I keep underestimating the Beinart effect. Three recent developments show Beinart's power. 1, Huffpo ripping off Beinart's Open Zion blog at the Daily Beast, 2, Stephen Robert's "God help an infant born in Palestine" op-ed in the IHT yesterday, and 3, Paul Krugman's support for Beinart in the Times.
The liberal Zionists are having their moment. And maybe they will help Obama.
1. Huffington Post is now imitating "Open Zion," the Beinart blog at Daily Beast, with a series of posts by liberal Zionists in the days leading up to Nakba commemoration day-- sorry, I mean Israel Independence Day. The editor is Leonard Fein of the Forward. He knows something is wrong, but he is bound and determined to save the brand:
In the essays that will that will be published over the next few days, liberal Zionists from both Israel and the United States explain their commitment. Almost all explicitly express their disappointment with Israel's current direction, yet make clear that that direction, in which exclusion and expansion are central themes, is not at all what Zionism implies....
the problem is how to grab hold of history and turn it in a direction that offers both peoples life, security, hope -- an end to the debilitating animosity, an end to the bloodshed, a new day.
That day will not dawn with the Israelis saying, "Oops, we made a mistake, give us a week to pack and we will leave quietly." Nor will the Palestinians say, "Well, Bantustans are better than nothing, we'll settle for that." No, the new day will dawn if and only if a viable Palestinian state is created next door to the Israeli state -- that is, only if the hoary principle of partitioning the land is, at last, implemented.
I would describe Fein's choice there as a false one. Many people with power have actually brought about Bantustans for the Palestinians. No one with any power is suggesting that Jews get out of Dodge; and as for my friends, they've merely suggested that Israelis and Palestinians adopt the system that has worked so well for Leonard Fein and me, liberal democracy.
Still, it's interesting that Huffpo has thrown itself behind this project. It shows how central Jews are to Democratic blue-state life.
2. The Stephen Robert piece in the IHT, "A Reset in Jewish Thinking," borrows a lot from Beinart: for a start, the Hail Mary pass for the two-state solution. And also the idea that Jews are powerful in a way we've never been before. I liked this language:
How can a people persecuted for so long act so brutally when finally attaining power? Will we continuously see the world as 1938, or can we use the strength of our new power to forgive, while never forgetting the lessons of our past?...
It is time for Jews to realize their changed position...
And here is Robert saying that Jews are doing to Palestinians what anti-Semites did to us.
A state that persecutes, deprives and denies its neighbors in a manner so similar to what our tormentors did to us cannot be acceptable.
It is disappointing to me that the IHT or Robert himself did not allow Robert to say what he said in the Nation a few months ago: It's "apartheid on steroids" in the West Bank. That would have changed the discourse, to get that argument from a Zionist on the NYT site. But he did get a great line in, emphasis mine:
Virtually imprisoned, the Palestinians lack freedom of movement and civil or political rights. They are subject to imprisonment without charges. They often lack water and jobs and are citizens of nowhere. God help an infant born in Palestine today....
3. Krugman's confession. Last night I did a churlish post about Krugman's endorsement of Beinart. But as MJ Rosenberg and Ilene Cohen and many commenters have pointed out, Krugman's confession that he has avoided the issue because of the threat of being accused of hurting Israel demonstrates the power of the lobby.
I have other battles to fight, and to say anything to that effect [Israel is committing national suicide] is to bring yourself under intense attack from organized groups that try to make any criticism of Israeli policies tantamount to anti-Semitism.
This is valuable. It proves what Walt and Mearsheimer said, it's career suicide to attack the lobby. Krugman should know.
Beinart's book is allowing Jews to come out in a way they refused to do when Walt and Mearsheimer said it, because Walt and Mearsheimer made the mistake of being goyim. I'm reading Beinart's book now and see that he has revisited the same terrain carved out by the 2007 book The Israel Lobby, but simply swapped out the phrase American Jewish Establishment for Israel lobby. It's a bit of sleight-of-hand, in which he gives no credit to trailblazers Walt and Mearsheimer, but it's working. I don't think Beinart's effort will have any effect on Israel and Palestine, but it will help to reform American Jewish identity.
This sounds about right. Beinart should not be attacked or denigrated for unwarranted reasons – but neither should he be treated in a way his deed does not warrant.
Walt/Mearsheimers were the real trailblazers – and as you said, coming from the non-Jewish perspective too, which is double impressive. That takes genuine courage.
Beinart’s role is to rehash the argument, make them less vague than W/M were forced to do(that’s why they kept talking about ‘Christian Zionists’ to desperately avoid the attacking force of the lobby/Jewish establishment, but failed), and, via his impeccable Jewish credentials, basically tell Jews “it’s okay”.
