Ozick, anti-Palestinian polemicist, is shortlisted for a big prize

Israel/Palestine
on 71 Comments
Cynthia Ozick
Cynthia Ozick

The Guardian has recently given the American author Cynthia Ozick a platform, following the shortlisting of her novel Foreign Bodies for the 2012 Orange prize for excellence in fiction written by women. This is the writer who declared in a Wall Street Journal 2003 op-ed titled, “What does the ‘Palestinian nation’ offer the world?” that

‘the Palestinians have invented a society unlike any other, where hatred trumps bread. They have reared children unlike any other children, removed from ordinary norms and behaviors.’

This ‘cultural grotesquerie’ amounted to an ‘orgiastic deluge of fanaticism and death’, she maintained.

For the leftwing newspaper’s series, ‘My hero‘ last week, Ozick lauds George Eliot as ‘a novelist who did not eschew politics or polemics’ and adds that ‘John Blackwood, Eliot’s publisher, was unforgiving towards her Jewish and Zionist themes, as he saw them, evolving in Daniel Deronda’. Over at the Irish Left Review, Raymond Deane reminds us that Edward Said wrote in The Question of Palestine ‘that by paying no attention to the effect Zionism would have on those people already living in Palestine “Eliot is no different from other European apostles of sympathy, humanity, and understanding for whom noble sentiments were either left behind in Europe, or made programmatically inapplicable outside Europe.” … There is no echo of such a critique in Ozick’s encomium to the novel,’ and Deane argues that this ‘blinkered advocacy needs to be read in the context of earlier articles by Ozick.’

Cynthia Ozick has kept up her polemic against Palestinians and their supporters since the publication of the 2003 WSJ piece. In one piece she legitimises the IDF’s targeting of Palestinian civilian homes in Gaza by saying they are ‘weapons depots’, as Deane notes: 

In a 2006 review of the play My Name is Rachel Corrie (based on the diaries and letters of a young American activist crushed to death by an Israeli bulldozer) she refers to “the culpable Palestinian origins of the current fighting” and “the brutal cynicism of Rachel Corrie’s handlers, eager, for propaganda value, to bait bulldozers and tanks with the lives of their young recruits.” Corrie’s engagement with the oppressed is described as “slumming” and her espousal of Gandhian ideals dismissed as “neo-Marxist paraphernalia and hate-America jargon” (for a celebrated novelist, Ozick writes execrable prose). The play itself is “a show trial. And there are Jews in the dock.”

Elsewhere, a reviewer of My Name Is Rachel Corrie, finding herself the subject of a nasty attack by Ozick that ‘constituted an embarrassing and unedifying spectacle’, wrote “In the past, I’ve been moved by Ozick’s work and respect her considerable literary gifts. This piece, however, had the shrill, defensive tone of an abuser attacking the victim who brings an abuse to light.”

The quality of Cynthia Ozick’s literary prose is not at question here, but her vocal anti-Arab sentiment is surely worthy of at least a question in homages such as this. ‘One would hardly suggest that Ozick should be excluded from consideration from the Orange or any other literary prize because of her repulsive views’, continues Deane:

What is astonishing is that (to the best of this writer’s knowledge) not one single media outlet has raised the issue of Ozick’s anti-Palestinian racism. What this tells us, once again, is that such vile attitudes are not deemed worthy of mention when mere Palestinians are their object. One would hardly imagine that the anti-Semitic historian David Irving would be deemed an acceptable candidate for the Wolfson History Prize, but the vilification of Palestinians and the negation of their history that are Ozick’s ideological stock-in-trade raise no critical eyebrows.

Phil wrote up Ozick’s contribution to the CAMERA (Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America) 2007 conference on fighting “Jewish defamers of Israel”: ‘Cynthia Ozick went on and on about Michael Lerner in a meanspirited way, saying that he dropped out of the Jewish Theological Seminary and wound up at Naropa. Who cares?’ Exactly. And why should a novelist who is also an openly ethnocentric polemicist be regarded with such reverence by progressive media outlets?

71 Responses

  1. Proton Soup
    April 27, 2012, 1:27 pm

    What is astonishing is that (to the best of this writer’s knowledge) not one single media outlet has raised the issue of Ozick’s anti-Palestinian racism.

    it’s not so astonishing when you realize that the media agrees with her.

  2. pabelmont
    April 27, 2012, 1:45 pm

    If I could talk to Ozick, I’d tell her that the Palestinian people are not an invented people, or a created people, but are a people who realized their “peoplehood” due to Israel’s creation and its cruelty. Had the Mandate fulfilled its responsibility to create a democracy in Palestine, we’d doubtless have a democratic state of Palestine today with Christians, Muslims, and Jews as citizens, getting along just fine. And the people would properly be called Palestinians (as they were during the Mandate).

    But GB capitulated to Zionism with its massive immigration of foreign Jews to Palestine and the result (Jewish terrorism in 1945-47, then war 1947-50) created a realization by the persons who lived (or had lived) in Palestine that they were a “people” defined by love of the land, their ancestral land. And nothing so firmly led to the realization of their peoplehood as the cruel separation of them from their land (1948) and, later, the cruel mistreatment of the remainder of them (post 1948 inside Israel, post 1967 outside).

