Jerome Slater has an excellent piece up on his site about Peter Beinart's book and its critics. Slater is devastating on the ideological choices by the New York Times and Washington Post on who would review Beinart's book: rightwing critics Jonathan Rosen and Alana Newhouse, respectively, both of the Tablet family, both embracers of Israel's foundational myths. (I do think that those reviews killed the book as a commercial stock; where is the full-page ad? Nowhere.)
Slater is outspoken on the role of the Israel lobby in forcing Obama to cave, and he is wicked, writing as a Christmas tree Jew, about Beinart's communitarian call for reenergizing religious segregationist impulses in Jewish life to fight assimilation. Hasn't Beinart noticed, Slater asks, that he is empowering the most intolerant political segment of the Jewish community when it comes to his chief cause, saving the two-state solution?
The piece concludes with this plainspoken statement of Jewish identity and call for sanctions. Slater remains a liberal Zionist but one with fewer and fewer illusions:
As an anti-religious Jew, my own self-identification with our community has been principally a function of a defiance of an anti-Semitism that has now essentially disappeared but was hardly uncommon in my youth, combined with pride in the Jewish tradition of rationalism and morality--at least as that has been previously understood, and not only by Jews. The enlightenment tradition has been betrayed by Israel, and it gets worse practically day-by-day. Consequently, there is no good reason to revere or love Israel; such feelings should be reserved for the unflinchingly honest and brave Israeli dissidents.
The Israeli left can be helped only by truly serious outside pressures, including making U.S. and other Western economic, military, and political support of Israel conditional upon an end to the Israeli occupation and repression of the Palestinians. That is the sine qua non for a genuine legitimization of Israel, whether as a full democracy with equal rights for all its citizens, or as a Jewish state which privileges its majority in certain limited ways but which can be legitimately characterized as a democracy in most essentials.
The likelihood of such sanctions being imposed on Israel by the American Jewish community, the U.S. government, and the West, is close to nonexistent. Yet, somehow, even if we believe the struggle is hopeless, we must act as if it isn’t.
RE: “Consequently, there is no good reason to revere or love Israel; such feelings should be reserved for the unflinchingly honest and brave Israeli dissidents.” ~ Slater
MY COMMENT: As hopeless as “the situation(s)” seem(s), I glean immeasurable inspiration from “the unflinchingly honest and brave Israeli dissidents”!
RE: “The likelihood of such sanctions being imposed on Israel by the American Jewish community, the U.S. government, and the West, is close to nonexistent. Yet, somehow, even if we believe the struggle is hopeless, we must act as if it isn’t.” ~ Slater
MY COMMENT: I wholeheartedly agree, but it is so much more easily said than done.
P.S. FROM Robert Naiman, Policy Director at Just Foreign Policy, 11/23/12: “Would It Make a Difference to Progressives if Norman Solomon Goes to Congress?”
MORE INFORMATION – link to mondoweiss.net
* I made a modest contribution via ActBlue and Paypal. – link to secure.actblue.com
P.S. RE: “Yet, somehow, even if we believe the struggle is hopeless, we must act as if it isn’t.” ~ Slater
A NICE DOCUMENTARY: Milton Glaser: To Inform and Delight, 2009, NR, 73 minutes (Streaming from Netflix until 6/1/12)
His name might not be very familiar, but the works of graphic artist Milton Glaser — whose prolific output includes the “I Love NY” ad campaign, as well as album covers for Townes Van Zandt and Nina Simone — are recognizable to many.
Director: Wendy Keys
Netflix Availability: Streaming and DVD (Streaming until 6/1/12)
Netflix listing – link to movies.netflix.com
Milton Glaser: To Inform and Delight (Trailer) (VIDEO, 01:00) – link to youtube.com
Milton Glaser: To Inform & Delight – Intro (VIDEO, 02:48) – link to youtube.com
Milton Glaser: To Inform & Delight post-screening Q&A (VIDEO, 23:07) – link to youtube.com
P.P.S. RE: “Yet, somehow, even if we believe the struggle is hopeless, we must act as if it isn’t.” ~ Slater
NOT FOR THE FEINT OF HEART: Valhalla Rising, 2009, NR, 92 minutes
Disfigured warrior One-Eye kills his master and escapes, taking the man’s young son with him. The pair sets sail with a band of Christian Crusaders bound for the Holy Land, but they arrive in the nightmarish New World instead.