But in the end, he’s the back-up guy. The amplifier. But he didn’t take the leap when it was dangerous – nor did he back them up when they came under fire. Nor has he given them any credit. He has only casually referred to them once in a reply to Bret Stephens as ‘figures widely loathed by the Jewish establishment’ and that was it.
Beinart poses like a trailblazer, but as I previously stated, he has gotten all this free media, there’s a huge commotion. Everyone is acting like he is incredibly brave, but all one has to do in his position is to have a thick neck. He is having more access to the MSM than ever before, while W/M were shut off, smeared and were denied any chance to respond to outright calls of anti-Semitism. Their careers languished and they were booted out, kicked off from events. Beinart goes to liberal think tanks and is treated like a hero. But he never says whom he can thank for that.
Maybe it isn’t a coincidence that he climbed up the greasy pole so fast? Maybe I’m being unfair to him. But I am still awaiting Max Blumenthal’s book. It will be much more honest and less riddled with false narratives á la ‘It’s All Bibi’s Fault And The Alternative Is So Much Better’, while every reader of this site knows deep down that such a line of reasoning can be described as a joke at best.
But I bet you that Blumenthal won’t get an entire section of his own at Newsweek or free Op-Ed’s, pick his favourite liberal think tank for long discussions, or having a media blitz to everyone from Charlie Rose to Wolf Blitzer. Because Blumenthal’s message may be naked but it is true. But don’t expect Beinart to give anything than a backhanded and lukewarm compliment at best, if not outright ignoring him – like Beinart ignored W/M when it was tough. Because Beinart is a self-described Centrist and that means he is always behind the real trailblazers and then rehashing their work and taking credit for it. Don’t be surprised to see a sequel on Crisis to Zionism based on Blumenthal’s book in a few years from now, and don’t be surprised if the MSM hails him yet again as a daring truthteller, while ignoring Blumenthal just like they are ignoring W/M now.
Well, yes, but what seems like a lament is in fact a perfect description of leadership.
I guess I’m old enough to remember Dick Fosbury and the “Fosbury Flop.” Fosbury was ridiculed for this wacky, how-could-it-ever-work high-jumping style, that just happened to win a gold medal in the 1968 Olympics.
The moral to his story is that his technique, and his implementation of his technique yielded only modest, long-term gains for him personally (gold medal aside), but his successors/imitators realized that his innovation was the basis for improvements and all that was to follow, with substantial gains in the achievable high-jump height. I believe the “Flop” is the norm, even now.
It’s an analogy, but also a dynamic.
Well, the LZs have come out of the wood-work. Good. Perhaps.
But, one question: Shall it be supposed that they are actually different from the RW-Zs and AIPAC in programmatic ways and not merely in motivations and style and claimed humane concerns?
Will they call for removal of the wall and the settlers from all the OTs — not for peace but to comply with I/L, to comply with the Fourth Geneva convention and the ICJ’s July 2004 ruling on the wall?
Or will they seek to allow Israel to continue to possess the fruits of violation of I/L (settlements, East Jerusalem, the water — never forget the water!, etc.)? Will they merely speak of removing the settlements east of the wall, thereby showing that they accept the wall as the proper border? Will they seek to protect Israel’s usurpation of East Jerusalem?
I’m not interested in goody-goodies saying how much they prize democracy and rule of law and then saying that Israel should be allowed to keep what it has stolen.
The Jewish agency said they accepted UNGA-181 (55%) knowing that the Arab states and Palestinians would reject it and that there’d be war. That got them to 78%. If now they also want the wall and what’s west of it, there’s no essential difference between the right-wing and the liberals.
Think about it. Yes, LZs, it’s nice to hear from you again, and thank Beinart for breaking the ice, but please don’t make it all a “distinction without a difference.”
RE: “…liberal Zionists from both Israel and the United States explain their commitment. Almost all explicitly express their disappointment with Israel’s current direction, yet make clear that that direction, in which exclusion and expansion are central themes, is not at all what Zionism implies…” ~ Leonard Fein
SPEAKING OF THE “IMPLICATIONS” OF ZIONISM, SEE: “The Origin of the Palestine-Israel Conflict”, Published by Jews for Justice in the Middle East:
• CONTINUED AT – link to mondoweiss.net
• ALSO SEE THESE EXCERPTS FROM ‘The Hidden History of Zionism’ – link to mondoweiss.net
Dude, this is like the seventh thread you’ve posted this on. It has nothing to do with this discussion. We get it.