    • playforpalestine
      April 28, 2012, 8:46 am

      Pabelmont, Ozick didn’t reject the Palestinian’s existence as a people. She basically said that it developed as a national identity in opposition to Zionism, and during the 20th century solidified a distinct, unique nationality. And sure, had everybody gotten along then everybody would have gotten along. But they didn’t. Blaming the influx of Jews seems besides the point. Sure, they had to be there before a conflict could develop so there’s that. But allowing those Jews a national home in Palestine was as much a part of its Mandate as any other.

      I don’t know about the whole Palestinians being defined by their “love of their ancestral land” thing. I think they disliked being ethnically cleansed from their land a great deal, sure. But the Palestinian’s identity is far more complex than any single item, even one as poetic as you gave. Same goes for the Palestinian relationship with Israel, other Arab states and the conflict itself. For instance, what truly matters more… keeping their land? Or gaining real self-determination? Or building an operational, truly independent democracy for themselves?

      • Annie Robbins
        April 28, 2012, 9:00 am

        pfp, just curious what you think truly matters more to zionists, … keeping their land? Or gaining real self-determination?

      • playforpalestine
        April 28, 2012, 7:14 pm

        “pfp, just curious what you think truly matters more to zionists, … keeping their land? Or gaining real self-determination?”

        Easy… self-determination, as shown by their willingness to trade land for peace whenever it exists as a viable option. In 79 the whole country except a small minority were ecstatic over relinquishing the Sinai for the opportunity of peace with Egypt. Same goes for Oslo when it was being debated originally.

        Going back a few decades, Zionists and Jewish refugees both abandoned land, businesses, homes… whole lives, in order to come to Israel and take control over their own destinies.

        Zionism flirted with the idea of establishing Israel in Africa briefly. Self-determination was always the key goal. Doing it in their original homeland was just a fortuitous option.

      • Shingo
        April 28, 2012, 7:35 pm

        Easy… self-determination, as shown by their willingness to trade land for peace whenever it exists as a viable option.

        Actually that’s precisely what Israel has not done.

        In 79 the whole country except a small minority were ecstatic over relinquishing the Sinai for the opportunity of peace with Egypt.

        Rubbish. Israel had rebuffed repeated offers by Egytp to have negotiations since the late 60′s. It took the near defeat in 1973 and for the US to beibe them to give back the Sinai.

        Same goes for Oslo when it was being debated originally.

        Wrong again. Oslo was never a peace agreement, it was simply another prescription for domination of the Palestinians, and Israle still violated it.

        Going back a few decades, Zionists and Jewish refugees both abandoned land, businesses, homes… whole lives, in order to come to Israel and take control over their own destinies.

        Yeah right, they abandoned land in Arab states to steal land in Palestine.

        Self-determination was always the key goal.

        At the expense of the native inhabitants of whatever land they were given was always the key goal. The homeland they were given happened to be someone else’s.

      • Annie Robbins
        April 28, 2012, 9:27 am

        The Jews have invented a society unlike any other, where hatred trumps bread. They have reared children unlike any other children, removed from ordinary norms and behaviors. This cultural grotesquerie amounts to an orgiastic deluge of fanaticism and death.

        now here is pfp defending this racism:

        Annie didn’t reject the Jew’s existence as a people. She basically said that it developed as a national identity in opposition to others nationalism, and during the 20th century solidified a distinct, unique nationality. And sure, had everybody gotten along then everybody would have gotten along. But they didn’t. Blaming the Palestinians seems besides the point. Sure, they were there before a conflict developed so there’s that. But allowing Palestinians a national home in Palestine was as much a part of its Mandate as any other.

        I don’t know about the whole Jews being defined by their “love of their ancestral land” thing. I think they dislike being ethnically cleansed a great deal, sure. But the Jew’s identity is far more complex than any single item, even one as poetic as the Holocaust. Same goes for the Jews relationship with Palestine.

      • piotr
        April 28, 2012, 4:58 pm

        You cannot mechanically copy from one society to another. Since Israeli Jew do not have any shortage of bread, it is hard to tell if bread trumps anything. But the prices of cottage cheese definitely trump norms of decency violated by the Occupation.

        While in America torture is less important than price of gasoline (nobody seems to care about the price of cottage cheese, or the price of beets which is extraorbitant if you ask me). My impression is that if you could slaughter several hundred thousand people and deliver cheap oil to USA, it would be popular, and the problem was that there was slaughter and torture, but the gasoline prices went up. Bummer.

        What is quite unique to Israel is invention of propaganda arguments that are so inane that they actually seem to work. For example, if Motorola would not open a design lab in Israel we non-Jewish morons would be reduced to use Nokia cellphones (or even worse, Samsung). Thus we should remove Palestinians from wide swaths of the West Bank. Palestinians would spare us neither Nokia nor Samsung and thus are a worthless people.