Director:Nicolas Winding Refn
Netflix availability: Streaming and DVD
Netflix listing – link to movies.netflix.com
Valhalla Rising, Official Trailer (VIDEO, 02:02) – link to youtube.com
On YouTube in 7 segments - link to youtube.com..0l3.35805.35805.0.39583.1.1.0.0.0.0.50.50.1.1.0…0.0.cZ-nC8ByAgQ
This excellent film (with a sublime musical score) is somewhat evocative of Werner Herzog’s “Aguirre: The Wrath of God” (1972) in which Klaus Kinski played the lead. For a nice examination of the film “Aguirre the Wrath of God”, see “Aguirre the Wrath of God in 8 Minutes” (VIDEO, 08:42 – by gbriggs154 on Feb 20, 2012) on YouTube.- link to youtube.com
Thanks for the tip, DICKERSON. Aguirre is one of my favorites.
“… or as a Jewish state which privileges its majority in certain limited ways but which can be legitimately characterized as a democracy in most essentials.”
The usual double think.
Even Slater is not immune to this blatant contradiction.
Whoa!
Is Slater finally evolving? Has reality started to affect his liberal zionism?
I also like he admits he and other Lib Zios “pull punches” in their writings on Israel:
“On the other hand, though, the primary target audience of the book is clearly the American Jewish community, so it is certainly possible that Beinart felt that if he fully and unflinchingly described the deliberate pain and suffering visited by Israel on the Palestinians, he would alienate even those who might be inclined to reassess their unthinking support of Israel.
If that was Beinart’s concern, it was a legitimate and perhaps necessary concession to the facts of life. In my own writing I have also pulled some punches, for fear of going further than the traffic will bear. Moreover, from private correspondence, I know that other well-known severe critics of Israel have done the same thing.”‘
Phil, thanks for this. Slater’s piece is simply brilliant and a “must-read!”
Even though I have no idea what “anti-religious Jew” or “Jewish tradition of rationality and morality” mean, I guess Slater is to be credited for his stance here.
Is it “anti-semitic” to mention that “The Jewish Tradition” began thousands of years ago, and is based on an invisible, omnipotent Man in the Sky? Is that a rational idea?
Or how about the Book which began the Jewish Tradition; it sanctions wholesale slaughter of “others,” slavery, animal sacrifice etc – is this moral? Joshua at Jericho was moral? Whatever else is true, its certainly part of the Jewish Tradition of Morality, if we arent being arbitrary and deciding which parts of what religion we like for ourselves.
The fact of the matter is, NO ONE can say, as a Jew I object to Israel’s policies – nor can a Christian nor can a Muslim. These religions didnt start yesterday, or during the Summer of Love – nope, they began THOUSANDS of years ago. So, when Slater says that his bronze age identity and the modern state that is based on the same betrays the enlightenment tradition – I say, No Shit. It was always going to be Israelistan.
Sometime soon, when Baruch Marzel and Co. have built the Third Temple and have started animal sacrifices, we should revisit this, and we will see if the exilic Phil and Jerry want to still self identify with a group of people who pay homage to their sky god by slitting animals throats.
All religions have modern interpreters, even if “based” on ancient holy books. Someone had to choose which books to include in the “canon” and which to reject. someone had to write them, come to that. And then there are all the interpretations. “Talmudic thinking” like “Jusuitical thinking” is a description (or naming) of methods and histories of interpretation. Modern evangelical protestants believe that homosexuality is a sin, but don’t believe that eating pork is a sin. Why? Interpretation. Choice. selection. Is the story of Adam and Eve the only creation story in the Bible? No. So which (if either) do you choose, or both?
