The Tony Kushner mugging is huge. It is sending more Jews to the exits, wondering what the messianic Zionist movement has done to Jewish political engagement, let alone to the Palestinian experience. Mark Kleiman, a public policy prof at UCLA, says he's done with Zionism (thanks to Sullivan and Voskamp):
Peter Beinart gave a very good talk – at once eloquent and morally and intellectually serious – at UCLA Hillel last night. The talk explored the complexity of loving Israel and yet disapproving of the pattern of ethnic subordination that characterizes Israeli rule over the West Bank. Beinart mentioned the fact that settler violence against Palestinians sometimes fits any plausible definition of “terrorism” – attacks on innocents to make a political point – and that very few of those attacks ever lead to law enforcement action against the perpetrators.
The response from part of the audience left me sick to my stomach. The basic theme – stated in so many words by one participant – was “they brought it on themselves.” To hear Jews talking about collective ethnic guilt in tones worthy of Der Sturmer was really more than I could handle. I left after being personally accused of indifference to the Shoah because I refused to profess indifference to the suffering of Arabs.
And today I learn that Tony Kushner – whose views about Israel seem roughly to track mine – has been denied an honorary degree by a minority of the trustees of the City University of New York, based on a typical cowardly wingnut smear job, launched without warning in a way that gave Kushner no chance to defend himself.
I know most Israelis don’t deserve their worst American defenders, but if the result of having to defend Israel is that Jews start acting like bullies and sounding like Nazis, at some point the price gets to be too high.
Historian Ellen Schrecker now seeking to return her honorary degree from CUNY.
Schrecker, a professor of American history at Yeshiva University, is noted as a historian of McCarthyism.
I once heard of a person living in a “half-way house” for mental patients. This person ran the vacuum cleaner for hours and hours every day. People thought she was compulsively clean but, when asked, she said she ran the vacuum cleaner because it was loud and blocked out “her voices” so she couldn’t hear them.
The wingnuts at AIPAC and CUNY-trustees, and so on, may be trying to use their (not inconsiderable power) — their vacuum cleaner — so they won’t have to hear our voices. But it is a bit unfair to everybody else who doesn’t like the sound of incessant, loud, vacuum cleaning.
Superb anecdote!
Its relevant to stick to one’s complex convictions, not just the simplistic “not a Zionist” or “rabid Zionist”.
Beinart is a good example. There are idiotic statements and actions taken by those articulating all positions. In urging that Palestinians be treated decently, I will NOT walk in a march that declares “Zionism is racism”. That appears to me to be a statement of racism in some rationalization of opposing racism.
Such is the choices of political correctness, either/or, rather than #and#.
It will never make sense to me how it is “a statement of racism” to point out the fact that Zionism by definition privileges one group over another based on ethnicity. If that is not racism I don’t know what is.
Saying that Zionism is racist is not, itself, racist. Yours is a very foolish argument. One who believes that Zionism is racism is not against the people which the ideology purports to support, but against the ideology.
The assertion of a homeland for the Jewish people, Zionism, is not racist in the slightest. It is liberatory, self-determination.
The Zionism of expansion can be.
“The assertion of a homeland for the Jewish people, Zionism, is not racist in the slightest.”
Such an assertion cuts off Jews from their fellow citizens. Australians count Australia as their homeland, but you discriminate between Australian Jews and other Australians. You say that the Australians Jews have a different homeland. That is racist and anti-Semitic.
“It is liberatory“
Who is being liberated? Australian Jews don‘t need Zionism to be as free as any other Australian.
“self-determination”
You have made it abundantly clear that you do not understand this concept in the least.
Is anti-semitism racism?
“To be a good Zionist one must be somewhat of an anti-Semite.”
(Chaim Greenberg, editor of Jewish Frontier)
“If one believes in the validity of racial exclusiveness, it is difficult to object to anyone else’s racism. If one believes further that it is impossible for any people to be healthy except in their own homeland, then one cannot object to anyone else excluding “aliens” from their territory.”
(L. Brenner)
Source:
Lenni Brenner, Zionism in the Age of Dictators: A Reappraisal, Chicago, 1983.
The assertion of a homeland for the Jewish people might not be racist except that it asserts that Jews have a right to displace the people already living there. Alas, there is no such thing as “a land without a people for a people without a land.”
“Such is the choices of political correctness, either/or, rather than #and#.”
It’s not about that simplistic cliché that has become so popular for writing off ideas you don’t like, but in fact property ownership is an either/or proposition. EITHER the Palestinians are entitled to live on the land they’ve been on for millenia OR Jews from around the world are entitled to kick them aside like so much dirt. Granted, Humpty Dumpty fell off that wall, and a great many nations came into being through conquest. It is not reasonable to eliminate Israel and to restore Palestine along the borders of the British Mandate. Compromises need to be made to achieve peace.
Still I can’t help wondering…
“In urging that Palestinians be treated decently, I will NOT walk in a march that declares ‘Zionism is racism’.”
Have you ever urged that Palestinians be treated decently?
How is this, in any way, relevant to what I posted. My post asserted that your claim that the assertion that Zionism is racism is, itself, racist. I was not discussing the relative merits of the view that Zionism is racism. Please stay on point.
The idea of a “a homeland for the Jewish people” means that Jewish people are separate from those who do not share Jewish cultural identity.
Jews, like people of other cultural faiths, are of many people. This “Homeland” stuff for one group sharing a religious identity is racist to boot.
Judaism is not a race. Zionism is built on myths of race, bronze age tribal identity. The world has moved on.
The brainwashing is amazing.
The assertion of a homeland for the Jewish people might not be racist except that it asserts that Jews have a right to displace the people already living there
And it is then racist to refuse to allow them to return there.
No witty zionism is not self determination. its a call of conquest and theft. self determination would have been the palestinians choosing the political status of palestine.
Would it continue to be “liberatory” if the Zionist-expansivists decided that the proper boundaries of Israel included all of Europe? And acted on this assumption? Assuming your answer is “No”, then I must ask how expansivism can be described as “liberatory”.
Already in 1988 the PLO offered peace along the lines of 1967 and Israel ignored them. Then (recently) Saudi Arabia and the Arab League made the same offer, sweetened by general Arab recognition and peace, and Israel said “no”. And all the while continued expanding into the West Bank.
Israel’s expansion into the West Bank may be “liberatory” for some Jews, but it is profoundly destructive for Palestinians. Israel is not after a (mere) homeland. It wants a large one. And it wants if Arab-rein. And it is working at achieving this.
I don’t know what “racism” means, but this is an operation in favor of one group (those who agree to call themselves Jews) against another group (whom everyone calls Palestinian Arabs) which involves massive expulsion (reasonably called “ethnic cleansing”), land-grabbing, 63 years of ignoring and violating the human rights of the refugees (exilees) of 1948, 44 years of ignoring and violating the human rights of those living under occupation, war-crimes (alleged, a big fight going on as to whether they will ever be proved in any court), etc. A VERY DIRTY PICTURE.
“Liberatory”? As if.
Just like removing ethnic clensers is not ethnic cleansing.
Who’s asking you to walk in a march that declares “zionism is racism”?
Nobody. So less of the patronising implied in your statement that your convictions are ‘complex’, while everybody else’s are simple. Zionism is separatism and segregation which privileges one group over another. Call it what you like. Apartheid is a good description.
Poor Witty.
Why don’t you also disclose that your shimmering vision of “Palestinians be[ing] treated decently” involves Israelis ethnically cleansing them whenever they feel there are too many about?
Certainly, it is accurate to say your version of “Zionism Is Jewish Supremacism”.
Let some air into your thinking, not just formula.
Allow for Jews to self-associate, in Israel (where they ARE), and self-govern.
And, that is Zionism.
The idea that Jews (the nation) should not be allowed to self-govern is a form of racism, as confusing as that may be to you.
Every definition of governance can be good or bad. Nationalism, ‘Universalism’ (if suppressive dogma). Dictatorship, ‘democracy’ (if mobocracy).
Either/or does not allow for Zionism to be understood as a liberation, and only ideologically as a suppression.
Barenboin in leading a musical performance a couple days ago in Gaza for example stated “I am a Palestinian AND I am a Zionist”.
The idea that Jews (the nation) should not be allowed to self-govern is a form of racism…
You don’t “self-govern” on stolen land. You occupy it.
And if you had any knowledge of American history and appreciation for its values, you would know it.