      • playforpalestine
        April 28, 2012, 7:31 pm

        “now here is pfp defending this racism:”

        I don’t understand this argument. Is replacing the Palestinian proper nouns with Jewish ones supposed to suddenly crystallize this comment as racist in my mind or something? It just ceases to make sense for the most part.

        If the term Palestinian is meant to indicate a nationality, and not a distinct race, then how is criticizing their society racist? Bigoted, maybe. But not any more so than wholesale comments leveled against Zionism.

      • Annie Robbins
        April 28, 2012, 9:28 pm

        you don’t get it? iow you have no problem with me saying this, not racist to you in the least? AOKay?:

        The Jews have invented a society unlike any other, where hatred trumps bread. They have reared children unlike any other children, removed from ordinary norms and behaviors. This cultural grotesquerie amounts to an orgiastic deluge of fanaticism and death.

      • playforpalestine
        April 30, 2012, 12:45 am

        Well, you wouldn’t say “Jews” if you wanted to draw an analogy to what I said. You would say Israelis or Zionists (to indicate Israeli Jews only.)

        Look, one has to be able to talk about any state or nation in a negative sense as well as a positive one. Palestine is a nation, if not yet a state. Cynthia Ozick isn’t criticizing ethnic Palestinians living in America but the society that now exists alongside Israel.

        Here, let’s try this… How would you propose we condemn aspects of Palestinian society in a way that isn’t at all racist to you? Not merely criticize, but really condemn. The way people here condemn Israelis.

      • Annie Robbins
        April 30, 2012, 1:22 am

        How would you propose we condemn aspects of Palestinian society

        i’d propose you go to another site.

      • Shingo
        April 30, 2012, 1:39 am

        Cynthia Ozick isn’t criticizing ethnic Palestinians living in America but the society that now exists alongside Israel.

        Stupid argument. Palestinians living in the US exist in such few numbers that they could not possibly be described as a society, whereas Jews are more populous in the US than Israel.

        Secondly, how does that exonerate Ozick’s repugnant racism and promulgations of baseless stereotypes – much as you admire it?

        How would you propose we condemn aspects of Palestinian society in a way that isn’t at all racist to you?

        How about you start by eliminating Zionist BS, and stop pretending that Palestinian society 
        has has become dysfunctional  for apparent reason?   

        How does this fascist harpy manage to attack the breakdown of Palestinian society without mentioning the brutal and repressive military occupation it is forced to live under?

        Maybe when Israeli society  finds itself in the same predicament, we can criticize Palestinians the  way we condemn Israelis.

      • Shingo
        April 30, 2012, 1:49 am

        i’d propose you go to another site.

        Apparently he doesn’t find Stormfront sufficiently stimulating.

  3. marc b.
    April 27, 2012, 1:56 pm

    what an amazing face. i have not even read the article yet, i just had to say that. wow.

    ick, annie. that’s not what i see. and i’m not talking aesthetic beauty either.

    • Annie Robbins
      April 27, 2012, 2:38 pm

      yeah marc, after reading some of the text i regretted posting that and nixed the comment. but the photo drew me right in, the intensity of her concentration. it’s really too bad that much energy is directed negatively.

      teaches me to read the article every time before commenting.

      • marc b.
        April 27, 2012, 2:49 pm

        just goes to show you, annie. we can all get seduced by something or another (thank god for that). if it’s any consolation it appears that she has been hard at work cultivating that authorly look for some time now. i’m sure it’s helped sell a copy or two of her books.

      • Sumud
        April 27, 2012, 5:35 pm

        It’s the artist in you Annie, I also responded immediately to the photo. It’s intriguing.

        Even rotten people can be the subject of interesting photos.

      • Taxi
        April 28, 2012, 12:31 am

        She looks like a thin-lipped librarian looking for love on e-harmony. Goebbel and her would have made a perfect love-match. And their children? Oren and Regev, of course.

      • aiman
        April 28, 2012, 4:30 am

        This lady does know how to light herself up. She has the shrewdness of my neighbour’s cat that rolls on its back and swipes at your hand when you go to pet it.

  4. Les
    April 27, 2012, 2:00 pm

    When Christian white racists feel the need to learn more about being an effective racists, there is no end to the numbers of Jewish Zionists like Ozick who volunteer their services.

  5. PeaceThroughJustice
    April 27, 2012, 2:02 pm

    That’s the look of someone who has suffered deeply from “antisemitism” all her life, and is now starting to worry about the photographer. :)

  6. Taxi
    April 27, 2012, 3:55 pm

    If Palestinians are semites then surely “anti-Palestinian racism” = antisemitism.

    Therefore the vile Cynthia Ozick is…………., uhuh, you guessed it.

    • Les
      April 27, 2012, 10:21 pm

      Is it possible for a Zionist to be anti-Palestinian but not a racist?

      • Taxi
        April 27, 2012, 11:14 pm

        Is it possible for a zionist to be pro-Palestinian?

      • Denis
        April 28, 2012, 1:35 pm

        Is it possible for a misogynist to be a woman?