For rough home truths about modern “interpretation” by Jewish religious folks, see link to 972mag.com.
It is not necessary to be a troglodyte to be religious, but breaking free is a bit of an effort. I don’t think the “Liberal Zionists” have quite managed it. A good read for Christians seeking to break free are the writings of Bishop Spong .
Cheers Peter – but here’s the thing, in your response, you detail how irrational, immoral and arbitrary religion is – I thought that was my point. :)
I only took umbrage with the self congratulatory declarations about rationality and morality – I dont find much rationality or morality in the holy books or in the practical application of religion.
I agree its not necessary to be a troglodyte to be religious – and I think a large part of it is the abstractions you mention – the new interpretations over time etc. I am reminded of the famous quote from Lee Atwater (the southern strategy guy) – who said (horrible paraphrase of actual)
” In 1956 you can say the N word N word N word to get out the vote etc, but by ’60 you cant, you gotta say states rights, and by 68 they know states right means the N word, and you gotta say “forced busing” or something and you keep abstracting away from saying the N word, but thats what its really all about”
And so it is with religion. People now a days, because so much has been done to “soften” religion in order to keep people interested, actually believe the abstractions. So the jealous god who is vengeful and watches over you, waiting for you to screw up so he can pounce becomes the god of evangelical mega church rock shows. Talk about a brave new world.
Have you all noticed how the real liberal Zionists, even with warts and all, keep getting more and more ostracized? MJ Rosenberg, Jerome Slater etc. They tried to do it with Beinart, even if he himself admits that he’s actually a centrist, but they couldn’t do it because he knows how to play the game, he goes full ethnocentric mode on all matters beside Israel to protect his back.
It’s no wonder Zionism is a dirty word if what people see when they hear “liberal Zionist” is rising anger in the disconfigured, reddish, faces of either Alan Dershowitz or Jeff Goldberg the moment after, followed by one anti-liberal line after another, while still pleading to be a liberal.
This is all tempest in a Jewish identity teapot because Congress just gave Israel $4 Billion dollars for next annual aid cycle, while simultaneously striving mightily to cut humanitarian aid to Palestinians and reduce the number of those people with refugee status, and further delinking from the UN so US can do whatever it wants (so long as Israel approves). Military and economic might is everything to our ruling elite. Their goal is US hegemony in the World, as dictated by and for their personal life style and Israel.
“This is all tempest in a Jewish identity teapot because”..Citizen
Yea, it is mostly. While the Beinarts appeal to and moan over the Jewish identity to ask them to be a bit nicer as theives and occupiers to the Palestines …theres no real huge political push in any of this on the powers that be in congress or the WH.
Israel marches right on.
That $4bn might start mounting after this:
link to councilforthenationalinterest.org
maybe a few cherries on top there, keeping up with ALL the ‘neighbors’ combined!
the train has left the station and a few like Beinart have noticed but think they can still run and catch it … israel will be a secular, pluralistic society with equal rights or it deserves to go the way of the Dodo bird
What Israel deserves and what it gets are two quite different things, methinks.
“As an anti-religious Jew….”
Perhaps this would be better phrased “as a non-religious Jew.” Religion has been around a long time and will likely continue to endure long after Professor Slater and I are gone. A discussion of the social/organization functions of religion are well beyond the scope of the Mondoweiss comments section, however, I feel that a measure of prudent humility is in order.
Putting that aside, Professor Slater’s comments are very well taken, hard to disagree with. Reflecting upon past discussions, I would only hope that that Slater’s “enlightenment tradition” would extend to humanitarian intervention, the modern version of white man’s burden. Hope springs eternal.
“A discussion of the social/organization functions of religion are well beyond the scope of the Mondoweiss comments section, however, I feel that a measure of prudent humility is in order.”
