positions are those held by Morris and Meron Benvenisti on the one hand vs. those who think it was ethnic cleansing from the beginning. Morris claims the early expulsions were not part of a master plan to change the demographics,but driven by military necessity–his opponents claim it was demographics from the start. It is hard to believe that the people who drove out the Palestinians in early 1948 didn’t also happen to think how convenient it would be if these people weren’t allowed back in. I think one could argue that not all the Zionists intended to drive out the Palestinians–there’s no reason to think they all had bad motives.
I agree that the Holocaust was a crime on a far greater scale than the Nakba, but in both cases those who deny the crime are motivated either by ignorance or politics of a nasty sort. It’s very easy for Wiesel to see the crimes and bad intentions of “Arabs”, but evidently impossible for Wiesel to admit the bad intentions of “Israelis”. That makes Wiesel a racist. If you agree with him then it makes you one too.
That’s rediculous. There is no evidence of an attempt to land grab.
Mind you, the Nakba was a land grab by Israel.
Meanwhile, the Zionist vanguard did ethnically cleanse Plestinians from the land.
What does your sense have to do with it? How is your sense relevant Witty? You weren’t alive at the time and you are no historian. Nor are you in any position to refute the fact that ethnic cleansing was orchestrated, when the evidence is overwhelming.
In other words, when zionists commit crimes against humanity, it’s not evil, or in other words, ethnic cleasing is currently necessary right Witty?
Israel’s existence was based on ethnic cleasing Witty. There would be no Israel today were it not for these crimes.
And subsequently ethnicalyl cleansed by Israel, which is no longer necessary.
Seriouly Witty, your posts are so repugnent that they are self incriminating. You’re liek a pedophile explaining the sanctity of man/boy love to a groupd of parents, oblivious yo how vile and repuignant his words are.
“hen later as an opportunistic war by external Arab states to landgrab.”
Actually, Shingo, I need to reread Flapan, but I think Jordan (or Transjordan) did do a landgrab. I don’t think there’s any particular reason to think highly of the Arab governments, then or now. Maybe I’m too cynical.
Of course what Witty is doing is his usual trick of being critical of Arab governments while ignoring Israel’s crimes. Obviously they were landgrabbing.
“The intention at the time was more rational and defensive, as immediately following the 48-9 war, there were MANY Arab snipers (called “infiltrators”) that were not seeking to return, but seeking to drive the Jews out (you know “ethnic cleansing”).”
Of course what Richard doesn’t mention here is that Benny Morris (in “Israel’s Border Wars”) says that Israel killed between 2800 and 5000 “infilitrators”. The vast majority were not terrorists, as Witty claims. They were crossing for what Morris calls “economic” motives. This is typical of Richard. He will mention Arab crimes, often real. He won’t mention Israeli crimes unless forced to. He will condemn Arab attempts to drive Jews out and refer to it as ethnic cleansing, but he whitewashes it when Israel does such things.
You know, Richard, if you want to say that the conflict hasn’t been pure good against pure evil I’d agree. Both sides have committed atrocities. But you want to accuse the Arab side of evil, while justifying or making excuses for the actions of the Israelis. At best, when you do admit that the Israeli side has done something wrong, you still blame it on the Arabs (you did it here) or else say it was some extremist group like Irgun. You’re dishonest and there’s no indication you will change.
You sound angry, Annie.
triple yawn. would that have been the ‘try harder’ statement?
;)
in a conversation about attributing emotional states of mind to one’s ideological opponents are you shooting for the trifecta hophmi?
I didn’t paraphrase you. “In the context of a civil war” is my response to your comment
ok, let’s try this again. this was your complete paragraph.
care to rephrase that if your meaning is not to connect what i said to this alleged ‘context’ which i highly dispute. my comment stands alone and the very end of donald’s 4:32 pm post speaks to the context.
“hophmi – I think the phrase must be qualified for clarity. If you mean Syria and Eygpt, then “the Arab states” would be more clear than “the Arabs.” In this case, I’d think “Palestinians” would be more clear than “Arabs.” ”
Arab states it is. Palestinians would, for that time, be somewhat inaccurate, but perfectly fine with me.