        Deep questions, all. And, as always, it depends on what your definition of “is” is.

  7. hughsansom
    April 28, 2012, 9:04 am

    Time for a letter-writing campaign to The Guardian.

    I would say the paper has gone notably more mainstream in the past ten year.

  8. hughsansom
    April 28, 2012, 9:08 am

    Here are the contacts for the Orange Prize. (Notice that none of the contacts are at The Guardian.)

    link to orangeprize.co.uk

    Media and other PR enquiries
    Sam Harris
    0207 544 3873
    [email protected]
    M&C Saatchi Sponsorship Ltd
    36 Golden Square London W1F 9EE

    Enquiries about Orange Prize for Fiction management, book trade relations, festival and event organization, writers and initiatives
    Harriet Hastings
    Orange Prize for Fiction project director
    [email protected]

    Information about entry criteria and procedures for the Orange Prize for Fiction
    Claire Shanahan
    Booktrust
    45 East Hill London SW18 2QZ
    [email protected]

    The Orange Prize for Fiction’s work in libraries
    Penny Shapland
    The Reading Agency
    [email protected]

    • Taxi
      April 28, 2012, 2:49 pm

      Thanks Hughsansom.

      Move it people – cut paste write share yell it out like a town-crier if you wanu. But do it. I know it’s in bad taste but let’s inundate and bombast like the zioz do. And for Pete’s sakes enjoy it too!

  9. playforpalestine
    April 28, 2012, 9:24 am

    Why is it that Ozick’s harsh condemnation of the modern Palestinian nation is seen as “anti-Palestinian racism?” “Palestinian” is a national designation, like “Zionist.” Her comments may have been unfair or cruel but you don’t get to become a racist just by being cruel.

    I see people here criticize Zionism in equally disparaging terms all the time, frequently going so far as to ascribe specific character traits supposedly common to all Zionists. (They are all racist, ethnocentric, thieves who lie constantly. One can not be both a Zionist and a liberal because liberal values run counter to the fear and hatred that are so crucial to Zionism. Etc.) So clearly bigotry and prejudice aren’t equal to racism either.

    So why is a similar rant against Palestinian culture seen as “anti-Palestinian”, or even “anti-ARAB” racism?” Especially considering how everyone strongly refutes any fleeting thought that essays savaging Zionism (or even Zionists; the people) could have anti-semitic aspects to them.

    What’s the difference?

    • Bumblebye
      April 28, 2012, 11:43 am

      Zionist is NOT a “national designation” it is an ugly political ideology which has always included the necessity of ethnic cleansing. If the traits are inherent to the political ideology, then those who adopt that ideology are, for instance, adopting racism. It is an unavoidable fact. ANY reading of Zionism by its founders and implementers clearly shows exactly what the ideology is.
      “Palestinian culture” is simply NOT analogous to zionism. That’s rather like attempting to compare “Republican (or Democrat) culture” to French culture. Impossible!

      • playforpalestine
        April 28, 2012, 8:20 pm

        Bumble,

        Your argument about ethnic cleansing doesn’t make any sense. But I refuse to get caught up in getting sidetracked by red herring arguments. You didn’t address the important issue in my post.

        I criticized the term “anti-Palestinian racism.” Ozick’s comments were directed against Palestinian society; no one considers “Palestinian” a distinct race, it is a national identity. You can’t be racist against Palestinians anymore than you can be against Americans.

        You simply can’t have it both ways. If you want to be able to condemn Israeli society in any number of ways while reserving the right to deny any connection to anti-semitism then you MUST also welcome the condemnation of Palestinian failures in any cultural or national arena without crying “racism!” What is the alternative? That any criticism of the Palestinian state will be shouted down amid accusations of hating Arabs and racism?

        Some of these criticisms will be based on anti-Arab racism. And they’ll be easily spotted just as the anti-semitic arguments that are supposedly only “against Zionism” are.

      • Annie Robbins
        April 28, 2012, 9:13 pm

        pfp, you are just wrong. re read bumbles comment , he is right on. zionism is a political ideology that at it’s core is ethnic nationalism. wiki “a form of nationalism”. palestinians are people, they are not a race but they are an ethnicity. for all intents and purposes the legal definition of racism does not distinguish between race and ethnicity wrt the law.

        RACISM: link to en.wikipedia.org

        Legal
        The UN does not define “racism”; however, it does define “racial discrimination”: According to the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination,

        the term “racial discrimination” shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction, or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin that has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.[19]

        This definition does not make any difference between discrimination based on ethnicity and race, in part because the distinction between the two remains debatable among anthropologists.[20] Similarly, in British law the phrase racial group means “any group of people who are defined by reference to their race, colour, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origin”.[21]

      • Annie Robbins
        April 28, 2012, 9:22 pm

        I refuse to get caught up in getting sidetracked by red herring arguments

        then quit spouting them.

      • playforpalestine
        April 30, 2012, 12:07 am

        Annie,

        Palestinians don’t fit the common definition of an ethnic group, it is primarily thought of as a national identity. But if they are an ethnicity, then that means that Palestine is a state based on ethnic-nationalism. It’s just like Zionism.