RE: “We get it.” ~ hopmi [Is that the royal "we"?*]
REPLY: So why aren’t the Zionists paying reparations to Jewish families that lost family members in the Holocaust?
P.S. I am so dreadfully sorry for “boring” you and Mayhem. But it really isn’t all about “you”.
RE: “I don’t think Beinart’s effort will have any effect on Israel and Palestine, but it will help to reform American Jewish identity.” ~ Weiss
AN ENCORE PERFORMANCE OF AN EARLY SPRING AFTERNOON’S MUSICAL INTERLUDE, brought to you once again as a courtesy of the makers of new Ziocaine Über-Xtreme®: It’s guaran-damn-teed to blow your effing mind!™
• Anthem, Leonard Cohen (VIDEO, 09:33) – link to youtube.com
P.S. FROM SongMeanings.net:
SOURCE – link to songmeanings.net
P.P.S. When Leonard Cohen says to “forget your perfect offering”, what might that “perfect offering” be in the context of Jews and Israel? The Likud vision of a “Greater Israel”? The notion of an ethnocentric/theocratic Israel?
I don’t think Beinart’s effort will have any effect on Israel and Palestine, but it will help to reform American Jewish identity. Indeed.
And nothing more. All those pixels set to black, and no changes in the topic. Just another government, and it’s closed. No de-oxymoronisation of “liberal Zionism” (Israel!), of “democratic and Jewish state” (Israel!).
“No de-oxymoronisation of “liberal Zionism” (Israel!), of “democratic and Jewish state” (Israel!).”
There is not necessarily a contradiction between liberalism and Zionism or between Democratic and Jewish. It is just a matter of how you are defining those terms.
Do you also think there is a contradiction between liberalism and American patriotism? Tell that to the Democratic Party and the entire lot of American liberals. Is Zionism worse because of the occupation? Then what about America’s occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan? In terms of harm, America has done far worse to the world than Israel has.
Liberal Zionism is a national liberation struggle of the Jewish people. In a world of nation-states, Zionism is struggling for Jews to have a nation-state. Liberal Zionists would probably argue that Israel can and should be a “light unto the nations” and will ultimately facilitate the end of the nation-states in favor of a cosmopolitan world community. The ideal is expressed as “nation shall not lift up sword against nation; they shall learn war no more.”
Also, the idea of a “Jewish State” is only problematic when it is defined in terms of Jewish demographic majority. This is defining it as “power over” the other and domination. I do not see it that way. A Jewish state could be ANY state that provides a safe place for Jews to live and prosper regardless of demographic numbers. A Jewish State is entirely consistent with a Palestinian State or even a state in which Muslims, Christians and Jews have equal rights.
jonrich111 , I think most regulars here know that criticism of a governmental regime, including the USA’s, is a sign of caring for the country and its people. Only a real friend will actually take you to task for what you do. Do you mean to say anything else?
I was not specifically referring to any particular governmental regime, but rather criticizing the validity of the entire idea of nationalism itself. I don’t believe in identifying based on artificial national borders. As a Jew, I see myself as a cosmopolitan. And I think that is a fundamental condition of being a Jew living in the the diaspora — being a citizen of the world. I think if we are going to criticize Zionism, then we should also criticize all other forms of nationalism as well (including American or Palestinian).
I think if we are going to criticize Zionism, then we should also criticize all other forms of nationalism as well
to what end? ethnic nationalism and civic nationalism are in two completely different ballparks.
If it is a people’s national liberation struggle, then I would say it is justified only on prudential grounds — meaning that an ethnic state is a means to a) secure protection for a vulnerable minority and b) the creation of such a state would be a vehicle for the liberation of all of humanity. I am reminded of the idea in Judaism that Israel should be a “light unto the nations” that will help bring about the day in which “they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore.”
If an ethnic nationalism can do that, then I would support it as means to global liberation.
>> A Jewish State is entirely consistent with a Palestinian State or even a state in which Muslims, Christians and Jews have equal rights.
So…no special right of “return” for Jews, and no legally-enshrined, permanent-majority status for Jews? No Jews-only settlements, et cetera? Israel as a secular, democratic and egalitarian state of and for all Israelis? Is this what you’re actually saying?
If so, I applaud your statement. :-)
Yes, that is what I am saying. Although I would probably support the right of return based on the condition that Jews needed protection or a safe haven from anti-Semitism. I would also support the same right of return for the Palestinians as well.
jonrick111 ~ every citizen in the world needs a safe haven somewhere, whether they are jewish or not. Being a citizen of a country does not guarantee absolute protection from persecution.