“The Arab state armies did come to protect the Palestinians, but primarily to defeat the Jewish settlers and allow the refugees to return home – which is to say, get them out of the neighboring states into which they had been driven. ”
Perhaps. Refugee crises always cause conflagrations. But I think they were interested in controlling the land above all, which is why Egypt and Jordan occupied the West Bank and Gaza.
Maybe they were interested in a little bit of the land, maybe?
“care to rephrase that if your meaning is not to connect what i said to this alleged ‘context’ which i highly dispute. my comment stands alone and the very end of donald’s 4:32 pm post speaks to the context.”
I’m a little confused. They are two different sentences. Both are my responses to your comment. Are you reading them together? I think most people here understand what I was trying to say.
In other news, a nomination for the best anger category, with a co-nomination for best supporting syntaxical sloppiness:
Shingo to Witty:
“Seriouly Witty, your posts are so repugnent that they are self incriminating. You’re liek a pedophile explaining the sanctity of man/boy love to a groupd of parents, oblivious yo how vile and repuignant his words are.”
It is the distinction between a conflict and a conspiratorial oppression.
I say that conflict is the most representative term.
MUTUAL hostility, and viciously so. The pretense of basis of hope for mutual decency is thin is the point.
There’s no reason to dispute that, though I think it is relevant that their land grab followed Israel’s.
Yes, it is sickening how well Witty is able to tiptoe around Israel’s far more egregious crimes and cynically single out the Arab crimes. He surly know he c won;t get away with it, so I can only assume his agenda ti to try and influence visitors to this web site who don’t participate in the discussion.
I think he does it partly for the lurkers (he’s mentioned having a fan base here and clearly they don’t post much), but some of his rationalizations are for himself. At some subconscious level he probably recognizes his liberal ideals and his kneejerk support for mainstream Zionism don’t mesh well together.
“kneejerk support for mainstream Zionism”??
You really are in the ozone.
“You really are in the ozone.”
So you’re not a supporter of mainstream Zionism?
Nor it seems do they post on his own blog.
You might have a point. He’s effectively self medicating.
“It is the distinction between a conflict and a conspiratorial oppression.”
It’s both. Again, you’re quick to say that Arab groups deliberately attacked Jewish civilians and wanted to drive them out, but you go all mushy and start talking about “conflict” when it comes to Israeli crimes against Arabs.
Both sides commit atrocities and do it deliberately. As it happens, the Israeli side has been stronger and has committed the bulk of the atrocities, largely for deliberate reasons, to steal land and to cow opposition. It’s ugly, brutal, and unavoidable if one wanted to establish a Jewish state in a land where the majority of the inhabitants were Arabs. Triple e even admits this, though he’s only honest about it because he thinks massive war crimes were justifiable to establish Israel (Benny Morris’s view).
Try and face up to this, Richard, and then you can go on and make the legitimate point that both sides commit atrocities and it’s not completely one-sided. But until you show some propensity to be honest about the crimes of your “side”, everything you say will remain a crude form of apolegetics.
And the same applies to you too, Hophmi. I wasn’t surprised by the way you selectively quoted from the HRW report on Jenin that I linked yesterday. You’re not terribly honest about Israeli crimes. And the thing is, I have seen liberal Zionists at other blogs who are honest, who don’t feel this need to play these stupid games and deny Israeli crimes. Maybe they are a minority–it certainly seems that way if you go by what gets published in letters to the editor or in comment sections at blogs like this.
If by mainstream Zionism you are speaking of Akiva Eldar, Bradley Burston, evern Gershon Gorenburg, yes.
If by mainstream Zionism, you’re speaking of Netanyahu and Lieberman, no.
I support Israel though, and even in severely criticizing Netanyahu, I’m patient that he won’t be prime minister permanently. If he’s replaced by Leiberman, I will certainly reconsider my perspective.
There aren’t two mainstream Zionisms, Witty. See, the problem with your Mad Hatter “ravens are writing desks” screeds is they make no sense at all. On a literal, logical and semantic level, they are nonsense.
Also, Witty? If you haven’t noticed, you are consistently on the same side as eee, hophmi, yonira and wondering jew. You can repeat “I disapprove of Netanyahu” all you like, until your blue in the face, but at the end of the day, if you endorse every single thing that comes out of Israel (right down to the justifications of Operation Cast Lead and the deadly attack on the Mavi Marmara in international waters), you support Netanyahu. Words don’t trump actions. Or choices.