        And your definition refers to race and ethnicity, etc, as applied to discrimination; namely the act of doing something negative to the member of a group. That’s not the same thing as identifying those groups as being the same as races. You’re saying that we can’t criticize Palestine because as a distinct people any criticism of them constitutes racism. This is exactly the same as arguing that all criticism of Israel constitutes anti-semitism.

        There’s no way around it. If Israeli culture is fair game (and it is), then so is Palestinian culture. After all, Zionism doesn’t have a culture, it is merely the support of Israel, synonymous with saying “pro-Israel.” And no different categorically than saying “pro-Palestinian.”

      • Annie Robbins
        April 30, 2012, 12:34 am

        i’m starting to realize you’re conceptually challenged pfp, so please excuse me for not engaging your every query. one more time on the ethnic nationalist thing. ethnic nationalism is a form of nationalism determined by ones ethnicity. In ethnic nationalist states, it’s not the state that creates the nation but the nation that creates the state.

        civic national states are defined by common citizenship (shared political rights) regardless of the ethnicity of the citizen..

        contrary to your assertions, an ethnic group is not ‘primarily thought of as a national identity’ nor is (or was) palestine ever ‘based on ethnic-nationalism, just like zionism’.

        you might find this link helpful:

        link to msu.edu

        good luck. it may take a civics course for you to grasp the intricacies of these (basic) concepts.

      • Shingo
        April 30, 2012, 12:49 am

        But if they are an ethnicity, then that means that Palestine is a state based on ethnic-nationalism. It’s just like Zionism.

        Nope. Never was Palestine defined as a Palestinian state silly boy.

        You’re saying that we can’t criticize Palestine because as a distinct people any criticism of them constitutes racism.

        Drop that stick and step back from the straw man. Annie made no such argument.

        If Israeli culture is fair game (and it is), then so is Palestinian culture.

        Fair game yes, making racist stereotypes, no.

      • playforpalestine
        April 30, 2012, 1:02 am

        Annie,

        You’re arguing that Palestinians are an ethnicity, but the formation of a state specifically to grant them self-determination would not be an example of ethnic nationalism?

        Really? What would it be then?

        Btw, ethnic nationalism isn’t a form of government, it’s just a kind of nationalism. The two things are in no way synonymous.

      • playforpalestine
        April 30, 2012, 1:09 am

        What of those criticisms she made were any more racist stereotypes than the condemnations made against Israelis/Zionists here all the time?

      • Annie Robbins
        April 30, 2012, 1:13 am

        Palestinians are an ethnicity, but the formation of a state specifically to grant them self-determination would not be an example of ethnic nationalism?

        not if they self determine to have a civic national state. read the link. most people do not chose to have or live in ethnic national states. it’s not modern. equal rights are in fashion this century.

      • Shingo
        April 30, 2012, 1:17 am

        i’m starting to realize you’re conceptually challenged

        He might be Annie, but I suspect that it’s got more to do with ideology, which explains the piles of straw he’s polluted this thread with.

        No civics course is going to crack that hermetically sealed Zionist bubble.

      • Shingo
        April 30, 2012, 1:25 am

        What of those criticisms she made were any more racist stereotypes than the condemnations made against Israelis/Zionists here all the time?

        But that’s what’s so repugnant and dishonest about her crtiticisms. She pretends as though Palestinuan society has no precedent and is uniquely grotesque – as though it has come to be without rhyme or reason.

        Criticism of Israelis/Zionists recognizes their ideology as vile and repugnant, but also recognizes the traits common to other sisfinctional societies that have come and gone.

      • Annie Robbins
        April 30, 2012, 1:27 am

        shingo, anyone who says “Palestinians don’t fit the common definition of an ethnic group” has got rocks for brains.

      • Shingo
        April 30, 2012, 1:41 am

        Ageed Annie, especially seeing as they’re usually the same people pretending to champion the ethnic rights of groups like Kurds.

      • Shingo
        April 30, 2012, 1:46 am

        What of those criticisms she made were any more racist stereotypes than the condemnations made against Israelis/Zionists here all the time?

        Please cite an example PFP. Evidence tends to carry more weight around here than straw men.

      • Shingo
        April 30, 2012, 1:47 am

        Btw, ethnic nationalism isn’t a form of government, it’s just a kind of nationalism. The two things are in no way synonymous.

        Ergo, Israel is therefore not a Jewish state, correct?

      • playforpalestine
        May 8, 2012, 12:37 am

        Um, no. Not correct.

      • playforpalestine
        May 8, 2012, 12:49 am

        “not if they self determine to have a civic national state.”

        Forming a state around an ethnicity wouldn’t be ethnic nationalism if it is a civic national state? I beg to differ. But aside from that debate, what in the world makes you think that Palestine would become a liberal democracy that’s blind to identities like religion and ethnicity? A few months ago Palestine’s US Ambassador stated that any newly formed Palestinian state would be free of Jews.