RW: Barenboin … stated “I am a Palestinian AND I am a Zionist”.
No. He said “I am a Palestinian and an Israeli“. Zionism is an ideology (not a particularly popular one among Palestinians, for some strange reason); Israeli is a nationality (there are many Palestinian and/or non/anti-Zionist Israelis) – although Zionism is undemocratically imposed on all Israelis, as a state ideology.
>> The idea that Jews (the nation) should not be allowed to self-govern is a form of racism …
This Jewish “nation” thing still doesn’t make sense to me. Canada, Italy and Israel are nations. To become Canadian, Italian, Israeli or Palestinian, I just need to take the proper legal / bureaucratic steps to acquire citizenship to Canada, Italy, Israel or Palestine.
If I wish to become a citizen of the nation of “Jew”, there are no legal / bureaucratic steps I can take to acquire citizenship. The only way I can become Jewish – please correct me if I’m wrong – is through religious conversion.
So…”Jewish” is a religious affiliation, not a national affiliation. (One can be Jewish-Canadian (religion-citizenship), but apparently one cannot be Catholic-Jewish or Muslim-Jewish.)
Religious affiliations govern within their orders, they don’t (or should not have) nations from which people who have not undergone religious conversion can be excluded.
You’re right. I misread the quote.
An Israeli is a Zionist however, otherwise there would not be a distinct state.
Zionism is a bigger tent than just the expansionist or ethnically prejudicial. It is national as “French” is national.
There are differing Zionist assertions, some of which are more like Barenboin and some are more like Lieberman.
Wrong again, Richard. Shmuel is an Israeli, (among his other identities, such as being a distinguished citizen of the entire world). Shmuel is not a Zionist. Israeli “Arabs” are also Israeli, but not Zionist.
Why don’t you set aside your thinking formed by the film Exodus and look at the reality today?
“Zionism is a bigger tent than just the expansionist or ethnically prejudicial. It is national as ‘French’ is national.”
That is complete rubbish. Utter idiocy. Zionism is an idea, not a nationality. The equivalent of “French” in your statement is “Israeli.” The equivalent of “Zionism” in your statement would be something like “Gaullism.”
Consider RW’s urgings that the Palestinians first have to create a state institutions. Now here is Daniel Barenboim on Israel in the 50′s.
I remember when I met him ages ago, he was still playing piano at the time, he told us he didn’t like Israel post-1967. He says the same in the above little essay.
Richard, you “misread” the quote? How did you “mis-type” it as well? Did you “mis-remember” it and fail to glance at it when you decided to quote him? Everyone makes “mistakes” now and then, but how did this one happen? And when your error was pointed out, you respond that you weren’t so wrong, because “An Israeli is a Zionist” anyway?
In all fairness, I would not be surprised if Barenboim would describe himself as a Zionist (I don’t know one way or the other), though I would be surprised if he had done so before a Gaza audience. Still, Richard, if you want to know why people get upset with you, well, this episode sums it up quite nicely.
Witty,
So Christian ethnic Germans can “self-govern” in Germany and white Protestants can “self-govern” in the United States at the expense of ethnic and religious outsiders? How did your thinking manage to become so twisted? You’ve just demonstrated once again that Zionists have no understanding whatever of the basic principles and values of modern Western democracies.
Seriously, make a credible effort to explain yourself. Do you really support the right and rightness of ethnic and religious nationalist states outside of Israel to treat Jews and other ethnic and religious outsiders the way that Israel and Zionists are treating Palestinians? If not, why not?
Witty:
You wrote: “Zionism is a bigger tent than just the expansionist or ethnically prejudicial. It is national as “French” is national.”
This is utterly false. Zionism is an ethnocentric and theocentric ideology. To be “French” in modern terms is to be a French citizen, without any hint of ethnic or religious criteria (not to mention ethnic or religious messianism).
The closest correlates to Zionism in European politics are fascist, racist, ethnocentric and xenophobic movements.
No, an Israeli is not a Zionist. Israel is a state (but without completely declared borders or even an constitution, so if it is even a real state could be debated.) An Israeli is an individual holding an Israeli passport. It is a legal status.
Zionism is not a legal status for individuals. It is an ideology.
David, you have to consider that DB is born in 1942. In the essay I linked above he talks about his grandma, who was an ardent Zionist. Hardly a surprise at the time.
I am neither a fan of Richard’s “maximalist” use of Zionism, as above, nor it’s use as an insult. I actually think that DB may well be close to Jerry Haber / CM, in making a difference between “cultural” and “political” Zionism without necessarily using the same term as JH. I guess I would, as I lean towards post-Zionism somehow. Israel no doubt exists and Zionism was meant to create it.
Richard’s problem is his tunnel vision …
A plausible scenario: before Zionism reaches the end of its career, it may acquire a reputation on about the same level as Nazism or worse (that will depend on how much violence it commits for the duration of its existence). Future generations of Jews may wish to forget about this period of history, and the episode of Zionism especially, which resembles other false messianic movements in Jewish history that ran aground after euphoric ambitions and hopes. Whatever happens with Zionism, Jewish civilization, which is much more complex and vital than Zionism, will happily outlive it.
So Palestinian Israelis are Zionists too, then? The more you wriggle around your self-made contradictions, the more absurd your arguments. You don’t sound like you’ve really thought this through, have you? (despite the myriad of articles here explaining the point)
“The idea that Jews (the nation) should not be allowed to self-govern is a form of racism…”
By itself, absent of context, that would be entirely true (were one to assume that the Jews are a nation, a highly dubious proposition, but for argument’s sake I’ll let that slide.)
However the idea that Palestinians should not be allowed to self-govern IS a form of racism. The arrogance of Zionism is that it speaks so enthusiastically about the rights of the Jews, but never the universality of human rights. Whether or not the Jews should have their own homeland is a complex question, but the problem is, how are the Palestinians any less entitled to their homeland? Why should they give up everything so Jewish Germans, Americans, Russians, etc., can redefine their religion as their nationality? Like the Zionist occupation your arguments just ignore the humanity of the people who have been living for centuries on the land you claim. How is that NOT racism?
“Whatever happens with Zionism, Jewish civilization, which is much more complex and vital than Zionism, will happily outlive it.”
Another good comment, seanmcbride! German civilization outlived Nazism, Italian civilization outlived Fascism, Catholic civilization outlived the Inquisition, Protestant civilization outlived witch-burning, American and Brazilian civilizations outlived slavery. I have great hope for the future of Jewish civilization.
But a cautionary note: Nazis cannot really be said to have outlived Nazism.
As all loyal Americans are “republicans” (because they willingly live within a republic), all Israelis are Zionists (because they willingly live within Israel).
Zionism is ok. Its not racism by definition. If some Zionists are racist, that is by their actions and words.
Shmuel, David Samel, North, others, are looking to brand my posts as offensive. Open your minds a little bit to other interpretations.
The vast majority of those that have any memory of Jewish life, particularly European Jewish life, beyond the current generation, regard the formation, existence, and defense of Israel as a liberation.
Most likely Kushner is also a Zionist, in the same sense that I am and speak of, as most likely Barenboim is as well. Loving his home, loving that he has the ability to have one.
“As all loyal Americans are “republicans” (because they willingly live within a republic), all Israelis are Zionists (because they willingly live within Israel).”
LMAO. Are you even thinking before you post?? If all Americans are “republicans” because the USA is a “republic,” then all Israelis would be “parliamentary democrats,” because Israel is a “parliamentary democracy.” “Zionist” is not a form of government. It is an ideology.
Jeez Louise, this is elementary-school political science.
“Zionism is ok. Its not racism by definition.”
Not by definition, but in practice, there is a strong case to be made that it is because it can’t (or, at least, hasn’t) be put into practice without stripping others of their rights, with the provision and protection of rights varies according to one’s ethno-religious background.
The only way I can become Jewish – please correct me if I’m wrong – is through religious conversion.
You can become a Humanistic Jew, but only a couple of branches of Judaism will accept you as Jewish.
I’d suggest, by way of definition, that ‘Zionism’ is ‘the belief that a share in sovereignty over the Holy Land (or a subset acceptable to Jewish opinion) belongs to all Jewish people and by right to them only – and that a share does belong to some others, but only by the grace and generosity of the rightful heirs’.
It is impossible to universalise this claim – ie to say that every human subgroup has the right to claim sovereignty for its members over a territory determined by its own choice, since this would give equal validity to completely conflicting claims. If it can’t be universalised it’s morally invalid.