No you won’t, you’ll simply recycle your arguments.
Donald,
You speak of me in an extremely odd misrepresentative tone and content.
Those of us that are liberal Zionists, meaning that we oppose expansion and oppose rejection, in a word “enough Zionists”, receive very harsh criticism from our left and from our right.
Here is a site dominated by anti-Zionist perspective, and our honest reaction to many comments (editors and commenters) is contrasting, differing. It would be expected that our honest reaction would appear to be “supportive of Israel” and “complicit”.
In other real settings, I and other liberal Zionists, confront those on our right who similarly declare us to be “disloyal”, “complicit”.
I think the statement, “I want Israel to be Israel, AND I want Israel to treat all of its citizens and all of its neighbors humanely.” is a compatible statement.
That is a very very different tone than the statement, inferred in any way, “I want Israel to fold”.
Name a time in Israel’s history, Witty, when Israel was not both A) razing Palestinian homes and B) making Jews-only communities on top of the rubble.
“Here is a site dominated by anti-Zionist perspective, and our honest reaction to many comments (editors and commenters) is contrasting, differing. ”
No, Richard, it’s worse than that. I don’t think all liberal Zionists are the same, not here and certainly not elsewhere, though it does seem to me that the really honest ones like Uri Avnery, Avi Shlaim, and Jerome Slater are a distinct minority. Even the ones here vary, but I don’t want to get into that. Your problem is that you generally downplay Israeli crimes while not pulling punches about Arab crimes. You’ve done this for as long as I’ve been reading this blog (a couple of years, I think). Someone who first starts reading you might, by chance, read you when you are speaking in generalities and might have a favorable impression, but if they keep reading you they will soon spot the pattern.
And unfortunately that’s true of the majority of liberal Zionists. It makes sense–there’s a lot of tension involved in saying that Israel has the right to exist as a Jewish state, maintaining one’s belief in universal human rights, and acknowledging the full level of brutality involved in creating Israel as a Jewish state. In many or most cases (including yours), people end up downplaying the brutality.
What about Nazi Germany being so embedded into your rhetoric Chaos?
The Arabs did reject the partition plan. They did attack Israel to try to prevent its founding in 1948.
Are you denying this Chaos? You can use the debunked “well BG said this” argument, but the fact of the matter was BG wasn’t the deciding body.
Yes, I am denying it. It’s an outright lie. Zionist militias had already invaded the Palestinian partition and started razing villages (and killing the inhabitants who didn’t flee for their lives) before any army from Jordan, Egypt, Syria, etc. set foot on Palestinian land.
From the start, Israel used force of arms to steal land. The partition allocated 55% of Palestine to the Jewish nation and mandated no population transfers. Zionists claimed 78% and used ethnic cleansing to create an artificially imposed Jewish super-majority.
Ben-Gurion was a hideous man who vocalized his opposition to the Partition. The fact is, he was a leading, central figure of Zionism and his word was made deed.
We’ve been over this dozens of times, yonira. It doesn’t matter how often you try to verbally attack me, the facts don’t change.
Have you read the Sachar books, Chaos?
That paints a different story than your interpretation.
You buy the typical revision, the ignoring of sequence, the ignoring of context and options, only the singular conspiracy (that turns out to be innaccurate).
You know, I really don’t think I can reiterate enough just how much the vast majority of the rest of us really are quite thoroughly exhausted (and nauseated) by the continuous justifications for ethnic cleansing that you and your friends are forwarding.
I don’t care about your Birthright tour and the literature you’ve been accumulating since. Really.
As far as my references to Nazi Germany go: you use your references to slander Iran, a country that hasn’t invaded any of its neighbors for at least the last hundred years. I use references to compare the discrimination, ethnic cleansing and mass slaughter of one population to the discrimination, ethnic cleansing and mass slaughter of another population.
It’s pretty simple who has the intellectual high ground, here.
Take it out of the Middle East and back to Central Europe where the numbskull idea originated.
“Take it out of the Middle East and back to Central Europe where the numbskull idea originated.”
We’ll take that under advisement.
Have considered the idea, we have decided not, repeat, not to bring the “numbskull idea” back to Central Europe. Please remember to give credit to Helen Thomas credit for her idea, now.
Yes, go right on citing the blacklisting of Arab Americans in US politics and media, hophmi. Boy does that make your case stronger.