      • playforpalestine
        May 8, 2012, 12:59 am

        So your criticisms are kosher because you go so far as to compare Zionism to Nazism while the author merely offered criticism without such hyperbole? No, that doesn’t fly.

        She never described Palestinian culture as uniquely grotesque or said that it appeared without rhyme or reason. She did not offer a reason, but then what are the reasons you offer for Zionist actions? That they lack hearts or are just bloodthirsty with no concept of their opponents as even being human? That’s not an example of criticizing their “ideology.” It attacks all Zionists by describing them as monsters, ignoring their ideology or even their society altogether.

      • RoHa
        May 8, 2012, 1:12 am

        “A few months ago Palestine’s US Ambassador stated that any newly formed Palestinian state would be free of Jews.”

        Can you quote his actual words?

      • Annie Robbins
        May 8, 2012, 1:16 am

        A few months ago Palestine’s US Ambassador stated that any newly formed Palestinian state would be free of Jews.

        no he didn’t. and he issued a correction of the report within a couple hrs; how long are you guys going to peddle that myth? it was just debunked with links days ago on this site.

        Forming a state around an ethnicity wouldn’t be ethnic nationalism if it is a civic national state?

        israel is not a civic national state. link to msu.edu

        According to ethnic nationalists,–it is not the state that creates the nation but

        the nation that creates the state

        so you tell me, are jews a nation? because last i heard zionists say they are.

        A civic nation is “democratic” in the sense that–it vests sovereignty in all of the people (all citizens);

        israel doesn’t even allow the status of ‘national’ on all its citizens, only to those who are nationals byway of law of return..iow jews. you hear this all the time..for example today:
        link to mondoweiss.net

        the announcement applies to “Israeli citizens eligible to immigrate to Israel under the Law of Return … who lives in the adjacent area.”

        that’s code for ‘jews only’. israel is definitely NOT a civic national state.

      • sardelapasti
        May 8, 2012, 1:55 am

        “so far as to compare Zionism to Nazism”

        How is it “far”? Twin children of the same 19th-Century Prussian-inspired nationalism, with a common racist doctrine, the same Lebensraum concept of international aggression, the same glorification and practice of continuous warfare…

      • Shingo
        May 8, 2012, 2:06 am

        A few months ago Palestine’s US Ambassador stated that any newly formed Palestinian state would be free of Jews.

        Oh for Christ’s sake, will you hasbrats please refresh tyour talking points from your mother ship? The day after that story broke, the report issued a retraction that Erekat stated explicitly he was not referring to Jews, but to Israeli citizens.

        It ever ceases to amaze me how impervious to facts you hasbrats are.

      • Shingo
        May 8, 2012, 2:13 am

        So your criticisms are kosher because you go so far as to compare Zionism to Nazism while the author merely offered criticism without such hyperbole? No, that doesn’t fly.

        Why becasue you said so?

        Zionism is a mirror image of Nazism in practically ever sense. Never mind that Lenni Brenner edited 51 Documents outlining Zionist collaboration with the Nazis.

        Israelis and their allies have always used the same logic and propaganda tactics employed by the Nazis. The whole “Disputed Territories” nonsense was part and parcel of the Nazi strategy of conquest.

        She did not offer a reason, but then what are the reasons you offer for Zionist actions?

        Easy. Land theft, ethnocentrism, tribalism, politicized ethnic fundamentalism, extremist organic nationalism, social Darwinism, biological determinism, essentialism, primordialism, perverted eugenic theory, opposition to race mixing for causing ethnic degeneration, and the corresponding belief in national revival through racial purity.

      • Shingo
        May 8, 2012, 2:14 am

        Can you quote his actual words?

        Better still, can you link to the original story?

      • playforpalestine
        May 16, 2012, 11:10 pm

        “Can you quote his actual words?”

        Sure.

        “During a breakfast briefing hosted by the Christian Science Monitor on Tuesday, Palestinian Ambassador to the United States Maen Rashid Areikat reiterated his call to create a Jew-free Palestinian state.

        “Well, I personally still believe that as a first step we need to be totally separated, and we can contemplate these issues in the future,” he said when asked by The Daily Caller if he could imagine a Jew being elected mayor of the Palestinian city of Ramallah in a future independent Palestinian state. “But after the experience of 44 years of military occupation and all the conflict and friction, I think it will be in the best interests of the two peoples to be separated first.”

        Last year, Areikat made a similar statement during an interview with Tablet magazine. Asked whether it would be neccessary to transfer and remove “every Jew” from a future Palestinian state, Areikat responded “absolutely.”

        “I’m not saying to transfer every Jew, I’m saying transfer Jews who, after an agreement with Israel, fall under the jurisdiction of a Palestinian state,” he said then. “I think this is a very necessary step, before we can allow the two states to somehow develop their separate national identities, and then maybe open up the doors for all kinds of cultural, social, political, economic exchanges, that freedom of movement of both citizens of Israelis and Palestinians from one area to another. You know you have to think of the day after.”