That is what the 1951 Refugee Convention (and the 1967 Protocol) are about:
link to en.wikipedia.org
>> Yes, that is what I am saying. Although I would probably support the right of return based on the condition that Jews needed protection or a safe haven from anti-Semitism. I would also support the same right of return for the Palestinians as well.
So far, so good! Israel is a secular, democratic and egalitarian state of and for all Israelis. Presumably, it embraces its shared Jewish and Palestinian history as it develops an “Israeli” identity and culture. Both the Holocaust and the Nakba are recognized, and the glorification of former terrorists and terrorism on both sides is abolished (or at least significantly downplayed). A RoR for both Jews and Palestinians – sounds good.
Two more questions, if I may:
- Are the RoR criteria straightforward, balanced and consistent for both groups?
- Do you have any concerns about the possibility of the non-Jewish Israeli demographic outstripping the Jewish Israeli demographic – as a result of RoR and/or fecundity – and do you propose any safeguards to ensure that Jews remain a majority within Israel?
Thanks. :-)
“- Are the RoR criteria straightforward, balanced and consistent for both groups?”
I think they should be negotiated and agreed upon by a compromise between Jewish Israelis and Palestinians in a democratic manner. I could see the possibility of trade-offs being made and also some groups being compensated monetarily or with equally valuable land in a two-state solution if necessary.
” – Do you have any concerns about the possibility of the non-Jewish Israeli demographic outstripping the Jewish Israeli demographic – as a result of RoR and/or fecundity – and do you propose any safeguards to ensure that Jews remain a majority within Israel?”
I do not see the need for a demographic majority in order to provide security to Jews in Israel, but I can understand why some people would initially feel threatened given the history of trauma and violence on both sides. New York City does not have a Jewish majority, but Jews are pretty safe there and have influence on the culture. I would not see any difference in Israel. The focus should be on quality, not quantity. However, I do think that this issue is one that would be hard to convince many Jews about initially. I think we need to focus on ending the occupation and creating a two state solution first, then we can address questions of demographics second.
“Liberal Zionism is a national liberation struggle of the Jewish people”
What are the “Jewish people” struggling to be liberated from? Here in Australia, Australian Jews are no more oppressed than other Australians. Many are bankers and MPs, and so among the oppressors.
And in what meaningful sense are “the Jewish people” a “nation” for the liberation to be “national”?
“What are the “Jewish people” struggling to be liberated from?”
From themselves I think. Imagine if you spent almost every day of your life obsessing over or at least thinking about your ” identity”. It’s enough to make anyone crazy.
I don’t understand. Are you suggesting that Jews are oppressing themselves? Or that Jewish identity is inherently bad, and Jews should therefore stop being Jewish? That we should abandon our Jewish identity and assimilate into Gentile world, thus erasing our culture and history?
Thinking about identity is a condition of living in the diaspora in a predominantly Gentile world. Jews are outsiders and our cultural differences do set us apart. Being marginalized; being on the outside looking in; that painful tension between assimilation and cultural distinctiveness — all these experiences give Jews our empathy. That’s why many Jewish holidays — Passover, Purim, Hanukkah, Yom HaShoah — retell a story from our past oppression. This memory of suffering allows us to empathize and ally ourselves with the struggles of oppressed peoples throughout the world. That is the idea of tikkun olam — that it our responsibility to repair and change the world.
Especially since it seems they don’t actually know what an ” identity” is.
i recommend therapy for your condition.
Jews have historically thought of themselves as a people in diaspora, living scattered over the earth longing for a day to return to Israel. This was a deep spiritual, symbolic longing for the world to come. That is why we end Passover seder with “next year in Jerusalem” — represents this hope for a better world. Jews also have a notion of “am yisrael” — the people of Israel. This is the idea that Jews are connected and all constitute a kinship group rather than a specific plot of land.
Having never been to Australia myself, I don’t know enough details about how Australian Jews live. But I will say that Jewish oppression is condition that is inherent to life in the diaspora. It is a special kind of vulnerability that comes from living as such a small minority in the world. It is a tension between the pull to assimilate and abandon culture, coupled by the desire for tradition and identity. I think diasporic identity is being caught in the middle position — neither here nor there; not outside or inside. Being caught in mediator positions leaves us specifically vulnerable, even in times of prosperity. There is always the possibility of scapegoating and attack during times of social turmoil.
And it doesn’t really matter if individuals Jews are bankers or MPs, because the fundamental social dynamics remain the same. Jewish oppression isn’t economic oppression — it falls on social, cultural, and religious grounds.