“Most likely Kushner is also a Zionist, in the same sense that I am and speak of, as most likely Barenboim is as well. Loving his home, loving that he has the ability to have one.”
I don’t think Kushner is a Zionist (and he has said that he isn’t). I think he believe Israel has a right to exist, but would say it has a right to exist as a Jewish state. While I can’t stand Jeff Wiesenfeld or what he did, Tony Kushner does not exactly have legs to stand on when it comes to the mischaracterization of the views of others. As I mentioned elsewhere, he gave a commencement speech at my alma mater where he ran through a list of political policies he didn’t agree with and defined them as “evil” with no explanation as to why he thought so. I thought it was amazingly unfortunate that he felt the need to be presumptuous like that, particularly in a speech that was otherwise a good one about the importance of organizing. Tony’s got some strong political views, and he’s far from careful about mischaracterizing those he doesn’t agree with. I mean, I think he’s pretty great overall save this tendency.
>> RW: As all loyal Americans are “republicans” (because they willingly live within a republic), all Israelis are Zionists (because they willingly live within Israel).
>> WT: LMAO. Are you even thinking before you post?? If all Americans are “republicans” because the USA is a “republic,” then all Israelis would be “parliamentary democrats,” because Israel is a “parliamentary democracy.”
No, he isn’t thinking. Not only did he get his association wrong, but he labelled as disloyal all Americans who are “democrats” (because they live in a democracy).
What a clown.
>> You can become a Humanistic Jew, but only a couple of branches of Judaism will accept you as Jewish.
Thanks for the reply. However, if one of those accepting branches is not “Jew”, the nation whose “Jewish” citizenship one can acquire via a legal / bureaucratic process, then my earlier point (May 6, 2011 at 7:49 am) stands.
“No. He said “I am a Palestinian and an Israeli“
Shmuel, he’s also got an Argentinian citizenship (where he was born)and one from Spain too but he chose to mention the Israeli one because above all else, he’s a Zionist and as a Zionist he identifies mostly with Israel, not with the country where he was born. His statement about being a Palestinian is proof that the guy and his Gaza concert for 300 “invitees” was nothing but a shameless Israeli PR stunt along the lines like when Israel sends in a search and rescue team into another country’s devasted area only long enough for the pictures to be recorded by journalists and broadcasters that they have been there.
Right you are Richard, clearly I need to be more open-minded about granting Israelis jews the exclusive right to ethnically cleanse.
Any theory – stated with sufficient generality – can be made to sound acceptable. I don’t have any objection to jews “self-associating” or “self-governing”, and you can call it zionism if you wish. No need to tell me i need to “allow for jews to self-associate”, I’m not asking them not to do so.
Your achilles heel Richard, is where theory intersects with the real world. To borrow a phrase from architect Mies van der Rohe – and I’m an atheist but you get my drift – “god is in the details”. Formulated as a motherhood statement, zionism is fine, but as it has manifested in the real world, it is anything but fine.
I don’t care to have endless rhetorical discussions where, for whatever reason you try to salvage the concept of “zionism” by turning away from the reality of “zionism” in Israel. What I find most disturbing about you Richard is that when pressed for details, you reveal some extremely ugly thinking, such that the Nakba was a good thing, that you believe the Palestinian refugees should be denied their legally protected right of return, and that Israeli jews should have the permanent right to ethnically cleanse Palestinian Israelis as they see fit. Coming from an American jew, who has a comfortable life in America as a minority with all his equality and rights protected, but who has familial ties to the holocaust – a time when jews were stripped of their rights, I am disgusted as always that you would propose stripping the rights of Palestinians in the same manner.
A snippet of the text of UN GA 3379, the famous “zionism is racism” resolution, which was revoked at Israel’s insistence in 1991, a pre-condition of Israel going to Madrid [my emphasis]:
The General Assembly,
Recalling its resolution 1904 (XVIII) of 20 November 1963, proclaiming the United Nations Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, and in particular its affirmation that “any doctrine of racial differentiation or superiority is scientifically false, morally condemnable, socially unjust and dangerous” and its expression of alarm at “the manifestations of racial discrimination still in evidence in some areas in the world, some of which are imposed by certain Governments by means of legislative, administrative or other measures”,
Care to tell me Richard, how your argument that Israelis jews should be entitled to ethnically cleanse Palestinians in perpetuity is not part of a superiority doctrine?
Interesting interpretation of Barenboin.
His name is Barenboim, Richard.
The liberation of the Jewish people following the holocaust and post-holocaust oppressions was a good thing.
It represented the transformation of a people from death’s door to now health.
The denial of the restoration is in fact a form of genocidal intent, an intent that the Jewish people remained more than persecuted (genocided).
It was necessary for the Jewish people to accomplish.
Now, that that assertion of our community is accomplished, it is necessary to restore the Palestinian people to health.
That requires compromise on Israel’s part, and many factors deter the possibility of willingness to compromise to achieve that. The most pressing need is to articulate literally a “better argument”, so that electoral changes are possible that result in a status of live and let live, rather than the either/or condition of non-acceptance of the other.
Anger is not it. Creativity and mutual respect construct a decent life.
To the extent that there is a political existential threat (including in the urging of the single-state), then Israel will rationally remain defensive as the assertion is intended as the elimination of Israel as Israel.
As Michael W referred, quoting the Yehoshua piece, identity expressed as self-governance is important to most Israelis, even when they hate the outcomes.
If you can articulate a better argument for Israelis to adopt for a single state, then maybe they will consider it.
When the EU formed, there was MUCH rejection of the premises, but it occurred over time, as it was rational and ratified.
There currently is no proposal for a single state that is likely to be ratified by Israel, given the recent and long historical experience of violence against civilians and overt warring by states and militias opposed to Israel’s existence.
The reasoning of Palestinian solidarity is not a complete picture of reality, not a complete picture of democracy, if you are committed to democracy. You are not well-served by limiting your thinking, your range of ideas and persons that you respect, to those that articulate politically correct perspectives.
If you have integrity, you will make a bigger tent in your thinking.
The notion that there is a single “truth” ala Ilan Pappe, is a false understanding. Different peoples experienced very different things in the same time period.
I do not deny or dismiss the nakba, nor think of it as “just”. But, I also do not deny or dismiss the holocaust, post-holocaust, and anxious impure desirability of Zionist assertion.
Zionism is better morally than the Jacob/Esau story, as Zionism was historically necessary. In Jewish consciousness though, it is a similar story of living with the prospect of guilt.
The choices include then:
1. Suicide – “We are not willing to live or self-associate”
2. Gloat in denial – “You had it coming, history proves it”
3. Reconcile/heal – “We need to survive with our identity and dignity intact. We recognize that you need to survive with your identity and dignity intact.”
I choose 3. What do you choose? (Or, do you see other options?)
>> I do not deny or dismiss the nakba, nor think of it as “just”.
Perhaps not, but you most definitely do admit that Jews did commit ethnic cleansing (which makes you participant in a blood libel and also a Jewish anti-Semite) and you have approved of it.
In your own words: “To rationalize terror in any way is to ‘invest’ in it.”
Congratulations. You’re a real “humanist”.
That’s a very long-winded way of not answering my question Richard. I’ll ask again:
Care to tell me Richard, how your argument that Israelis jews should be entitled to ethnically cleanse Palestinians in perpetuity is not part of a superiority doctrine?
The book “Just say nu” arrived in the post. It’s about yiddish . I can’t wait to get into it and start kvetching with Mooser.
Mentsch is a great Yiddish word. It is defined in the book as a decent human being, a respectable person.
You can’t be Zionist today and a mentsch.
These are men with guts. Unfortunately, men (and women) with guts are far and few these days.
My friend Bernie the Attorney used to say, “The power of Zionism ends where people of integrity taking a stand begins.”
It’s good to be reminded that in the earliest history of Zionism, there was a vigorous debate in the Jewish community about whether Theodor Herzl was a true or false prophet, and about whether Zionism would be “good for the Jews.” It turns out that the early dissenters on the entire Zionist dream and project may have been right all along.
Those who believed Jesus walked on the water, stayed with him. Those who didn’t, dropped out.
The question of whether Zionism is “good for the Jews” is quite beside the point. It very well be “good for the Jews” and still be wrong if it cannot be implimented (and in any conception of it, it cannot) without trampling on the rights of the Palestinians.