        Asked after the Tuesday breakfast to clarify if he was truly calling for a Jew-free state, Areikat said that perhaps one day in the future things will be different.

        “Listen, again, we have nothing against Jews. This is a political conflict,” he explained. “Once the political issues our resolved, every Palestinian should be welcomed in Israel. Every Israeli should be welcomed in Palestine. But under the current circumstances — an occupation power occupying a people against their will — this is something we are trying to end.”

        Read more: link to dailycaller.com

      • playforpalestine
        May 16, 2012, 11:13 pm

        “no he didn’t. and he issued a correction of the report within a couple hrs; how long are you guys going to peddle that myth? it was just debunked with links days ago on this site.”

        Really? That’s quite a misquote. By all means link it up.

        “so you tell me, are jews a nation? because last i heard zionists say they are.”

        That’s probably the best definition, yes.

      • playforpalestine
        May 16, 2012, 11:27 pm

        “Zionism is a mirror image of Nazism in practically ever sense.”

        REALLY?! I sense I’m going to like this discussion.

        “Israelis and their allies have always used the same logic and propaganda tactics employed by the Nazis. The whole “Disputed Territories” nonsense was part and parcel of the Nazi strategy of conquest.”

        Actually there’s more to the Nazi “strategy of conquest” than the phrase “disputed territories.” But I like your chutzpah.

        “Easy. Land theft, ethnocentrism, tribalism, politicized ethnic fundamentalism, extremist organic nationalism, social Darwinism, biological determinism, essentialism, primordialism, perverted eugenic theory, opposition to race mixing for causing ethnic degeneration, and the corresponding belief in national revival through racial purity.”

        Easy because you cut and pasted it, or easy because the paragraph you copied here is reflected in Zionist ideology?

      • Shingo
        May 17, 2012, 12:48 am

        Actually there’s more to the Nazi “strategy of conquest” than the phrase “disputed territories.” But I like your chutzpah.

        Of course, there is, there’s mass murder, ethnic cleansing, racial supremacy, the belief in an organic community which must achieve a certain state of being it previously held. Doesn’t sound like Zionism at all!

        Easy because you cut and pasted it, or easy because the paragraph you copied here is reflected in Zionist ideology?

        Both ;-)

      • Taxi
        May 17, 2012, 1:08 am

        playforpalestine,
        Just stop it with your slimy arrogance! Who cares about your interpretation of zionism?! We’re looking here at zionist action and it’s 64 years of action is loaded with ethnic-cleansing, mass infanticide (read Gaza), and the continuing land theft and emotional blackmail they dump of the WHOLE world of goy.

        Why don’t you just buzz off with your smartypants justifications for zionist war crimes. Or else stick around and tell us how you personally are gonna pay full reparations to the Palestinians whose homes you’ve stolen and bones you’ve broken.

      • Shingo
        May 17, 2012, 8:39 am

        Really? That’s quite a misquote. By all means link it up.

        The original story was broken by USA Today. The sub-heading was added only hours after the story broke. It reads:

        Clarification: In the headline and story, Palestinian Ambassador Maen Areikat says he was referring to Israelis, not Jews, when he stated that “it would be in the best interest of the two people to be separated first.”

        link to usatoday.com

        Of course, the Zionist propaganda machine had already flooded the airwaves with the original story and the retraction was deliberately ignored, by shills such as yourself.

      • Shingo
        May 17, 2012, 8:47 am

        Sure.

        Except that your link, which is repeat of the original report by USA Today, does not include the qualification by Areikat that:

        Clarification: In the headline and story, Palestinian Ambassador Maen Areikat says he was referring to Israelis, not Jews, when he stated that “it would be in the best interest of the two people to be separated first.”

        link to usatoday.com

        Nor does your dailycaller.com link actually cite the the actual comversation with Tablet magazine about Areikat decalring the neccessity to transfer and remove “every Jew” from a future Palestinian state.

        Even the parts you quote state that Areikat is not commited to a Jew free Palestinian state.

        Pitty you don’t bother to read your own links.

    • Shingo
      April 28, 2012, 7:44 pm

      I see people here criticize Zionism in equally disparaging terms all the time, frequently going so far as to ascribe specific character traits supposedly common to all Zionists.

      Zionism is racism. As Max Blumenthal and even Benny Morris have admitted, ethnic cleansing and expasionism is intrinsict to the DNA of Zionism. It’s a tribal, racist, supremacitst ideology, so of course, those traits will remain common to all Zionists.

      One can not be both a Zionist and a liberal because liberal values run counter to the fear and hatred that are so crucial to Zionism.

      Sad but true. The term “liberal Zionism” is an oxymoron.

      So why is a similar rant against Palestinian culture seen as “anti-Palestinian”, or even “anti-ARAB” racism?”

      Becasue Palestinians arent’t doing the expelling, mass murdering, home demolishing, land theft, expasion, or arguing for racial/ethnic purity, arguing against the demographic threat.

      Especially considering how everyone strongly refutes any fleeting thought that essays savaging Zionism (or even Zionists; the people) could have anti-semitic aspects to them.

