From the Forward, a vile statement by a "liberal" equating the struggle for equal rights for a minority with "genocide." It's a piece on the group Jewish Voice for Peace, headed by Rebecca Vilkomerson.
“It is troubling that Judaism and support for Israel have become so inextricably linked,” Vilkomerson said at the New York event. “We are trying to create a space in the Jewish world where we can express our criticism as Jews without needing to apologize for ourselves.”
That is a distinction that even many liberals do not embrace....Ben Cohen, a writer who has focused on American Jewish responses to Israel, [says], “But it is clear that many of their members dream about one state, and for those of us under the communal tent, one state is a code word for genocide.”
Who is Ben Cohen? It says here he is the Associate Director of Communications for the American Jewish Committee. Why is Adam Horowitz not quoted in that article? Or Max Blumenthal? Or Antony Loewenstein? Or Naomi Klein? Or Norman Finkelstein? Or Donna Nevel? Or Jane Hirshmann? Or Lillian Rosengarten? Or Gail Miller? Or Anna Baltzer?
Do you understand what the Forward is doing here? Do you see whom they have granted a platform? Newspapers make choices all the time. I challenge the Forward not to grant such a platform to fear and hatred, I challenge it to make room for non-Zionist voices, and to have a forum to debate whether even notioning one-state is genocide.
Also, it is true I focus on that communal tent. Why? Because my community is so blinded, because my community is so powerful, because my community has licensed grave grave human-rights violations against a disempowered community that it is now utterly fearful of, because I believe that by helping my community awaken to its true relationship to the world outside, I can help Palestinians. Because my family is in that community and I love my family.
I was directed to the Cohen statement by Max Blumenthal. I'm grateful for all he has done for our site today.
The genocide feared is always worse (for the one who fears it) than the genocide practiced (here by the same people or their friends). Actually, democracy is not genocide, a ONE-STATE (say in the USA) has worked out reasonably well.
You can take the people out of the genocide (Jews in America) but you cannot take the fear of genocide (or the pretense of such fear) out of the people.
phil, how astute of you to pick up he is the Associate Director of Communications for the American Jewish Committee.
this means the target, topic, and words were carefully chosen for their target audience. i keep being reminded of that same essay.
it is like a broken record. the demonizing. the forwards is pandering and will become an old dinosaur if they don’t open the floodgates and let the voices thru.
“I challenge the Forward not to grant such a platform to fear and hatred”
You mean like you do for all of the antisemites who assert that Jews have too much money and power and are responsible for every war we’re in? Oh wait, that’s what YOU say. The commentators are worse.
PLEASE. You throw around terms like genocide and Nazi like they’re going out of style.
There’s nothing hateful about interpreting the one-state solution as code for genocide. There’s is nothing racist about believing that the one-state solution will bring bloodshed.
And I don’t buy for a second that you love your community. There is nothing whatsoever in your writing that sounds like love. You hate your community to the point of championing its slow death through complete assimilation. If you loved your community, you would something else than talk to the small community of fellow travelers who believe as you do.
Meanwhile, hophmi will continue donating too and shilling for the wholesale slaughter of Palestinians of every age in military “self defensive” bombing campaigns against schools and hospitals and/or the expulsion by military force and complete eradication of the Palestinian identity in Palestine and that most definitely is not genocide or anything else reminiscent of that.
Right.
Keep telling us how you think Jews can never put the US above Israel, hophmi. You might actually manage to convert a vulnerable youth or two into zealots like yourself.
“Meanwhile, hophmi will continue donating too and shilling for the wholesale slaughter of Palestinians of every age in military “self defensive” bombing campaigns against schools and hospitals and/or the expulsion by military force and complete eradication of the Palestinian identity in Palestine and that most definitely is not genocide or anything else reminiscent of that.”
Source?
“Keep telling us how you think Jews can never put the US above Israel, hophmi. ”
Thank you for illustrating my point.
So does the Washington Post.
I don’t see here where the Washington Post (which is apparently the same as an op-ed by Aaron David Miller, but who cares about basic distinctions) accuses the Jews of involving the US in the war in Iraq and throws around terms like Nazi and genocide.