I really feel bad for you jonrich. I mean the Jews have lived in a diaspora for centuries where they’ve been the victims of pogroms, attacks by kossacks, and then one of the main victims of Nazi racial policies and now, NOW, they have to fear the ‘tension between pull to assimilate and abandon culture, coupled [sic] by the desire for for tradition and identity’. The poor Jewish people! Haven’t they suffered enough? Damn that degenerate American/European culture seducing all those Jewish youth into assimilating! Quick, let’s throw some more Palestinians off their land just so Jews can beam home and no longer feel this oppression!
just heartbreaking isn’t it inanna. does anyone have any hankies?
Imagine if you spent almost every day of your life obsessing over or at least thinking about your ” identity”.
the washington post is hosting a video that seems customed tailored for jon. much cheaper than a therapist.
link to failedmessiah.typepad.com
You know, as an American, I’m offended by jon’s views about the evils of assimilation and how being in a diaspora is oppression. He agrees that it’s not economic but social, cultural, religious. If the social and cultural status that Jews hold now in American life is defined as oppression, I know a lot of Muslims and Palestinians who would like that kind of oppression.
“this memory of suffering allows us to empathize and ally ourselves with the struggles of oppressed peoples throughout the world.” -
except when the oppressed are palestinians and the oppressors happen to be jewish colonialists from europe and elsewhere. such hypocrisy undermines the very concept of liberal zionism. what instead? not only the delegitimization of the jewish settler entity israel but the disowning of zionism, the racist doctrine that gave birth to it. delegitimization can be realized by a combination of struggle from within occupied palestine together with international pressure spearheaded by bds, whereas, the disowning of zionism is mostly up to the jewish community, although here pressure from the general public would be both helpful and welcome. but for the disownment of zionism to gain traction there has to be a split between those jewish-americans who put human rights before the existence of the racist entity israel and those who put said entity first, as well as a split between those who prefer to live in the inclusiveness of the 21st century and those who cling to the exclusivity of antiquity. the type of battle, for example, that’s being waged every day on mondoweiss.net.
“Quick, let’s throw some more Palestinians off their land just so Jews can beam home and no longer feel this oppression!”
I never said anything about throwing anybody off their land. In fact, I said the exact opposite: “A Jewish State is entirely consistent with a Palestinian State or even a state in which Muslims, Christians and Jews have equal rights.”
Apparently you think it is okay to lump all Jews together as if they are a clannish tribe devoid of any differences of opinion. Would such blanket generalizations be acceptable had you made them about other groups such as blacks, undocumented immigrants, or the GLBT community? I think not. You are allowing your anger at the occupation to cloud your judgement of Jews as a whole.
“for the disownment of zionism to gain traction there has to be a split between those jewish-americans who put human rights before the existence of the racist entity israel and those who put said entity first, as well as a split between those who prefer to live in the inclusiveness of the 21st century and those who cling to the exclusivity of antiquity.”
Inflammatory language such as this is the reason why many Jews feel threatened by BDS and other anti-Zionist ideologies. It is basic human psychology — when a group feels like their existence is threatened, they will be more likely to cling together and entrench themselves in nationalism, militarism, and authoritarianism. This is exactly what happened in America after the 9/11 attacks, it is happening in Israel with the ultra-Orthodox and the Likud Party. It is very likely that BDS will further isolate Israel and make them even MORE conservative. It will ultimately strengthen the occupation, not eliminate it. I even consider myself an anti-Zionist and I do not support the BDS movement for this reason. There needs to be some sympathy and respect shown to Jews and Palestinians on this struggle. Otherwise nothing will change.
Another zionist comprehension fail. Brought to you by zioncaine!
Inflammatory language such as this is the reason why many Jews feel threatened by BDS and other anti-Zionist ideologies.
Who knew that advocating for universal human rights could be considered “inflammatory”? Maybe you should rethink your philosophy if you believe that mere talk of human rights, not to mention the actual observance of those rights, threatens your “existence”.
“Who knew that advocating for universal human rights could be considered “inflammatory”?”
You are deliberately misquoting me. I did not call universal rights “inflammatory.” Rather, I said it was inflammatory to call Israel a “racist entity” and say that Jews “cling to the exclusivity of antiquity.” Those are inflammatory statements.
jonrich111, I agreed with Phil Weiss (his final sentence I quoted), that nothing wrt I/P will change. Just some hairdos. Somehow and unknowingly, you confirm that.
“Liberal Zionism is a national liberation struggle of the Jewish people. In a world of nation-states, Zionism is struggling for Jews to have a nation-state.”