      You keep alluding to anti-semitic aspects but someone seem completely unable to provide examples. Why is that?

  10. Antidote
    April 28, 2012, 3:02 pm

    Ozick 2003:

    “By replacing history with fantasy, the Palestinians have invented a society unlike any other, where hatred trumps bread. They have reared children unlike any other children, removed from ordinary norms and behaviors. And they have been assisted in these deviations by Arab rulers who for half a century have purposefully and pitilessly caged and stigmatized them as refugees, down to the fourth generation.”

    One could certainly say the same thing about Zionists, assisted by Western rulers who have for about a century “pitilessly caged and stigmatized Jews” as refugees/victims of anti-semitism who can find a safe homeland only in Palestine, and only at the expense of Palestinians/Arabs/Muslims. And Christians, too.

    Ozick’s claim that Palestinians invented suicide attacks is not history but pure fantasy.

    link to en.wikipedia.org

    Excerpt:

    “According to Robert Pape, director of the Chicago Project on Suicide Terrorism, 95% of suicide attacks in recent times have the same specific strategic goal: to cause an occupying state to withdraw forces from a disputed territory”

    Doh. Declaring Palestinians to be a particularly despicable and inhuman lot and basically is obviously supposed to distract attention from such obvious conclusions.

  11. upsidedownism
    April 28, 2012, 3:23 pm

    Calling the Palestinians an “invented” people because the term “palestinian” is new is like calling Native Americans an “invented” people, because the term “Native American” is a recent invention.

    Native Americans always existed; they did not use the term “native american” because they never had to.

    If someone beats the hell out of you and is prosecuted in a court, you will be referred for the first time in you life as the “victim.” If the lawyer defending your assailant argues that his client is innocent because before the crime in question, no one ever previously referred to you by using the term “victim”, the judge and jury would rightfully just laugh.

    Palestinians used the term to “Palestinians” as and when it was needed. It is the unprecedented Zionist assault on the indigenous people of Palestine which suddenly made the need for a term to refer to the Palestinian victims of Zionism so pressing.

    • Shingo
      April 30, 2012, 1:10 am

      Calling the Palestinians an “invented” people because the term “palestinian” is new is like calling Native Americans an “invented” people, because the term “Native American” is a recent invention.

      That’s a great argument. What amazes me is that the argument about Palestinians being an invented people is based on a fraudulent book, yet some so called historians and academics continue to regurgitate this crap.

      In reality, Israel is a recent invention, seeing as it did not exist prior to 1948.

    • playforpalestine
      May 17, 2012, 4:54 am

      “Calling the Palestinians an “invented” people because the term “palestinian” is new is like calling Native Americans an “invented” people, because the term “Native American” is a recent invention.”

      That’s not what they mean though. Native Americans always existed as a large group made up of smaller tribes. In the case of Palestine, the people in question already DID have an identity. Or rather, they had several identities over time, and some were in conflict for the right to be how people defined themselves. Many considered the area part of Syria. But Pan-Arab Nationalism was an ideology making inroads at the time.

      Point being, the identity “Palestinian” was taken on by mostly local, disenfranchised Arab Muslims/Christians (and those who identified with them), in response to the political growth of Zionism. That the term is new doesn’t matter. The identity itself is new too!

      • Woody Tanaka
        May 17, 2012, 10:38 am

        Rank idiocy and nothing but bigotry on the level of the worst racism or antisemitism. There was no conflict in their identity; there was a conflict in the label and the categories that outsiders want to place them. You apologists for the Nakba make this nonsense up because you don’t have the character to admit that the Zionists were guilty of one of the great crimes of the second half of the 20th Century continuing to this day. And no matter what the label, what the identity, the Palestinians were a people whose right to their land was stolen from them.

      • playforpalestine
        May 18, 2012, 11:10 am

        “Rank idiocy and nothing but bigotry on the level of the worst racism or antisemitism. ”

        So if there’s NOTHING but the worst bigotry that the world has ever seen, how is there also rank idiocy? On that note, I’m fairly certain that you need to add more to that statement before it can be considered a sentence.

        “You apologists for the Nakba make this nonsense up because you don’t have the character to admit that the Zionists were guilty of one of the great crimes of the second half of the 20th Century”

        Wait, are you accusing me of denying the Nakba or apologizing for it? That IS the crime we’re talking about here, right? I’m asking because people don’t usually consider it a crime from the second half of the 20th Century, mostly because, well… it occurred before then.

        Regardless, I don’t see how the debate regarding Palestinian identity works in any way to legitimize the Nakba. And regardless of THAT , I think that you are guilty of seriously overreaching in your attempts to label the Nakba “one of the great crimes of the second half of the 20th Century.”

  12. Shingo
    April 30, 2012, 1:13 am

    ‘the Palestinians have invented a society unlike any other, where hatred trumps bread. They have reared children unlike any other children, removed from ordinary norms and behaviors.’

    Talk about insufferable hypocrisy. The behaviors she denigrates as grotesque in Palestinian society is revered and lauded in Iaeaeli society.

Leave a Reply