Couldn’t agree more. I have found most comments on both religion and the Enlightenment on Mondoweiss to be seriously uninformed and sometimes downright ridiculous. I think some of the Whiggish sentiments here are purely contextual to the leftist discussion in the US, in Britain and even in some quarters of the US they would not be taken seriously by thinkers like Terry Eagleton. Enough said.
That’s funny, seeing as most religious ideology and rationale is rediculous.
Eagleton, eh? link to en.wikipedia.org
Enough said?
Your point?
Here’s a similar link to Whig history: link to en.wikipedia.org
The Whiggish view of history has been categorically debunked. Eagleton is just one of the thinkers. Your American example is Chris Hedges who has persuasively written that this Whiggish whitewashing of history is common to fundamentalists, both religious and secular, in his extensive study of the Christian Right and subsequently the New Atheists. While religious subscribers of Whig history believe in their own collective rapture, secularists who subscribe to a Whiggish view of history believe that humanity is marching toward some sort of progress, that religion is a an antiquated prehistoric germ. In fact, many modern anthropologists believe that religion is a separate sphere of human activity, it cannot be compared to racism though religious discourses can promote racism or not. Depends on the theologian just as it depends on the scientist, whether to use technology for good or ill.
aiman, there is no anti-religious Pope, Rabbinate or Central Commitee with Politbureau, so while most atheists agree that religions are prehistoric (or really historic) dross, the faith in progress is far from universal.
It was also discovered that repulsive and admirable individuals retain their characteristics through both religious conversion and apostasy.
How does religion form a “separate sphere of human activity”? If it were separate, there would be no need to mention it here. For example, about 1700 years ago Christian were passionate about precise philosophical definition of the nature of Christ (does ANYONE care about it nowadays?). Rather abstract and “separate”, but it was also subject of serious slaughter for a few centuries.
piotr, I agree that historically religious institutions have overwhelmingly supported amorality and suffering. Even the modern exclusionary projects of Zionism, of “Islamisation” have failed. There is an old wise saying: “Unlimited power is apt to corrupt the minds of those who possess it.” It applies to everything.
When many modern anthropologists talk about religion as a “separate sphere of human activity”, what they are saying in lieu of social research and evidence is that religion has nothing to do with premodernity or modernity, it is essentially a part of human thought and experience. It is amazing when you read about the rituals of grieving in both secular and religious spaces, of meaning-making. Anyway agree to disagree.
I do not know what “modernity” means. In any case, religions were utilized by rulers and non-conformists alike, About 2500 years ago philosophers appears in Europe, India and China, but ever since only the most educated (or intelligent) can be motivated by philosophy.
“Couldn’t agree more. I have found most comments on both religion and the Enlightenment on Mondoweiss to be seriously uninformed and sometimes downright ridiculous.”….aiman
LOL……you have no idea how sophomoric, pseudo intellectual, and totally useless to the issue of Israel- I/P the seasoned adults here find all the nattering about religion and the Enlightenment.
Well perhaps Jerome Slater and your fellow “seasoned adults” shouldn’t have brought it up in the first place then.
American, on further thought I realised that I probably misunderstood your response. My apologies. I agree that these discussions are largely useless, on the comment board at least. However, to be fair, a correct understanding of religion (as Keith explained) I think can deepen our understanding and engagement on various issues. For example, Jerome Slater himself talks about the Enlightenment in this essay and in my view he gets it wrong, a lot of it is about righteous traditions which have never existed, not even within the Enlightenment. Slater is probably using this as a critique, and he’s probably right to take aim, but stated Israeli policy and as promoted has always been about being part of the “hegemony” whose opponents are referred to as not enlightened enough.
To erect barriers between “the Enlightenment” and religion is a mistake. I hope that these don’t creep into the Israel-Palestinian conflict. As you know Israel already talks about itself as part of “the Western axis” indicating the promotion of supposed Enlightenment views against “barbarians”. I know that these are in fact anti-Enlightenment in many respects. Bernard Lewis keenly uses these barriers in the pursuit of propaganda and disinformation in his writings.