Like liberalism, liberal Zionism is predicated on privilege, and additionally burdened with paranoia. Liberal Zionists are far removed from the reality on the ground. This in an elite identity, composed of largely well-to-do people living comfortable lives with access to media spaces. It has no strategy or method in how to deal with the ultra-Orthodox settlers. Liberal Zionism offers little self-reflection, it externalises evil on to the Right, excusing the actions of people like Tzipi Livni. I agree with Phil that it will not “have any effect on Israel and Palestine, but it will help to reform American Jewish identity”. This may be a good thing for American Jewish identity but it will not affect the site of oppression.
“Liberal Zionists would probably argue that Israel can and should be a “light unto the nations” and will ultimately facilitate the end of the nation-states in favor of a cosmopolitan world community. The ideal is expressed as “nation shall not lift up sword against nation; they shall learn war no more.””
These appear to echo the sentiments of Amos Oz, but what the devastating process of New Atheism, the Christian Right, “Islamisation” and “Zionism” have taught us is that there is no Utopia on earth, it is mythology. The best way to move forward is grant each human being in every nation equal rights, abolish religious compulsion, abolish terrorism and the “just war” theory, provide universal education, through rights and education deconstruct the cult of intellectuals, usher in a new vocabulary to replace the Enlightenment export of “the chain of being”, and criminalise abuse to animals and nature.
Liberal Zionists are the ones responsible for bringing us closest to the two-state solution through Oslo. They made up a sizable chunk of Israeli Jewish society until terrorism discredited their approach in the eyes of the Israeli public. They are responsible for the founding of the State of Israel, which had 30 years of Labor governments before it had a Likud Prime Minister.
Nothing in Beinart’s book suggests he is removed from the reality on the ground. The problem is that many people here are removed from the reality in Israeli society, which was mostly behind the Oslo process until the wave of suicide attacks led to the anti-Oslo Netanyahu’s first term as Prime Minister, the slowing down of the Oslo, and the acceleration of settlement activity (most of which took place under Netanyahu). It is not a coincidence that in left-wing newspapers like the Guardian, mainstream Zionist voices are almost completely absent, and thus, most activists have no idea how people actually think. It’s easier to use stereotypes and epithets to define them rather than actually listen to what they have to say.
Hamas had an objective in the 1990s. It was to derail the peace process. They succeeded in bringing Likud into power. That was their achievement.
“Hamas had an objective in the 1990s. It was to derail the peace process. They succeeded in bringing Likud into power. That was their achievement”
Oh gawd….can you shut up with this —-> ‘it’s always someone else’s fault’ stuff? Anti semites are to blame, Hamas is to blame, Europe is to blame, the UN is to blame,..everyone is to blame for what Israel and zionist do.
Nuts! Grow the hell up and take responsibility for your own crimes…everyone is tired of your totally innocent Israel/zionism crap.
“Oh gawd….can you shut up with this —-> ‘it’s always someone else’s fault’ stuff? ”
Sorry if it’s inconvenient to your worldview. It’s true. Life is more complicated outside your little BDS cult.
What does BDS have to do with your stale talking points hoppy?
The piece process was never going anywhere anyways and Hamas was nurtured by Israel in the first place as a counter to the secular PLO.
Israel has always been the problem. The power dynamic of this conflict is self explanatory and no one needs to get into the specifics of BDS to understand that it is Israel and its cultist supporters like yourself at fault.
“The piece process was never going anywhere anyways and Hamas was nurtured by Israel in the first place as a counter to the secular PLO.”
Untrue. And Israel had stopped “nurturing” Hamas well before suicide bombing started.
”
The power dynamic of this conflict is self explanatory and no one needs to get into the specifics of BDS to understand that it is Israel and its cultist supporters like yourself at fault.”
I forgot what a great job you’re doing finding a solution.
Aiman, you write: “there is no Utopia on earth, it is mythology.”
But then you say: “The best way to move forward is grant each human being in every nation equal rights, abolish religious compulsion, abolish terrorism and the “just war” theory, provide universal education…”
So you want a world without terrorism, religious coercion, equal rights for the entire planet, universal education, and no more war? Sounds like a utopia to me. How is what you are advocating any different than the world I envision in the future? I am reminded of the Robert F. Kennedy quote:
“There are those that look at things the way they are, and ask why? I dream of things that never were, and ask why not?”
Jonrich, working toward equal right for all human beings, abolishing religious compulsion, removing the threat of wanton violence, and providing universal education — none of these are utopian ideas. These all deal with worldly concerns. I am not speaking of “light unto nations”. These ideas are no more utopian than wide scale discrimination, wanton violence, ethnocentric and religious nationalism, and lack of universal education. Some of these human rights are already legislated in many countries of the west. I have read that when universal education was introduced in Iran it even allowed women to decrease their fertility rates from 6 to 2 children and made them have more control over their lives. I do not believe that the condition of man is to be resigned to the powers that be, but rather to the good that can be achieved. I don’t believe in revolutions or earthly utopias, but change that is possible, one step at a time as long as you know where you’re going.