Well that’s because you cherry-pick. I didn’t post the link because I expected you to actually, you know, demonstrate comprehension skills. I trust the wider audience to be a little less of a Zealot than you are.
“There’s nothing hateful about interpreting the one-state solution as code for genocide. There’s is nothing racist about believing that the one-state solution will bring bloodshed.”
You’re supposed to be a lawyer, I think, so maybe if you spend some time on it you can see there’s a huge difference between the first sentence and the second.
I think there’s a good chance a one state solution would bring bloodshed (as has the current situation). A lot of people will still hate each other. It’s a fear that has some basis in fact.
Your first sentence, though, is pretty close to racist. The ideal of a one state solution appeals to most one-staters because they have embraced the notion of universal human rights and think that nationalisms and ethnocentricism are an utter disaster (often one that has hurt Jews due to being the victims of other people’s nationalisms and ethnocentric ideas). To just automatically assume that someone supports a one state solution because they hate Jews is to assume that nobody could seriously believe that Palestinians should have the right to live in equality side by side with Jews in their own homeland. You have to be a real creep to make that assumption.
“Your first sentence, though, is pretty close to racist.”
How so? What “race” have I offended?
“The ideal of a one state solution appeals to most one-staters because they have embraced the notion of universal human rights”
Thanks. It’s not the do-gooders we’re afraid of, and I’m sure you know that.
“and think that nationalisms and ethnocentricism are an utter disaster”
Again, it’s all well and good for you to believe that. It’s not at all clear that the people you advocate for agree with you.
“To just automatically assume that someone supports a one state solution because they hate Jews. . . You have to be a real creep to make that assumption.”
Again, that is not what I said nor what Ben Cohen said (nor what the AJC thinks). Nowhere did I say that everyone who supports the one-state solution supports genocide or hates Jews.
“Code for genocide,” which I agree is not a great phrase, can mean a lot of things. In proper context, I believe the most reasonable interpretation of what it means is that the one-state solution will lead to a genocide of Jews, not that everyone who supports it hates Jews.
“Code for genocide,” which I agree is not a great phrase, can mean a lot of things. In proper context, I believe the most reasonable interpretation of what it means is that the one-state solution will lead to a genocide of Jews, not that everyone who supports it hates Jews.
Which means that the “most reasonable interpretation” of the phrase is that Palestinians, if given equal rights and a demographic majority in Israel/Palestine, will commit genocide against Jews. That is a distinctly racist concept. If you can’t see that then your Zionist head is so far up your …. you can’t see a thing.
“I believe the most reasonable interpretation of what it means is that the one-state solution will lead to a genocide of Jews, not that everyone who supports it hates Jews.”
Well, that still shows some racist presuppositions. If a one state solution goes violent, it would probably be like Lebanon or Iraq, with slaughters committed by both sides (or many sides, in the case of Lebanon and Iraq). If it was one-sided, well, right now it’s the Israelis that have the monopoly on heavy weaponry. Would the IDF suddenly become integrated overnight?
The Palestinians are a race? I think they’re a nationality. Keep trying, though.
“The Palestinians are a race? I think they’re a nationality. Keep trying, though.”
I’ve been ignoring your point on that because it’s trivial and silly, but since you insist on repeating it–
Racism or hatred against a group has nothing to do with whether it can be correctly defined as a “race”. It’s a little hard to define what a “race” is anyway. In the US you were considered a member of the “black race” if you had any ancestor who was black. People who are anti-semitic often regard Jews as a “race”, whatever that means.
People who are bigots aren’t usually terribly logical about this. I thought everyone knew this and I assume you know it too, but just want to score a cheap but meaningless point.
Maybe the point is that if Palestinians aren’t a “race”, then bigotry against Palestinians isn’t racist and therefore isn’t bad? Similarly, being Jewish doesn’t make you part of a “race”, so I guess from this we can conclude…. Well, no, we can’t, can we?
The Palestinians are a race?
I’m sure the bigoted idiots who talk about “code words for genocide” consider Palestinians part of the violent “Ay-rab” race. And you refuse to address the bigotry that assumes that Palestinians are somehow so blood-thirsty that they would commit genocide against Jews if they were treated with fairness instead of oppression and hatred. After all, that’s your “reasonable explanation” and you find nothing wrong with it, or you are too knee-jerk to stop to think what kind of statement you are defending.