Creating the “omelet” of Israel cannot be made without breaking eggs. The eggs are the lives, culture, etc., of the Palestinians. The “signal” that this was foreseen and planned is the bumper-sticker phrase “a land without a people for a people without a land”. This was the “ad”. It said, “come, no one will be inconvenienced”. It was a deliberate lie. Not the last.
In the days when Zionism was proposed, being Jewish (rather than being a [secular] Jew) meant living among other people and not making waves. Zionism pretended there were no other people, but its intention from the start was to live outside the law, outside the comfort zone of the neighbors. It was to that extend anti-Jewish (whatever it may have been for the [secular] Jews.
It is my guess that, today, in the USA, the Jewish anti-Zionism is strongest among secular Jews. Just a guess. The religious Jews, Neturei Karta apart, seem to have signed on for the ride.
The “eggs” are also the lives & culture of Jews in all cultural settings outside of Israel. Destruction of traditional ways of life in Jewish communities is pretty-much complete.
While I find Judaism distasteful (having grown up inside an orthodox form of it and left, which is a very unpopular position that comes with its own trail of haters), I think there is a legitimate grievance against the people who destroyed the lore and traditions of the many different cultures of Jews.
That’s true. There is no question about it. Zionism destroyed not only Palestinian lives and culture, but it also destroyed the lives of many Jews who, one way or another, lost their cultural identity and their socio-economic status, especially — especially — non-Ashkenazi Jews whom Zionism relegated to the lower strata of Israeli society, as a labor force or otherwise.
Woody Tanaka: “[Zionism may] very well be ‘good for the Jews’ and still be wrong if it cannot be implemented … without trampling on the rights of the Palestinians.”
True, but I would add that it would still be wrong also if it results in the destruction of America and what this country used to represent in the world. Being good for two per cent of Americans (were it so) would not make it good by the standards of most Americans. We still aspire to be a democracy, not an elitist “meritocracy” based on racial/religious preference.
I mentioned this last week, but for anyone who missed my comment it should be noted that even Netanyahu believes that the Zionist project was first conceived and started by early 19th Century Christian evangelicals, the originators of today’s Christian Zionism. See this video of a speech given by Netanyahu to John Hagee’s Christians United for Israel on March 8, 2010. The relevant portion starts at 5:25:
link to youtube.com
If you are not familiar with Christians United for Israel you should view this video:
link to youtube.com
tombishop: “… even Netanyahu believes that the Zionist project was first conceived and started by early 19th Century Christian evangelicals, the originators of today’s Christian Zionism.”
This is rank hogwash. Netanyahu doesn’t “believe” it; he uses that silly hasbara idea to try to reinforce the notions that Israelis are just like Americans and that Christian evangelicals are just like Jewish Zionists. Both notions are repugnant misrepresentations of reality. If you believe either one of these crazy ideas, you’ve got to be a little off yourself or at least grossly misinformed about history, religion and politics.
(Full disclosure: I was raised in a fundamentalist evangelical family and maintain close personal ties with members of both that community and the Jewish community. I know them both pretty well.)
The idea was invented by Menachem Begin and Yitzak Shamir in the late 70s to undermine Jimmy Carter and get Reagan elected. They decided to mobilize the Christian South vote by only talking to Reagan through Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson and their ilk, and vice versa. This was how Falwell, et al, gained their political power. Up until then it was all snake-waving and Southern Baptist homilies. Since the Jews and Christian Right crowd had nothing in common, Begin used hatred of homosexuals as a common bridge, and so was borne values issues in election politics, and all the Come To Jesus moments.
Netanyahu no more believes that than I think I can fly. His father is a Zionist scholar who despises all Amaleks. ‘By Way of Deception Thou Shalt Do War.’
I agree with Thomson Rutherford and MRW. Netanyahu’s is a political ploy that which the historical record does not support.
Netanyahu’s not that wrong. Christian Zionism has a long pedigree going back at least to Henry Finch’s ‘Great Restauration’ of 1621. It developed through reactionaries like Alexander Keith DD, a believer in literal truth of prophecy one of whose reviewers seems to have invented the ‘land without a people’ ploy in the 1840s, and through ultra-progressives like George Eliot. Jacqueline Rose in ‘The Question of Zion’ shows how difficult it was to reconcile this proto-Zionism with Jewish religion as it existed in those years, though she shows how the Jewish world of the later seventeenth century was shaken up by Sabatianism, a very unorthodox, quasi-political – but not exactly Zionist – movement.
There is another good account in Gabriel Piterberg’s ‘The Returns of Zionism’ – and Victoria Clark’s ‘Allies for Armageddon’ (which I haven’t read so closely; I found the accounts of some of the crazy preachers a bit too shocking) was well reviewed. Piterberg shows how leading British Jews saw Herzl’s form of Zionism as an attempt to put Eliot’s ideas into practice.
I don’t think we can understand the success of Zionism unless we appreciate how it could appeal not only to some Christians but to people at many different points of the Christian spectrum. Never to all, of course.
MHughes976,
While what you say is true, the impetus for the colonial project did not come from such quarters, namely Christian Zionist. There are as you pointed out some — to use a metaphor — blips on the screen as far Christian Zionism goes; you mentioned a couple of examples. But, these cases were not the driving force behind the Zionist colonial project.
“But, these cases were not the driving force behind the Zionist colonial project.”
Avi, what in your mind was the primary driving force behind the Zionist colonial project?
I’m not sure I understand your question. Are you unaware of the Jewish Zionist movement’s history, both in western and eastern Europe? Or are you merely asking for my personal opinion on the subject (re: Christian Zionism)?
My story, on which Avi can doubtless improve much, would be that around the end of the 19th century some European Jewish intellectuals saw an enormous opportunity for themselves and what they stood for – Jewish culture compatible both with religion and atheism, generally progressive thought as understood in Vienna and Paris, the enlightenment of the world by imperial power. Instead of being the victims of imperial power they would become its spearhead, bringing – of course; no mean selfishness here – many, many benefits to a backward part of the world. The fact that Christian writers and statesmen were already, for all sorts of reasons of their own, becoming interested in this idea helped to create the opportunity that these rather brilliant Jewish minds saw and seized. So Weizmann was able to work for years on Balfour and Balfour’s class, talking of religious obligations and imperial cooperation.
On the ideological side there was a movement that Piterberg calls a kind of Jewish Protestantism, led by Ben Gurion, in which personal engagement with the Bible – and personal enthusiasm for the Holy Land thus engendered – would sweep aside rabbinical tradition and especially the pacifist element in that tradition.
I would have to say, not with much enthusiasm, that Netanhayu’s term – an ‘enabling’ role – is very close to the truth. And there were seeds sown in Christian, particularly American and Protestant, hearts which were there to be fertilised by the television evangelists in recent years.
Avi, I do know a little about the Jewish Zionist movement’s history, both in western and eastern Europe having read A Threat From Within: A Century of Jewish Opposition to Zionism, by Yakov M. Rabkin.
I would be interested in your opinion on the role Christian Zionism played (if any) at the start of the colonial project. Do we need to distinguish between small (z) and big (Z) ionism?
Lastly, on the “Benno Schmidt signals…” thread, the authoritative-sounding Rozahill states re the 1948 era:
“In the kindest possible interpretation, establishing Israel helped Europe get rid of a population that needed a lot of help and could have disrupted US/European plans to confront and push back Russia while establishing a client state in the Middle East that could be counted on to police the oil interests.”
Do your reckon these are the primary reasons?
Thanks for your densely-packed informative post, MHughes.
I’ve unpacked it into six points which I’m presently chewing over:
Points 1 & 2, “Jewish culture compatible both with religion and atheism, generally progressive thought as understood in Vienna and Paris, the enlightenment of the world by imperial power.”
AND
“Instead of being the victims of imperial power they would become its spearhead, bringing – of course; no mean selfishness here – many, many benefits to a backward part of the world.”
These ‘assimilated’ Jewish intellectuals appear to have been men of their times — and of all times — except for their dreadful baggage of anti-Semitism.
Points 3-6 regarding Christian Zionists. I’m going to delve more deeply into the history of their ideology. But it is their present activities I find truly alarming. I’ve learned in recent weeks that a) it was CZ money that financed the transfer of the Russian Jews to Israel, and b) that Christian Zionists listen ONLY to Church news. There is no way to reach them. We must try to somehow find a way to destroy the power of their leaders.
patm,
The thrust of my argument is that the distinction between Christian Zionism and Jewish Zionism is not sufficient enough to explain that actualization of the colonial project, namely a Jewish ‘homeland’ in Palestine.