“none of these are utopian ideas.”
So you are arguing semantics? You think that applying rights universally, abolishing terrorism and ending war is NOT utopian, but the ideal of: “nation shall not lift up sword against nation; they shall learn war no more” somehow IS utopian? What exactly is the difference between these two things? Why is “nation shall not lift up sword against nation” any more “utopian” than abolishing terrorism, war, and criminalizing animal rights abuses? I would say NONE of these things are utopian — they are ideals to strive for, not social perfections.
@jonrich111 Some of what you say seems reasonable, but it doesn’t seem to, to me anyway, tie together into a consistent world view. The future tense in this statement is why:
Oops… the rest of the comment…
@jonrich111 Some of what you say sounds reasonable, but it doesn’t seem to, to me anyway, tie together into a consistent world view. The future tense in this statement is why:
“Zionism is struggling for Jews to have a nation-state.”
Jews HAVE a nation-state. They are not struggling TO have one.
Every time that future condition is included in a description of the problem, it’s a huge red flag. It means that the person making the statement is simply looking past the current reality and on to some “keeping our boots on the necks of the Palestinians for a few more years isn’t so bad because by then we’ll have concluded our ‘struggle’ to create a Jewish nation-state.” rationalization for doing nothing to solve the problem, now.
You see this rationalization from so-called liberal Zionists all the time. It’s the fundamental and selfishly irreconcilable flaw of that conflicted mindset, imo. “Just a few more years. Remember, this is about us. We’ve almost got it right. Be patient. How bad can it really be [e.g. with the WB economy improving by 8% last year, and I've never been to Gaza so I can't really comment on what's going on there.]?”
The dire necessity of someday achieving a future condition which is actually a living, breathing, current reality is cited to justify all sorts of nonchalance and/or outright disingenuous-ness. Maybe you used that phrasing by mistake, but it is a very common refrain in these discussions from lib-zios. It’s core mythology.
Ritzl, I have never supported “keeping our boots on the necks of the Palestinians for a few more years” as a means to achieve Jewish national security. In fact, I said the exact opposite when I explicitly called for a state that would allow Jews, Muslims and Christians — all people — to share the land as equals.
The use of future tense is in the Jewish tradition of hoping for the world to come — the Messianic age. I don’t believe in a literal Messiah, but I do believe that Israel can and should be Or LaGoyim — a light unto the nations. In other words, my vision is that the Jewish people can help facilitate the future age in which war, hunger, poverty, inequality, and greed are no longer plagues upon this earth. I am speaking from a condition of hope for what Israel can be — not what it currently is.
Two things:
1) Courage is contagious. (All these people first caught it from you.)
2) Comments are now active at Open Zion, which I hope will enrich the dialogue.
Widely-imitated, Beinart is giving Jews permission to be, unh, liberal Zionists
unh, no thanks, I’ll pass. The illusory goal of partition has always been pursued in support of the status quo (a war against the Palestinian people over “sovereignty”).
Neither of the two sides will ever come up with a partition plan that can survive a national plebiscite. After more than 60 years, the sacrifices necessary for a partition are obviously more unacceptable than simply living together in a permanent state of belligerency. In the meantime, there’s no good reason for some of the people living in this spatial entity to enjoy all of the rights, privileges, and protections of “stateiness”, while all of the others remain “stateless”, since “states” are abstract creatures of law.
It has always been complete nonsense to talk about a “viable state” living along side Israel. The original UN plans called for redistribution of Israel’s income through a regional Economic Union in exchange for a very large cession of Arab income-producing territory. At the time, everyone noted that the Arab state of Palestine would always require foreign economic assistance to provide for essential public services. The political insiders also noted that the “Economic Union” and revenue redistribution plan were really just a bi-national state without the unpopular label.
It’s hard to believe that we’re still trying to impose a Jewish nation-state on Palestine, when commonly accepted wisdom holds that the concept of “Westphalian sovereignty” is just like Theodor Herzl – dead as a doornail, e.g. link to foreignaffairs.com
Just read all posts at Huff, #1 above.
If I’m a young Jewish American, I’d think these people were a bunch of old fogeys who just don’t “get it.”