You’re a fine one to criticize, hophmi. What are Jews? Are they a race? An ethnicity? A nationality? A religion? How do you define Jews? And why does that definition seem to change on a whim when it suits your purposes?
HOPHMI- “You hate your community to the point of championing its slow death through complete assimilation.”
Death by assimilation? Just how repugnant are the Goyim to you?
The goyim are not repugnant at all. It appears that the Jews are. Why else would they want to assimilate and why else would one call for their complete assimilation? The goyim aren’t becoming Jews, Keith. This is not a two-way street.
HOPHMI- “The goyim aren’t becoming Jews, Keith. This is not a two-way street.”
Gee, why is it not a two-way street? First, it is so difficult to get one’s mother made a retroactive Jew to qualify for “birthright” privileges. Second, Jews are not exactly what one would call proselytizing. How many Gentiles have you tried to convert? If you could have your way, how many Gentiles would you like to see convert? If there was a possibility of large numbers of Gentiles (Palestinians, for example) converting to Judaism, how would you feel about that? The truth, which for you dares not speak its name, is that Zionist Jews are highly exclusivist, and you prefer it that way. Assimilation is nothing more than doing away with the exclusivist mind-set and widening your circle of fellowship to include significant non-Jews in your definition of community. In short, to treat Jewishness as the result of following the Judaic religion, not some sort of ethnic birthright guild. Hardly a death sentence. I leave you with an extended quote from the late, great Israel Shahak.
“Therefore, the real test facing both Israeli and diaspora Jews is the test of their self-criticism which must include the critique of the Jewish past. The most important part of such a critique must be detailed and honest confrontation of the Jewish attitude to non-Jews. This is what many Jews justly demand from non-Jews: to confront their own past and so become aware of the discrimination and persecutions inflicted on the Jews. In the last 40 years (written in 1994) the number of non-Jews killed by Jews is by far greater than the number of Jews killed by non-Jews. The extent of the persecution and discrimination against non-Jews by the ‘Jewish state’ with the support of organized diaspora Jews is also enormously greater than the suffering inflicted upon Jews by regimes hostile to them. Although the struggle against anti-Semitism (and all other forms of racism) should never cease, the struggle against Jewish chauvinism and exclusivism, which must include a critique of classical Judaism, is now of equal or greater importance.” (“Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years”)
The word “death” here is a loaded metaphor. The death of an individual is usually bad. Using the same word about the assimilation of a group is an attempt to make assimilation sound just as bad.
If the West Brisbane Cheesecake Photography Club disbands without anyone dying, to speak of the ‘death’ of the club would carry misleading connotations.
Similarly, if all Jews ceased to be Jews without anyone dying, to speak of the ‘death’ of the Jewish Community would carry misleading connotations.
If complete assimilation is bad, surely that point can be argued for without using misleading metaphors.
I was on a tram today in Switzerland opposite an orthodox Jew of whom there are quite a few here and I was thinking about Europe’s dreadful treatment of the Jewish community in the first half of the last century. Say it was 1923 and the man on the tram had given up on the Swiss and wanted a state just for Jews . There would have been enough Jews across the continent to justify something but who would have had to give up their sovereignty to make the dream real? Would it have been fair to empty Zurich of non Jews ? Of course not.
Far better to take a population that could be ethnically cleansed without any complaints. The poor Palestinians. The poor deluded Zionists. The agony continues.
Again, apparently my post was deemed too hurtful to Phil.
I thought that Phil’s headline was wierd, misrepresentative even of the content of the article itself.
“But it is clear that many of their members dream about one state, and for those of us under the communal tent, one state is a code word for genocide.”
“genocide” is a bit strong for the elimination of Israel, as “genocide” is a bit strong for the forced removal of Palestinians.
But, conveying that threat is inherent in the single state proposal, should be information.
phil’s headline is completely accurate. maybe you could take your patronization and direct it at the forward. or is ‘a bit strong’ the most you can afford them?