While there were Christian Zionist voices that existed in the 1800s, colonialism, with its inherently racist foundations — civilizing the savages while stealing their resources — was a far more significant force, a force that rendered so-called Christian Zionism negligible to the point of irrelevance.
Consider for example the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Records shows that Bush viewed the attack with strong religious undertones. On more than one occasion he had mentioned the battle of Gog and Magog.
But, much in the same way these religious motives played a negligible role in facilitating the invasion, the same applies — at least in my view — to the Zionist colonial project.
Similarly, much like the Iraq invasion was made possible by a convergence of interests — as one factor cannot be said to have been the single motivating factor (e.g. oil, Israel, no-bid contracts) — the same applies to the colonial project in Palestine.
Still, some factors played a far more significant role than others. So, while certain factors cannot be discredited, they certainly were negligible to the point of irrelevance.
One point that you have already mentioned formed a substantial part in facilitating the project, namely the desire to get rid of European Jews by giving them their own homeland. But, at the same time, the Jewish Zionist movement pitched its project as one where Israel would stand as a barrier, a fort between the savages in the East and the civilized in the West.
Yet, another factor was British colonialism which considered the region, both a strategic and an economic asset, including control of the Suez Canal.
It is no wonder then that by the early to mid 1900s, Zionist Jewish organizations were attacking British assets in Palestine, explicitly saying to Britain, “You have served your purpose. Now we want you out of here like you promised”.
Thanks Avi,
I believe you’re correct. Religion was by no means a significant factor in getting the Zionist colonial project off the ground. For the British it was the dictates of empire; for the Jewish Zionists, the dream of a Jewish nation.
But perhaps you will agree that today the millions of Christian Zionists around the world are a significant factor in keeping Israel afloat. I truly wish this was not the case.
seanmcbride, Herzl was considered a wackjob in his time. Remember this is the same guy who proposed mass conversion of Jews to Christianity. That gig did not get too far.
Then he got onto the Zionism solution, which grew into a colonial enterprise and garnered more support than his first plan.
Most all Jews rejected Zionism and then it got forces behind it after the atrocities and trauma around WWII. So making that connection worked, as planned and pushed by Zionist ideologues who cared about the enterprise, but not about Jews or Judaism.
Zionism remains a terrible tragedy for Judaism. A golden calf.
Wow. I honestly didn’t expect this to make waves for even this long or to have other consequences. I guess maybe it is possible for Zionist political manipulations to go a step too far.
Let’s note, again, that the Kushner case is one of an enormous list including, but certainly not limited to:
– the libeling of Norman Finkelstein by Alan Dershowitz
– the torpedoing of Juan Cole for a faculty post at Yale
– the assault on Debbie Almontaser and the Khalil Gibran Academy (abetted by Joel Klein and Michael Bloomberg)
– the furor over Jimmy Carter’s “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid”
– the Brooklyn College attack on Kristofer Petersen-Overton
– the hate-campaign against Jenny Peto over her Master’s thesis at the University of Toronto
– the gross difference in treatment of Helen Thomas compared with that enjoyed by Martin Kramer or Martin Peretz (or many others)
– death threats leveled against Princeton professor Richard Falk after he suggested that Israel had likely committed war crimes
– attempted campaigns against Edward Said, Rashid Khalidi, Joseph Massad and others
– the hysterical response to performances of “My Name Is Rachel Corrie”
– the Atlantic’s memory-holing of the Walt-Mearsheimer paper on the Israel Lobby
– the University of South Florida’s attacks on Sami Al-Arian
– the campaign against past members of Congress like James Abourezk and Cynthia McKinney
– past attacks on Vanessa Redgrave and many others who have dared support Palestinian rights
The list grows daily.
Thank you for the cataloging. Well done.
I would add the smears against Lieutenant Commander James Ennes U.S.N. (ret), survivor of Israel’s 1967 attack on the USS Liberty and author of “Assault on the Liberty.”
see – link to gtr5.com
- AND -
From the USS Liberty website statement (a site Mr. Ennes help create)
Charges of “anti-Semitism”
Anti-Semitism is an evil, pernicious doctrine that advocates hatred of an entire group of people based on nothing more than their religion and/or ethnicity. It is a senseless, irrational and wholly unacceptable thought system. It is decidedly un-American and the antithesis of what this country stands for. We strongly oppose anti-Semitism and believe that all rational minds must do likewise.
Many of the individuals and groups who oppose our demand for an investigation and accounting of the Israeli attack on USS Liberty characterize our efforts as “anti-Semitism.” They refuse to offer facts in support of their argument that the attack was an accident. They refuse to deal with the facts we present. Rather, they simply dismiss us as “anti-Semites” and submit that they need do nothing more than this to establish their position. This is a cowardly evasion of the issue.
The pro-Israel apologists shamelessly make these charges because they are unable to refute our arguments on the facts. Not having a factual basis for their position, they try to dismiss our arguments through ad hominem attacks that are false and disingenuous. Worse, these charges are made in bad faith for no reason other than to create a rationale for evading a discussion on the merits of the case. If they had persuasive facts to offer, they would. They haven’t. All they have offered are deliberate, demonstrable lies.
from: link to gtr5.com
hughsansom, this is an impressive list. But, as you imply, a complete list of indefensible Zionist hit jobs would be very long indeed.
Well, what enables Zionist attacks on prominent American non-Zionists to be so effective? My answer: Zionist control over American mainstream media. The Z’s know where the power lies and how to manipulate it.
+ Goldstone
I have been predicting for some time now that these attacks by pro-Israel activists on many influential Americans and Europeans are going to lead to the collapse of support for Israel worldwide. Seriously: who in the world can’t see this coming. Pro-Israel militants at the Likud end of the political spectrum especially seem to be determined to violently polarize the entire world against themselves. There is a messianic psychology in play here that needs to be understood.
Why these instituitions keep knuckling under to these perverts is beyond me.
Money is the short answer. Academic institutions get bones thrown to them when they heave to special interests, and get threatened with expensive legal actions, that are costly to the institutions even if they don’t succeed, in terms of image if not actual expense (and usually both). And then, of course, there’s good old blacklisting, anywhere from the private sector straight up through government agencies into which people with canted agendas have been placed to ensure that there is active pressure on people who don’t parrot what Israel wants.
“the furor over Jimmy Carter’s “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid’”
Not only was there a furor, Zionists (apparently) have put together a class action suit, charging the book is a work of fiction, but was sold as non-fiction.
link to newsmax.com
Not the first time it has been observed, however casually, that the situation in Israel is getting very very bad.
A January opinion piece in the Jewish Journal discussing BDS and the racist rabbbi’s edict about Israeli jews not letting property to non-jews prompted this:
When prominent Israeli rabbis announce that Jewish law prohibits renting apartments or homes to Arabs within Israel, we don’t need our enemies to proclaim that Zionism is racism; we have rabbinical rulings endorsing a racial policy that reminds many Jews of German policy toward the Jews in the pre-exterminationist years.
Weiss: “… if the result of having to defend Israel is that Jews start acting like bullies and sounding like Nazis, at some point the price gets to be too high.”
For a solid majority of American Jews, at what point does the price get too high? In the name of defending Israel or whatever, a great many Israeli Jews have long been “acting like bullies and sounding like Nazis,” to put it quite mildly. They are mimicked by many American Jews, all in the “defense” of Israel.
What, precisely, has been the price for those Nazi-like attitudes and that bullying behavior? What penalties have been exacted by American society? Nothing much that I can see. Jews in America stand atop the most powerful political, economic, and military entity this globe has ever endured. They are exempted from criticism by the broader society to a stunning, almost incredible degree.
Whatever costs are incurred by Zionist Jews for their extreme actions, it must be that they are being inflicted solely within the Jewish community itself. It appears to me that these are minimal, at best. (The contention that being a Jew and being a Zionist are contradictory propositions is clearly not true.) Of course, it could be that this immunity may disappear rather fast, from both inside and outside the American Jewish community.
But the question remains, How great must the costs become before most American Jews abandon political Zionism? What kinds of costs are necessary to achieve that?
How great must the costs become before most American Jews abandon political Zionism
Very salient point for this site. I believe I am more hardcore than most here. I sympathetic to Taxi’s fatalism. I don’t feel one day the hardcore Zionists will wake up, feel ashamed of their handiwork, and start humming Kum bay ya in front of the shaving mirror.