No problem aiman…
So will war, racism, greed, disease, famine, poverty – but I see no reason to agrandize any of them either.
SHINGO- “So will war, racism, greed, disease, famine, poverty – but I see no reason to agrandize any of them either.”
So you equate religion with war, racism, greed, disease, famine and poverty? How interesting. I am not a religious person, hardly one to aggrandize it, however, I do recognize that religion has at least two long standing social functions. First, it provides a psychological balm for those who seem to need it. Who am I to take that away? What would be the consequences? Second, it has functioned reasonably well as an organizationally unifying ideology. One reason that religion has such staying power is that religious ideology is metaphysical, hence, non-falsifiable. This in contrast to the original, secular Zionism, a form of secular religion unable to withstand the contradictions of perceived reality, hence, increasingly relying on Judaic mythology and biblical justification. While I would be happy to identify myself with being anti-war, anti-empire, etc, I feel that to be “anti-religion” is at least a trifle arrogant, particularly in view of the many positive contributions that people of faith have made to progressive causes. The whole issue far too complex to be reduced to a simplistic either/or duality.
With the harsh reality that AIPAC and the various Israeli lobbies have an absolute hammerlock on the US Congress and presidency in respect of matters concerning Israel and the Palestinians (and alarmingly with respect to its dealings with Iran at present), one asks: is it possible to turn American public opinion against this force that is so obviously harmful to American interests?
IMHO, the starting point is the constituency to which PB has directed his book – the US liberal Zionist. If he is able to withstand the frenzied denunciation of the AIPAC/Zionist stooges and convince a significant proportion of this group to question the MSM narrative and to educate themselves as to the I/P realities, one can hope that this presently-nonexistent significant proportion would mount a vociferous opposition that the MSM would not be able to ignore.
Other intellectuals with credentials at least as impressive as those of PB (Chomsky, Finkelstein, etc, etc) have failed to make a big impact on the “significant proportion” in the past, but with the much larger dissemination of ideas that the internet permits, one can hope that the critical discussion of PB’s book will provide the “thin edge of the wedge” that is so desperately needed to begin to rein in AIPAC and the other lobbies.
Jerome Slater has an excellent piece up on his site about Peter Beinart’s book and its critics.
I agree.
More than aware of the problem, I think that it is the essence of Beinart’s own “crisis”, that led him to take the positions that he has. Beinart’s current optimism that the “fundamental tension” is resolvable “to some extent” would seem to correspond to his optimism with regard to Jewish education. I don’t believe that he is not aware of the failings of Jewish education and the ways in which these failings relate to the failings of Zionism. He chooses however, to promote Jewish education today (as he promotes Israel and Zionism today), in light of what he sees as its potential. I’m sure he would agree (as I do, but from a different perspective) with Jerry Slater’s closing sentence: “Yet, somehow, even if we believe the struggle is hopeless, we must act as if it isn’t.”
“… or as a Jewish state which privileges its majority in certain limited ways but which can be legitimately characterized as a democracy in most essentials.”
The usual double think.
——
piotr: not necessarily, “ethnocracies” are quite frequent and thus, normal, and SOME privileges are given to the majority. First, the choice of the language for education. Poles living in Lithuania have a problem that in official documents their names are in Lithuanian, e.g. Lech Walesa would be something like Lechas Valenisas. I think some compromise was reached, but Lithuanian government does not want to relent on the issue of the letter W: totally un-Lithuanian (while Poles spell nothing with V using W instead). And European court in Strasbourg decreet in the favor of government.
Of course, compared with Israel, Lithuania is a paradise for minorities. And has a very good record concerning centers for refugees.