Why? Because they read like a bunch of old fogeys who just dont’ get it.
i liked the Stephen Robert article. i thought IHT stood for international herald tribune, instead the link goes to the NYT. what’s up w/that?
i agree it’s the beinart effect. people seem to be just more comfortable talking about it. but heck, nothing is changing on the ground. it’s getting worse. we need action.
IHT does stand for the International Herald Tribune, Annie, but the Times owns it and puts its stuff on their web site. (Often, as in this case, they use the IHT for stuff they don’t dare print in the U.S. paper.
BTW, Stephen Robert lived up the street from me when I was a kid, except at that time he was Stevie Kniznick. One time he and another kid who lived next door peed on my sister….
One time he and another kid who lived next door peed on my sister….
you have the best stories henry!
thanks for explaining the IHT to me.
LOL
Love how the liberal zionists are rushing to support two-states just as it’s basically physically impossible to implement. Yes, they have Israel’s back, always leading from the rear.
Cowards.
Can Mjayrosenberg have his job back now that everyone is out of the closet.
About power:
“The superior man cultivates harmony without being weak – how firm is he in his force of character! He stands erect in the middle without inclining to either side – how firm is he in his force of character!” – ‘The Doctrine of the Mean’ – Zhong Yong
“When John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt published their 2005 book, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, it was vulnerable to predictably lurid charges in part because it was not just aimed at the powerful American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). The authors also insisted on documenting a much wider phenomenon, and their use of the somewhat vague term “Israel lobby” did not properly elaborate that AIPAC and scores of other politically powerful non-religious Jewish organizations like it are all affiliates of the larger Conference of Presidents. Peter Beinart’s original essay in The New York Review of Books, “The Failure of the American Jewish Establishment,” spoke more directly to this reality and provided the more apt and precise term “American Jewish Establishment,” of which the Israel lobby is merely a part.
IT IS LARGELY FOR THIS VERY REASON THAT BEINART’S EXPOSURE OF THIS ESTABLISHMENT HAS PROVOKED YET UNPRECEDENTED HYSTERIA FROM THE FAMOUSLY HYSTERICAL NEOCONSERVATIVE MOVEMENT. HE HAS BEEN GIVEN A MEGAPHONE TO ANNOUNCE TO THE WORLD FOR THE FIRST TIME WHAT INFORMED AMERICAN JEWS HAVE ALWAYS UNDERSTOOD ABOUT THE NEOCONS — THAT THEY, IN FACT, ARE THE TRUE SELF-HATING JEWS, WITH THEIR PATHOLOGICAL HATRED OF ANY EXPRESSION OF JUDAISM’S TRADITIONS OF SOCIAL JUSTICE and other affronts to the Spartan virtues. In short, he has said everything about the American Jewish Establishment for which Pat Buchanan and Norman Finkelstein were so brutally vilified in years past.”
link to original.antiwar.com
I was so glad when Chris Hayes clumsily (which is so unusual for Hayes) asked Beinart how he resolves Zionism with liberalism. I still say these two words are complete opposites of one another. Zionism is exclusive and racist at its roots.
“I still say these two words are complete opposites of one another. Zionism is exclusive and racist at its roots.”
Liberalism is also exclusive and is often implicitly or politely racist. Conservatism is overtly racist. Egalitarianism has critiqued liberalism because liberalism privileges those with wealth and status. This is because liberalism cannot exist without capital. Even with liberalism, I’m afraid, the Israeli discourse will be privileged.
What we need to emphasise I think is liberality of thought and experience. This could sow seeds of co-existence and mutual aid even among people who do not have access to material and educational privileges. Liberalism, at least as it currently stands, (in my opinion) is compatible with Zionism.
Just a technicality, but you describe Fein as “from the Forward.” His J-mag was called the Moment. (But he’s best know for his leadership of AfPN.)
I was amused to discover that he also founded something called Mazon: A Jewish Response to Hunger. I’m still fully expecting to someday see “Jews against Global Warming.”
“I was amused to discover that he also founded something called Mazon: A Jewish Response to Hunger. I’m still fully expecting to someday see “Jews against Global Warming.””
Didn’t know Mazon was him. Mazon is a great organization. Fein writes a weekly column for the Forward.
I had a blinding, shocking revelation the other day while working on my house-wiring (which is mostly made of linked paper-clips) . I realised the fultility and nihilism of my anti-Zionism, while retaining my disgust with “liberal Zionism”.
From now on I am a “progressive Zionist”. The position is completely unassailable.
Could you explain, Moose? What exactly is the difference–notice in America*–between liberal and progressive. I had the impression they are used synonymously, or is that only from a conservative to right perspective?
* I mean what to say about Obama being a Communist?