The money that supports Zionism now is living large.
This won’t end well. -N49.
N49, you and other Canadians on MW might be interested in this:
link to dennisgruending.ca
Will [Canadian Prime Minister] Harper’s crime bill outlaw Israel Apartheid Week?
link to ottawasun.com
More food for thought.
Some good news from the Israeli-born Canadian activist who started me “down this rabbit hole.”
“The Canadian Boat to Gaza campaign announces today the successful conclusion of arrangements to purchase and register a boat to carry the Canadian delegation to Gaza.
The boat’s name Tahrir (Liberation in Arabic) has been chosen to honour the square in Cairo that was the focus of the democratic uprising that has spread hope across the Middle East.
The Tahrir will sail with vessels from France, USA, UK, Ireland, Italy, Spain, Switzerland, Greece, Turkey, and other countries, as part of the Freedom Flotilla II.
This international movement in solidarity with the Palestinian people turns the spotlight on the blockade of Gaza and its 1.6 million residents whose access to resources and ability to travel has been unilaterally impeded by the illegal Israeli blockade.
Fundraising for this campaign has been shared by thousands of Canadians from coast to coast to coast, and with the momentum building for this project we expect to secure the remaining amount needed over the next few weeks of fundraising.
“We have been overwhelmed by the generosity of individuals and groups across the country” said Wendy Goldsmith of the Canadian Boat to Gaza Fundraising Committee, adding that “we are sure that with our boat now a reality, the community support will come through to raise the remaining funds needed.”
The 25-metre Tahrir will carry approximately 45 people: delegates from across the country, high profile Canadians plus journalists. As well, the Canadian campaign has partnered with campaigns from other countries and will carry delegates from Australia, Belgium and Denmark.
A new website tahrir.ca was launched today to coincide with news of the boat’s purchase and will be the site for online donations.
Despite news that Egypt plans to open the Rafah border crossing, the maritime blockade by Israel remains a major obstacle to achieving normal life in Gaza.
The Canadian Boat to Gaza and the Freedom Flotilla movement will continue our work until the Port of Gaza is opened to ensure free circulation of goods and people. “
Gaza is the only port on the Mediterranean which is closed to shipping and the only coastal area in the world which cannot access its own territorial waters,” points out David Heap of the CBG steering committee. “
Until the Palestinians of Gaza can travel freely and trade with the world, we will continue to challenge this illegal military blockade.”
As the Israeli government continues to threaten the use of force against the Freedom Flotilla II, we call on all Canadians, including Members of Parliament from all parties, to join with us in demanding that the Canadian government take concrete steps to guarantee the safety of humanitarians headed to Gaza.
“My heart is with the participants in the Canadian boat to Gaza in this important initiative for freedom and justice for Palestine.
I urge the Canadian government to do all it can to prevent Israeli aggression against the flotilla and the activists aboard the boats,” said Jewish Holocaust survivor and Palestine rights activist Suzanne Weiss in Toronto.”
The world is watching: we will not be intimidated and we will not forget the Palestinians of Gaza.
Mr. Rutherford, the answer is rather simple yet portends very serious questions. The fact be told, the “Jews” are not standing alone in their enterprise in Israel, but with the complete support of the West – the USA might be in the lead but the rest are intimately involved.
Here is an adequate definition of impunity taken from United Nations Commission On Human Rights (for an ironic emphasis) –
“the impossibility, de jure or de facto, of bringing the perpetrators of violations to account – whether in criminal, civil, administrative or disciplinary proceedings – since they are not subject to any inquiry that might lead to their being accused, arrested, tried and, if found guilty, sentenced to appropriate penalties, and to making reparations to their victims.”
No court of law (and I use the term lightly, because there is plenty of law for you and I, but not for some) worth its salt would pass up the prosecution of those complicit in criminal activity. Perhaps the best definition of what is happening, as an example, in Gaza was given by one of the Colonel Desmond Travers – one of the four co-authors of the Goldstone Report:
“GAZA IS THE ONLY GULAG IN THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE; MAINTAINED BY DEMOCRACIES, CLOSED OFF FROM FOOD, WATER AND AIR.” Note that he used the plural “democracies,” and he put its nexus (the reason for its existence) in the “Western Hemisphere,” I assure you the choice of these words was no mistake.
So the answer to your question of impunity or immunity falls not only in the lap of Israel, but Israel’s willing supporters – and that happens to be all of the so-called democracies in the West. Therefore, Israel’s immunity will last as long as that of the actions, which are myriad and wide spread not only in this region but throughout the Middle East, of the West which willingly supports all of these atrocities. As long as the West lives with immunity/impunity so will Israel, does anyone see any sign that the West is going to be judged for their atrocities? No? Neither will Israel, because they are connected at the hip.
The instruction given to Israel in regard to the Goldstone Report was “examine yourself,” it was not swift and unrelenting military activity and judicial proceedings like the weak and poor countries of the world received (or those who did not follow the lead of the World Order, Yugoslavia, etc.) – there was and still is no force in regard to the West Or Israel.
Now, some (especially here) do not want to address the obvious atrocities of Israel with their willing Western enablers – but that would not be justice would it? I will go further and say they will not be judged (either Israel or its Western material supporters, its governments) nor will they ever have anything but immunity/impunity under the current world system. The only individuals who can stop this onslaught are the people, but if the people want to bifurcate Israel from the REAL countries that support it it will never happen. The same goes for all of the other atrocious activity all over the world supported by the dominant nations, you either slay the system or it will stay intact. There is the answer, destroy Western hegemony ans Imperialism along with Israeli activity and we will have the answer.
Phil’s headline that Kushner’s mugging is huge is right on. I looked up what Jeffrey Goldberg had to say:
Kushner strikes me, from a distance, as one of those sons-of-the-people who wakes up worrying about the Jews, and goes to sleep worrying about the Jews. I think his discomfort with Jewish power is mainly misplaced, but turning him into a free-speech martyr? Is that what a handful of Jews want to do with their political power?
This confirms my first instinct that what was done to Kushner is a big story (not, of course, in the MSM, but among academics and other thinkers who shape opinion). Goldberg of course is the liberal neocon who aided the effort to go to war against Iraq and last summer made the case for more war against Iran. When it came time for him to serve his “country” he volunteered for the IDF and worked as a screw in an Israeli prison housing Palestinian political prisoners.
His words here are interesting. He begins by ridiculing Kushner’s political concerns and more or less dismissing him as naive and misguided. But then criticizing the trustee ,without naming the thug, for turning Kushner into a martyr. Finally he makes the big acknowledgment: Zionist power is real but do not waste it like this.
Goldberg seems to admit in the political power of Zionism in this country but is trying to warn its more zealous advocates to go easy. He knows at some level that this power can be undermined if it is too publicly displayed. Since CCNY is a public institution it might not be a good idea for the Zionist to publicly display their power (no problem in private universities since the minutes of trustee meetings are not subject to public release).
This is the advice from a liberal Zionist — if you must black ball an Israeli critic, do it out of sight, keep it out of the public eye. But please, no one should consider Goldberg any more than that. At some level he senses that continued US support requires very careful and out of the spotlight nurturing. For now let’s hope this Kushner story remains alive.
Agreed. There’s far ‘far too much ‘sunlight on this nightflower’ -o- Goldberg is sending a warning.
“On Tony Kushner” by Stephen M. Walt CUNY Board Blows it Big-Time
thanks, MRW, that was interesting. Wiesenfeld’s response is pretty unbelievable, this guy is very estranged from reality. Are the transcripts of the meeting available somewhere? No time to check now.
I agree the Kushner thing is a gift to you guys. So now I’m waiting to see how you screw this one up. Let’s see: will you use it as an opportunity to spout the latest conspiracy theories? Will you call on Tony Kushner to reject Israel’s right to exist? Will you tar center and left-wing Zionists with Jeff Wiesenfeld’s extremist brush?
I can’t wait to see what you all come up with.
hophmi,
What you need to be focusing on is that people like Jeffrey Wiesenfeld and Pamela Geller (whom Wiesenfeld admires) are the face of contemporary Zionism.
You expend a great deal of energy attacking everything but the source of your problems.
“What you need to be focusing on is that people like Jeffrey Wiesenfeld and Pamela Geller (whom Wiesenfeld admires) are the face of contemporary Zionism.”