“Yet, somehow, even if we believe the struggle is hopeless, we must act as if it isn’t”
Jonathan Lear, author of Radical hope – ethics in the face of cultural devastation, takes us through the story of an American Indian nation, the Crow, and their last great chief, Plenty Coups. Plenty Coup died an old man in 1932, having lived through the complete upheaval of Crow life and culture. So how did he show courage and hope when his very framework for understanding those concepts had disappeared?
link to abc.net.au
Consequently, there is no good reason to revere or love Israel
There is nothing noble about watching a person or a community self destruct. There is nothing noble about Israel’s descent.
i can’t even read slater after he tossed around the anti-semitism charge with no (little?) basis and threw a veritable temper tantrum. might be a good article, might just be a middle of the road “liberal zionist” feel good exercise, or might be a get out of jail free card to keep his “liberal” credentials and point to when the sh*t hits the fan. but i do hope people here will support a website i hope to build… i have http://www.antihasbara.com, and think we all could use a central database in english (and hebrew and arabic; i have translators at the ready), which takes the most common hasbara lines, and refutes them with logic, facts, MSM references, and original sources. reply if you want to contribute to such a *useful* resource. we all spend so much time here, why not write our knowledge down in “stone” for easy retrieval?
this way when someone says some crap, we can just link to the EXACT line they just pulled, complete with all they need to realize why they are wrong (or if a paid hasbarat, why they cannot use those lines at MW/etc.).
I am with you mous on Slater. I can’t just get over his petty temper tantrum. When someone reveals themselves as he had, it’s awfully hard to not take everything else they say with a grain of salt.
Sometimes the hardest thing is to ignore that which may be brightly written but not enough to lighten the darkness of the secret rooms behind. There are many great writers and thinkers. What’s his name – Bernard levy something is pretty good too, I hear. I prefer to pick and choose, and Neta’s piece today shines with a light that’s clear enough to show at least the outlines of the darkness behind the zionist enterprise. Slater could never go to where she is because real justice is too high a threshold for some to step over. And knowing that in oneself is no excuse.
“I am with you mous on Slater.”
Me too. Slater’s hatred of us anti -semites- in -waiting was something to behold on his visit here.
He did admit in that article that (anti semitism) is his reason for his zionism.
How smart/intelligent can you be if you let one or even several anti semitic experiences in your past, as Slater claims he experienced, form all your opinions and judgements on everyone forever? Not too smart I’d say.
If I judged all Jews by Oleg & Co. I’d be a raving anti semite.
I agree Dana,
In spite of all his motal posturing, there Slater is little daylight between he and Beinardt.
His juvenile tantrums and continued commitment to Jewish exceptionliasm – not to mention his love of “just wars”, mean I don’t take him seriously either.
Slater is just another Zionist gatekeeper, though he liked to operate behind enemy lines.
In his 4700 word piece, Slater uses liberal (or illiberal) 21 times, of which 9 times in quotes. Mostly in the combination: “liberal Zionism”, but also “liberal American Jews”, “liberal democracy”.
And still not one of the people mentioned in the piece has defined the word up to a single consequence. Has anyone of these people mentioned refused Israeli military service for that reason (or for any other reason)? Has anyone advanced an inch of peace? Has anyone lost a career for being a “liberal Zionist”? I do not even trust the NYT birder.
For me, this is the hypothesis: A “liberal Zionist” is a Zionist who lives in the US and talks. Non-liberal Zionists, or “illiberal Zionists”, or plain “Zionists” as the word is, are those living in Israel. That is the only, I repeat only, choice with consequences made.
This is the picture Slater paints.
All Zionists aboard ship Zionism are strolling and fighting on the starboard (righthand) side. Those against the railing are laughing & waving loudest. Beinart has left that close to rail position, but still has a hand or two firmly grabbing the nice wooden top. But he is standing at arms length.
Already NYT and Washington Post have pushed their puppet people into his earlier pace. They are talking to distract Beinart. One of them is a birder. The other one shouts insults. Only “Jewish radicals or anti-Zionists (see Mondoweiss generally) simply reject the concept that Zionism was ever truly “liberal,” or could even become so. “. But hey: those are on the port (lefthand) side of the ship. Really, have you ever been aboard? These sides do not communicate.