“phil’s headline is completely accurate. ”
Of course, you would say that. The fact of the matter is that Ben Cohen said that many Jews interpret the one-state solution as code for genocide, not that supporting the one-state solution is genocide.
But no one should be surprised, because Phil does things like this repeatedly.
And how exactly does giving non-Jews voting rights equate to genocide? And not, you know, killing hundreds of children, just because you can?
Just like in previous years “criticism of Israel” was equivalent to anti-semitism.
The fact of the matter is “support for Israel” and Judaism are deliberately linked by the Zionist organizations. I agree with Phil, his “community” is largely blinded, and deliberately so by leaders like this Ben Cohen, but often, like Witty, willingly blinded, and thereby willing accomplices in Israel’s mass murders which amount to a mini-genocide or at very least the cover-up of them, I use the term genocide because it’s clear the intent is genocidal though not the scale: race-based mass murders to cleanse Israel and much of the occupied territories of it’s non-Jewish population it considers less than human.
I don’t blame Jews for being afraid of genocide, it’s clear Ben Cohen is exploiting that fear in a cynical way.
“The fact of the matter is “support for Israel” and Judaism are deliberately linked by the Zionist organizations.”
I don’t think that should come as a surprise. A plurality of the world’s Jewish population lives in Israel. Jews tend to care about that.
“thereby willing accomplices in Israel’s mass murders which amount to a mini-genocide or at very least the cover-up of them”
You really want to play this game? You’re a willing accomplice of Saddam Hussein’s mass murders (real mass murders, not the fake one you accuse Israel of,) because you didn’t support force to stop them when they were occurring. You’re an accomplice to Syrian mass murders because you don’t support force to stop them from occurring. You’re an accomplice, you’re an accomplice…
“race-based mass murders”
Bullshit. There’s nothing race-based about the targeted killings in the territories. If these people were white people (as, indeed, some of them are) trying to kill Israeli civilians, they would be treated exactly the same way. Even by your own logic, this is nonsense. You claim Rachel Corrie was murdered. Was that race-based?
“I don’t blame Jews for being afraid of genocide, it’s clear Ben Cohen is exploiting that fear in a cynical way.”
How is it cynical? This is what many Jews in the communal tent believe. And given the history of Arab and Palestinian rhetoric and actions, there is ample reason to believe it.
But not a majority. Rather important to note.
Also to note- Aliyah has dried up into a trickle. There are no more mass immigrations. The Diaspora is staying put. Potentially the most important factor when Israel completes its divorce from the real world.
If you read all of Hophmi’s comments here, I believe he reveals why Zionists truly fear a single state. It is not failure leading to the violent genocide of Israeli Jews that they fear, but peaceful success leading to a quiet but insidious ‘genocide’ by ‘assimilation’.
For hardline Zionists, I suspect a peaceful two-state solution is little better. As Richard Witty once acknowledged, this could be a stepping stone to an eventual integrated state, perhaps within a much larger regional economic union.
Such an overriding fear of ‘assimilation’ provides an explanation for the longstanding Israeli policy of postponing indefinitely (by any and all means) either of these outcomes (whilst blaming the Palestinians for the lack of progress).
LIBRA- “It is not failure leading to the violent genocide of Israeli Jews that they fear, but peaceful success leading to a quiet but insidious ‘genocide’ by ‘assimilation’.”
Precisely so. The essence of Zionism is to preserve the “Jewish people.” That is, to prevent the Jews from becoming nothing more than just “people.” The notion that Jews would assimilate into the surrounding community is greeted with apocalyptic terms. Holocaust. Pogroms. Genocide. Death of the Jewish people, etc. The harsh reality is that it is the Palestinians who are facing slow motion genocide from Jewish anti-Gentile chauvinists. Zionist Jews wailing about Palestinian terror even as they commit terrorism and mass murder to achieve their “redemption of the land of Israel” goals. No matter what the near term resolution is (1 state, 2 state, no state), the Palestinians, far from being a vengeful threat to Israeli Jews, are going to continue to suffer varying degrees of abuse, becoming second class citizens being a lesser indignity than their current situation. One has to wonder at the moral debasement of these Zionist Jews who continue to claim victim-hood even as they casually abuse others stuck under their boot.