They are the face you’d like to put on contemporary Zionism. But they are not any more contemporary Zionism than Ismail Haniya is contemporary Islam.
hophmi,
When are you going to awake from your slumber?
The Israeli government, under every administration, right and left, has provided lavish support for the most extreme religious crackpots in the settlements movement.
The current Israeli government is the most right-wing and extreme regime in Israeli history.
All the key demographics strongly indicate that extremist forces in Israel will continue to increase in power for the foreseeable future.
What are you hoping is going to turn this mess around? Nothing is going to turn it around. Zealots like Jeffrey Wiesenfeld have acquired a financial stranglehold over the Israel lobby and over a critical mass of American politicians.
Expect attacks by pro-Israel militants on influential Americans and Europeans to increase in volume, ferocity and viciousness in the coming years. If you don’t want to be associated with that mess, you are probably going to have to dissociate yourself from this political movement and lobby altogether.
“Expect attacks by pro-Israel militants on influential Americans and Europeans to increase in volume, ferocity and viciousness in the coming years. If you don’t want to be associated with that mess, you are probably going to have to dissociate yourself from this political movement and lobby altogether.”
Thanks for the prognostication, sean. I know my own community well enough. Jeffrey represents a vocal but small part of it.
please quit repeating that tired lie that Israel has the right to exist. it doesn’t. no country does. to proclaim a right to exist is to deny the right of self determiantion. but than again considering your Israeli you probably want that right to be destroyed.
I know on a conscious level, Mr. Kushner knows that gay people are routinely murdered in the West Bank and Gaza.
It makes me wonder if Mr. Kushner is a self-hating homosexual.
“gay people are murdered in Gaza and the WB”
Yes, and also in several countries in Africa and Asia.
That also must be Mr. Kushner´s fault.
The myth of Israel being gay-friendly is one of the craziest pieces of propaganda I’ve ever seen. Example: two people were killed and numerous wounded by an attack at the LGBT youth hangout called Bar Noar in Tel Aviv. Israel’s police have been just about useless in figuring out who did it, although there have been persistent rumors that it was one of those abhorrent settlers.
You can read about it here and then stop your lying about Israel’s record for gays, R. Golem.
So if gay people get attacked in a country by anyone, it is proof that the entire country is not gay-friendly? That’s a little silly. Why don’t you simply ask a gay Israeli what it is like to be gay in Israel? I have, and they seem to think it’s a gay-friendly country. Have you been there or spoken with gay Israelis?
hophmi: Please explain to me how Israel’s treatment of gay people justifies the assault on the Mavi Marmara?
If a GLBT community center is attacked in the center of its biggest city – and that attack remains unsolved by the police nearly two years after it occurs – then yes, I think the country is hostile to GLBT peope, indeed.
Have I ever been to Israel or spoken to any gay Israelis? I could just die laughing, but I won’t give you the satisfaction.
“hophmi: Please explain to me how Israel’s treatment of gay people justifies the assault on the Mavi Marmara?”
I don’t recall saying one had anything to do with the other.
I’ve been gay-bashed in San Francisco. It can happen anywhere and hardly means a thing. Obviously Israel has anti-discrimination laws and protections that exist nowhere else in the mid-east and their application is as flawed as happens anywhere.
But how does telling me you’re my friend make it OK to bomb people out of their homes? to drop white phosphorus into school yards? to force constant humiliations and deprivations on the Palestinian people? Someone here invoked the phrase “self-hating homosexual”, but Mr, Kushner and myself are not so self-hating that we desperately crave approval even from racist criminals. Earning respect in a tough situation is more in line with Pride than fawning after such approval.
Example: two people were killed and numerous wounded by an attack at the LGBT youth hangout called Bar Noar in Tel Aviv. Israel’s police have been just about useless in figuring out who did it, although there have been persistent rumors that it was one of those abhorrent settlers.
Why was those extremists who carried out this attack not described as ‘savages’ as were those who carried out the Itamar killings were? Both were senseless murders, motivated by hatred of others?
We should also not forget the attacks on the Jerusalem Gay Pride marchers.
Oh yes, the Jerusalem Gay Pride march, which ended up confined to a stadium. They marched in place, ’cause the Israeli police wouldn’t let them out of the stadium.
Yes, two young people were murdered in a gay community center in Tel Aviv, and the police haven’t solved the case yet.
Also there were threats and manifestations of violence directed at gay pride events in Jerusalem. Nevertheless those events -in Jerusalem and elsewhere in the country – took place.
So how are gay community centers and gay pride events faring in the Palestinian territories?
Oh, right, ain’t no such thing…
Jon S —
And how does that make it in any way OK to dispossess Palestinians, bomb them out of their homes, kill them, subject them to constant harassment and intimidation?
If Israel is doing any favors for GLBT Palestinians why are they so outspoken and clear that the occupation is making a bad situation very much worse?
Parroting zionist PR talking points that have already been repeated ad nauseam suggests that you’ve never really talked with queer Palestinians, so until I see any evidence to the contrary I assume that you don’t care enough about their well-being to listen to them and hear what they need to build a glbt movement in their homeland. Here’s a clue: The constant violence of a racist apartheid regime in the West Bank, and the bombings and strangulation of Gaza DON’T help, especially when some pro-gay rulings are treated as a license to kill.
“It’s OK to kill other people because we’re nicer than they are.” This is an ancient rationale. I’m still amazed that people still buy into it, and furiously disgusted to be exploited doubly, as a gay man from a Jewish family, in this vile canard.
Starjack,
I was just making the point that Israeli society is more gay-friendly than Palestinian society.
I did not use that point to justify any Israeli actions or policies. I certainly don’t think it’s “OK to kill other people…”, unless it’s people who are trying to kill me.
Jon S –
In that case what is the relevance of the statement?
Israeli PR firms have been boasting all over North American and European gay communities that they are gay-friendly in stark contrast to the homophobic nations that surround them. Obviously they are trying to curry favor and shore up their slipping support in the West. It’s not exactly as if they were working to alleviate homophobia in Palestine. GLBT Palestinians report instead how Israel exacerbates and exploits it. They insist that building any sort of civil society and any basis for human rights absolutely requires freedom from the Israeli occupation.
Israel boasts of its gay-friendliness even while exploiting homophobia in Palestine, much as it boasts of being “the only democracy in the mid-east” having subverted a democratically elected government in Palestine. Such transparent hypocrisy and cynicism should be mortifying.
“Gay friendliness” is no excuse, no way to legitimize zionism. Having been a gay activist for over 40 years I am offended to see my long, hard work exploited in such a vicious self-serving way.
And who would want to kill you? And why on earth would they?
Too bad Israel isn’t brown-skin-friendly, however.
Pinkwashing doesn’t work, incidentally, jon. Gay people are very keenly aware when they’re being exploited as cheap political capital purely as a matter of political convenience by people who actually reject our rights.
How many gay people do you actually know in real life, jon?
Starjack, The relevance was as a reply to those who used the Bar Noar murders and attacks on gay pride events as another angle to attack Israel. I simply pointed out that Israel isn’t perfect in regard to gay rights, there’s still a way to go, but it’s more tolerant than Arab society. I don’t think that’s even in dispute.
If you have come across some of my comments on this forum you should know that I agree that the Israeli occupation in the WB should end. The building of a civil society, and respect for human rights, including gay rights, doesn’t have to wait for the end of the occupation. Many Palestinians think so.
How does Israel exploit and exacerbate Palestinian homophobia? Do you have examples?
I don’t think that zionism needs to be “legitimized”. It was a perfectly legitimate national movement, as legitimate as other national movements.
Who would want to kill me? Are you serious? Terrorists kill randomly.
Chaos, “Brown skin”? Have you made a study of pigmentation in the I/P confict ? Are you sure that many Israelis don’t have “brown skin”? I suspect that you don’t know what you’re talking about.
I support gay rights. As to gays that I know in real life- how about a member of my family? Good enough?
As opposed to you, that uses exaggerated Islamophobic claims that homosexuals are routinely stoned, beheaded, etc. by Palestinians as another angle to attack Palestine.
You’re such a transparently hypocritical bigot, jon. You’re like Witty — running around and shrieking that there are anti-Semites ready to push you into some random gas chamber around every corner. Meanwhile, you live a privileged existence while children just a couple kilometers away from you across your “kill zone” suffer, starve and die. THEY are the ones with life experiences that could teach the rest of us what it’s like to live in a concentration camp, not you.