The ship is listing (tilted) to starboard, and those on the lower side are stil trying to get people pushed overboard on the higher side (the anti-Zionist side) to save the ship somehow by illogic.
There is no punchline here. It is just a Zionist ship with Zionists aboard who rearrange deckchairs, thinking that the ship will save itself while they take positions on the listed deck. Well, actually there is a punchline. A Zionist ship that does not accept or even ask help from outside: captain Zio, can I help? What is your request?
Capt Zio: “More Money! And just bomb, bomb, bomb Iran and let us take what’s left of Palestinian land. After you do that, we will see…”
” rightwing critics Jonathan Rosen and Alana Newhouse, respectively, both of the Tablet family, both embracers of Israel’s foundational myths. ”
Again, please substantiate how Alana Newhouse is right-wing. She is not right-wing.
“about Beinart’s communitarian call for reenergizing religious segregationist impulses in Jewish life to fight assimilation. ”
A complete distortion of Beinart’s argument. Please show where Beinart called for religious segregation. Is it your assertion that any organized attempt by Jews to give their children a Jewish education is religious segregationalism? Is Catholic school also religious segregationalism? I’ve never seen you call it that. Is it religiously segregationalist for a Palestinian to send his kid to an Islamic school?
Like many reviewers, you skewer Beinart by totally misstating his argument.
Beinart doesn’t call for religious segregationalism, but Jewish (or any religious) day school will have that effect and he knows it. I sometimes think he pushes this issue so hard in order to keep his Jewish bona fides polished and hold on to his audience. It’ll be interesting to see how evolves. He’s walking a narrow path and could easily veer off to the left or the right.
BTW – Shaul Magid has an interesting essay in Religion Dispatches on Beinart’s book and his educational initiative:
link to tinyurl.com
Slater has in the past been roundly insulted by some of the commenters on these boards. And, now, he is again attacked for responding in kind??? Give this man a break and take his arguments seriously, while trying to use a little tact, please.
Insulted after he issued isults all round to anyone who callegened his arguements, most recently, his derranged just war argument – which of course, he is willing to apply to anyone but Israel.
Slater is intellectually bankrupt. He is clearly capable of lucid thinking, but he remains commited to the cause of Jewish supremacy, though he would never admit it.
Hell, when he was last here, he found common cause with eee of all people.
shingo: “He is clearly capable of lucid thinking, but he remains commited to the cause of Jewish supremacy, though he would never admit it.”
Correct in all respects. For instance, lets take a closer look at Slater’s closing remark:
“The likelihood of such sanctions being imposed on Israel by the American Jewish community, the U.S. government, and the West, is close to nonexistent.”
On the face of it a perfectly lucid statement except he is talking in code to his intended audience. Because what he really means is:
“Because the American Jewish community controls the foreign policy of the U.S. government and hence the West, the likelihood of such sanctions is close to nonexistent.”
That’s something he’d never say publicly for fear of upsetting the applecart.
Libra,
Slater may be many things, but he is not a coward. I would amend your statement somewhat:
“Because the Israeli government–through its influence upon the American Jewish community–dominates foreign policy bearing upon Israel of the US government (and hence, the West), the likelihood of such sanctions is close to nonexistent.”
So, you don’t think Slater would agree? I think he would agree. I don’t like to bet small, so how about ten million lbs. of gefilte fish?
lobewyper,
I’m not saying Slater is a coward but I don’t think he wants this issue out in the open for all Americans to debate.
Your rewording raises again the issue of who ultimately controls the wagging of the tail. I wouldn’t disagree with your wording but then I think people like Keith have a point that some wealthy American Zionists may have an independent agenda.
Would Slater agree to your wording? I don’t know. Because it raises a question which is worth discussing. Does the Jewish American community as a whole have a veto on this activity?
I believe it does. If the majority of them vocally and publicly repudiated the influence of Israel and the Israel Firsters in their ranks on the US Government then it would be a game changer. Call me a coward, but I wouldn’t even bet half a pound of gefilte fish on that happening though.