I brought those up to smash the hasbara lies, which position Israel as a place that is so incredibly gay-friendly that annihilation of Palestine becomes excusable.
Not only is that line of logic evil (in other words, even if Israel were paradise on earth, with winged angels singing hosannas with well-tuned harps, what Israel is doing to Palestine is inexcusable) it is also based on a series of lies (Israel is not a gay-friendly culture, which it claims to be in its hasbara lies).
It is worthwhile to counter ever lie stated by Israel-serving propagandists, because the fact that people with some power believe their lies and act as if they were truth has led to huge damage to Palestinians (and to the near-destruction of many cultural aspects of Judaism, and to the endangerment of the entire world due to Israel’s illegal stash of nukes).
With your country’s nukes pointing at what they call “the world”, you have a lot of gall to be complaining that someone might want to kill you, Jon Samson.
Jon S, you’re lying again.
Israeli Jews with deeper pigmentation are sidelined in many ways, from the early placement in “maabarot” and “ayarot pituach” through vocational education streams (iyuni was primarily for Ashkenazim) that kept the deeper-pigmentations out of universities and the good desk jobs.
Surely you’re aware of the folk etymology of the 8200 sig-int unit’s name (8 ashkenazim, 200 Iraqim).
My own personal introduction to the depths of Jewish racism was when I was in 7th grade, in an orthodox school, and the brown-skinned girls were in separate prayer groups.
And that’s before we even start mentioning the Ethiopian groups.
In other words: you’re lying again. And being caught at it again.
“How does Israel exploit and exacerbate Palestinian homophobia? Do you have examples?”
Israeli police busting Palestinians outside of gay clubs or at gay cruising areas threaten them nut just with violence and imprisonment, but to out them to their families if they don’t act as stool pigeons, providing info to Israeli intelligence.
“I don’t think that zionism needs to be “legitimized”. It was a perfectly legitimate national movement, as legitimate as other national movements.”
One of the huge differences between zionism and other national movements is that all the others from Estonia to East Timor actually represent people living on their land occupied by a more powerful foreign neighbor. Zionism is the only sort of “nationalism” where Americans, Germans, Russians, or Jews of any other nation can claim a nationality that didn’t even exist until 1948 and has nothing to do with where they or any of their remembered ancestors had ever lived. That’s not nationalism, it’s a distorted legacy of colonialism.
“Who would want to kill me? Are you serious? Terrorists kill randomly.”
No, actually terrorists pick their targets, if not their actual victims, very specifically. Palestinians who live under the terror of the IDF understand that, as do Gays who’ve been bashed by homophobes, as have Blacks who lived with the constant fear of lynch mobs. And so does anybody who was at all aware of what was going on Spet. 11, 2001. By cutting out the “why” part of my question and turning it into a random unpredictable personal threat against yourself you’re justifying “self-protective” violence against others on flimsy if at all existent grounds.
And by the way — having a gay member in your family only means that your presumably single contact to the “gay community” is one of accident, not by choice. It kinda leaves the sense that if or when you’ve met gay people you’ve chosen not to cultivate their friendship (Granted it could also be their choice, but unanimously? Maybe you really need a makeover!) I have no way of gauging your actual support for gay rights. As long as you vote against discrimination that’s as much as can be reasonably expected, but I don’t expect to see you winning any rainbow awards.
But back to the $64,000 question. WHO would want to kill you and WHY?
No doubt you’ll agree: the Gays require their own state.
We have one, Darling. It’s called “fabulosity.” That’s why they had that Queer Eye TV show, to help straight men achieve at least a taste of that state of fabulosity.
Gay people in the occupied territories are much more often killed by IDF raids and bombings than by homophobic extremists. It’s tough there, but my Gay and Lesbian Palestinian friends are in strong agreement that the occupation is making things worse and that with real self-governance they would have means to improve their situation. I’ve never met a queer Palestinian who thought the Israelis were doing them any favors. Au contraire, they are as firmly against the occupation as their straight brothers and sisters.
Rachelgolem
Rabbi David Batzri told the Israeli Ma`ariv newspaper that homosexuals should be “put to death” according to Jewish religious law. Thursday, 7th February 2002.
Jewish civilization is much bigger than either Judaism or Zionism. The most brilliant Jews, in my opinion, are careful not to put all their eggs in either basket. Less smart folks permit themselves to get trapped in ideological cul-de-sacs. Getting trapped in ideological cul-de-sacs can be very painful indeed.
I am convinced of this: Jews can sustain and protect everything that is most precious and valuable in the Jewish tradition, and in Jewish civilization, without Zionism. And, in fact, Zionism may well damage those most precious and valuable elements in the tradition.
“The most brilliant Jews, in my opinion, are careful not to put all their eggs in either basket. Less smart folks permit themselves to get trapped in ideological cul-de-sacs.”
seanmcbride, this idea was captured most famously in an essay/book by Isaac Deutscher entitled “The Non-Jewish Jew,” which first received publication during the 1958-68 period. Deutscher was often a trenchant critic of the nascent Jewish State.
Thomson Rutherford,
I’ve been meaning to read Deutscher for a long time. I think now may be the time to tackle him.
What strikes me, as someone who reveres Jewish civilization and who has tried to learn from it, is its mind-boggling variety and complexity. It’s impossible to pin down. More than anything else, it’s a collection of brilliant algorithms for creatively processing information in and about the world. When anyone tries to define it too narrowly or rigidly, the serious troubles begin. I think over the long haul most Jews won’t want to be boxed in by Zionism, and especially not by religious Zionism (which is a perversion of Judaism, in my opinion). They are much too restless and ornery to get boxed in by anything.
The problem with Zionism: on its current trajectory, Zionism may well succeed in reducing the genius of Jewish civilization to the mere pursuit of ethnic self-interest and bitter hostility towards ethnic outsiders. What a travesty.
“The problem with Zionism: on its current trajectory, Zionism may well succeed in reducing the genius of Jewish civilization to the mere pursuit of ethnic self-interest and bitter hostility towards ethnic outsiders.”
It has already succeeded; someone sent me the following video this morning. It’s old news about the spider web that is Zionism but interestingly packaged with a British accent.
link to youtube.com
Various things scare me about current trends in Zionism. Here is one: check out the JIDF feed on Twitter:
link to twitter.com
JIDF (Jewish Internet Defense Force/”David Appletree”) boasts more than **50,000** followers, many more than, say, Mondoweiss. It is a straight up Kahanist outfit, and seems to be using a large social network of highly committed ideologues to run black ops against the “enemies” of Israel. Try quickly scanning a few hundred tweets to get the flavor of the feed — they can be disturbing.
Jewish civilization can do better than this. One wonders if the last true believers to turn out the lights on Zionism will resemble Pamela Geller and JIDF.
RW -
“The assertion of a homeland for the Jewish people, Zionism, is not racist in the slightest. It is liberatory, self-determination.”
…as long as I don’t call myself Palestinian – part of a majority population in territories under Israel’s control and without self-determination as per the ‘security’ requirements of the Jewish state.
VR -
“As long as the West lives with immunity/impunity so will Israel, does anyone see any sign that the West is going to be judged for their atrocities? No? Neither will Israel, because they are connected at the hip.”
Immunity/impunity? 9/11 was a catastrophic attack significantly motivated by our support for Israel as the 9/11 commission duly noted. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were our response to the attacks on that day and they’ve cost us thousands of American lives and upwards of $1,000,000,000,000. Supporting Israel has cost us dearly and that cost has included our “immunity/impunity”, as you put it.
dbroncos, support for Israel by the US and other Western countries long predates 9/11. The attacks on the towers did not warrant the death and destruction of hundreds and thousands of people, and Iraq had absolutely zero to do with 9/11 and Afghanistan as a whole had nothing to do with 9/11 (in fact the attack has more to do with pipelines).
Thousands of American lives lost so a few people can make money, and that money means nothing to them – because it comes out of the peoples pocket, they will spend every red cent you have and more in order to enrich themselves. The US has faced no consequences for the atrocities it supports coming from Israelis (nor the rest of the West), it has not stood trial nor has Israel. The question is, what are the people going to do to see this stop?
War fought by these people (actually not fought by them, but they sacrifice others children for their profit) is a racket, and the people are always the suckers.
sadly that kind of reaction by the Hillel audience at UCLA is not surprising. i wish i could tell you this is unusual and not the norm, but i’ve experienced enough at UCLA and in West LA to tell you, business/ hasbara infused hate as usual.