I dunno, Libra. The key to me are the subset of American Jews (and their non-Jewish allies) whose money buys off our government representatives and muzzles our media. Even if a substantial Jewish majority publicly repudiated along the lines you suggest, I don’t know if the key (and wealthy) players would be affected. This whole matter ought to be investigated and the results made very public, but that doesn’t seem very likely. On the other hand, tremendous gains have been made since Walt/Mearsheimer and continue to be made (e.g., Beinart). One measure I would support and think could help is serious campaign financing reform…
lobewyper: “The key to me are the subset of American Jews (and their non-Jewish allies) whose money buys off our government representatives and muzzles our media.”
I can understand why you say that but I disagree that is the key. Rather it is the main strength of Zionism in America and hard to counter directly. But in any conflict, the key is not the strength of your opponent but their weakness. Perhaps that’s something we should spend more time trying to identify.
Maybe it’s already been identified; there was a poll taken recently of diversified Americans’ perceptions of minorities on a wide array of characteristics, and the questions asked on it were not framed so the responders would realize a PC answer was in order. Black and Latino Americans came out very badly in the results. Jewish Americans came out ahead of perceptions of whites–except on a single trait: patriotism. Apparently Americans generally think highly of Jews, except when it comes to loyalty to the USA.
Well, Libra, here’s a thought: why not support lawsuits by highly respected employees who lost their jobs because they criticized Israel? How about adding the ACLU to join in such suits due to obvious violations of these employees’ freedom speech (first amendment) rights? (There should be plenty of such cases to choose from.)
I couldn’t find that poll I just talked about, although it is recent, but I found this one from the 1980s that was directed at the fact back then, that non-Jews don’t think Jews are subject to anti-semitism, but Jews do: link to docs.google.com
Interesting, while that 1980s poll found an ever-increasing dirth of anti-semitism among the general US population, the two areas where those polled exhibited the most anti-Jewish perception were (1) loyalty to the USA, and (2) Jews hold too much power in the US government.
And since Jews are loyal to the US, and since fingering minorities for holding too much power in the US government is debased bigotry . . .
So what is polling on racism experienced by African-Americans as opposed to white perceptions of racism experienced by African-Americans?
“The likelihood of such sanctions being imposed on Israel by the American Jewish community, the U.S. government, and the West, is close to nonexistent. Yet, somehow, even if we believe the struggle is hopeless, we must act as if it isn’t.”
self pity masquerading as heroism and moral rectitude, it is a bromide to his pusillanimous constituency, as ever the anti-religious Jew in a WASP and Israeli world is innocent, while abundantly reaping all the benefits of inhuman exploitation and settler colonialism, he is telling his peeps its ok because its certain to fail, no wonder right wing nationalist racist colonizers loath this, most of all they probably loath the cowardice. people like him give academia a bad name, for very good reason, it is ultimately all sophistry and duplicity, yet again Jews are to be their own moral saviors, bravely saying “maybe kill and oppress less frequently and make nice with the genocide, you making us look bad” while worthless Palestinians are murdered expelled bombed and tortured as they must be for there to be any zionist enterprise. its not about religion, but it is about humanity, i am not impressed, neither of them is fit to tie Heda or Netas’ shoelace.
““The likelihood of such sanctions being imposed on Israel by the American Jewish community, the U.S. government, and the West, is close to nonexistent. Yet, somehow, even if we believe the struggle is hopeless, we must act as if it isn’t.”
If one remembers Slater’s apocalyptic melt down on here when I said if Israel ever tried to launch nukes in the ME or their ‘Sampson option” the US had the ability to turn it to dust before they could even launch it…you can see that the attitude that the US “would never” take any action against Israel is a mixture of several things among zionist. One is the exhibited egotism/hubris underlying such statements, that “they” control the US and the other part is a niggling buried fear that it could indeed happen.