Lots of folks have sent along this piece by Bradley Burston in Haaretz on the death of Shamir, saying it was Zionism itself that was buried with the late prime minister. “Let it go.” This is an important piece because it shows that if Jews and Israelis show the courage to echo Tony Judt and Ali Abunimah and endorse simple ideas, I’m for democracy, for one person/one vote, for the right of consent over the government that controls a person’s life, well, we might actually get past all the fears and bring about a “quiet revolution” in Israel and Palestine.
There was never room for a Palestine in the Zionism of Greater Israel, nor in the Zionism of this government. There was room for one absolute value, and it was not democracy.
“It is permitted to liberate a people even against its will, or against the will of the majority,” Shamir once said, referring to the decision of his pre-state Lehi underground to fight and use terrorism against British authorities even if Ben-Gurion and the majority of the Jewish leadership were opposed.
“When we fought for freedom, for the establishment of a Jewish state, we didn’t send a questionnaire to the Jewish nation asking if it wanted a Jewish state.”
It’s time we began thinking like Shamir. When you believe in democracy, you should continue to believe in, and work toward and fight for democracy, whether the majority does or not. Even if in this Israel, proponents of democracy have become something of an underground.
“Zionism is a revolutionary process,” Shamir said. “And in a revolution you must be ready not to think too much about sentiments or human weaknesses….”
Speaking solely for myself, a person who has long embraced the label of Zionist, the revolution’s over. Time to try a new direction, maybe a new label as well. Something like a Democratic Israelist. Accent on the democratic.
Time, in the current reality, to think in the mode of quiet revolution. Time to think seriously about what democracy really means. Time to think seriously, for example, about what it would mean to give the Palestinians in the West Bank and East Jerusalem the vote.
With Shamir as its spiritual guide, this Israel cannot allow the Palestinians independence, cannot allow them building permits, cannot allow them freedom of movement, appeal, due process.
We should call our own bluff. We should give them the vote. Right after we declare the university in Ariel. Then we’ll finally see if we can afford our own brand of independence.
(Though notice: no Gaza. And isn’t my headline sadly shocking: a revolution to urge that people get the vote! P.S. Burston is an American, too. Some time I got to figure out this transnational identity stuff).
The thing I don’t get is that Israel could easily sort this out over stages.
Annex everything and end the military occupation.
Bring in a staged integration of both societies and with incentives for both to cooperate.
A good start would be to change the name of the damn place with an name that expresses emphasis on the entire population.
The reason for my thinking is this:
One of the great Hasbara lies is that Palestine only had a very small Arab population prior to Zionist immigration, with Arabs moving in illegally because they wanted a piece of the pie. So Arabs can work with Zionists, right? According to Hasbara, that is…..
Another argument on here the other day was that settlements provide work for Palestinians in the occupied territories. So Arabs can work with Israelis even today. This is a fact and makes a very important point.
So, by my simple reckoning, the average guy living in the territories is gonna think it’s Christmas when he has freedom of movement, ability to provide for his family, have enough water to drink and food for his belly and all the opportunity of the average Israeli if he’s prepared to go and work for it.
How would he be a threat to the state in which he would enjoy all those things that we take for granted? The guy is going to be elated to be part of such a vibrant cosmopolitan land of opportunity.
On the Right Of Return issue: Let the US pick up the tab. They won’t be paying out $3 billion a year in defence, and even if they still had to, they should still foot the bill for being Chief Enabler of the UN’s retarded child for all these years.
Agreed FreddyV. It’s something we’ve discussed here a bit before and Taxi proposed a name like “The Democratic Republic of Jerusalem”. I love it.
On the surface it seems like a trivial thing, but it’s incredibly important. In a single set of words you have the future vision for the country. If a single state is called Palestine zionists will forever feel resentment and that they were beaten by Palestinians. If the single state is called Israel Palestinians will feel the same – and the wounds inflicted during 60+ years ok nakba will never heal.
A name that is neither Israel or Palestine offers a way out of that impasse. As much as I hate Israel for what the vast destruction they have visited on Palestine the clock can’t be turned back. A repeat of what happened to the pied-noir in Algeria (the suitcase or the coffin) is too horrible to consider, though if the zionist crazies attempt genocide on Palestinians – and I suspect they will when their numbers are sufficient – it can’t be ruled out. Let’s hope cooler heads prevail.
“…One of the great Hasbara lies is that Palestine only had a very small Arab population prior to Zionist immigration, with Arabs moving in illegally because they wanted a piece of the pie. So Arabs can work with Zionists, right? According to Hasbara, that is…..”
It is a lie — but that it exists is a sign of the ideological desperation of Zionism.
If the Palestinians were there, then the Zionist have a whole lot of explaining to do. Therefore, they can’t have been there. Therefore, they weren’t.
The logic is a bit like that behind Holocaust denial. If the Nazis did kill six million Jews, then obviously Naziism is completely indefensible. Therefore, the Nazis can’t have killed six million Jews. Therefore they didn’t.
Or (to pick a more innocuous analogy) Reagan’s insistence that his daughter was born prematurely. She was born seven months after he married her mother, you see. Therefore…
Exactly- my mom refers to the Palestinians doing all the construction work in Israel in the 1950s. Then obviously jobs and supporting their families will trump any ideological opposition or anti Jewish sentiment.
Arabs and Jews also manage to live and work peacefully when they’re in the United States or Europe. There are political differences and the occasional squirmish but there’s an overall live and let live policy.
I wonder what the new name for Israel/Palestine will be- I vote Canaan. Its an older name than the other two. Official language can be Ahrameic.
Yes We Canaan
I like the suggestion “The Democratic Republic of the Holy Land”.
The official language should be British English* but that would make the Jews feel they had been taken over by Jordan. Chinese or Spanish would be nicely neutral.
*British English should be the official language everywhere.
“British English should be the official language everywhere.”
Could you imagine? The whole word would confuse the meaning of words like “boot” and “flat” and “lift.” They would all add random vowels to words like “color” and “aluminum.” And no one would be able to correctly pronounce “jaguar” or “iguana.”
I look forward to exclaiming “Bloody hell!” when someone accidentally crushes the bag of crisps I left on the chesterfield in the parlour… ;-)
@Roha
“British English”??
What the heck is that?
Worrabout Liverpudlian? or Glaswegian? or Geordie? Most of us would have great difficulty understanding any of them, unless we hailed from somewhere in the vicinity!
They’re as “British English” as poshpants RP (received pronunciation, supposed to equal the Queen’s English)
My preference would be for Brummie, or Black Country English which always makes me smile.
‘The whole word would confuse the meaning of words like “boot” and “flat” and “lift.”’
Not at all.
They would use them correctly. They would also pronounce the “t” in “international”.
“Worrabout Liverpudlian? or Glaswegian? or Geordie? ”
And they all should be the official language everywhere, as well as poshpants RP and West Country.
We might exclude Welsh accents, though.
“My preference would be for Brummie, or Black Country English ”
My family background is Mancunian, but I have a fondness for generic Scots as spoken by (e.g.) Billy Connoly. But even I need subtitles for full blown Glaswegian.
“I look forward to exclaiming “Bloody hell!” when someone accidentally crushes the bag of crisps I left on the chesterfield in the parlour… ;-)”
‘Bloody ell’ or, alternatively, ‘Bloody fuckinell.’ I never heard anyone say ‘bloody hell.’
“They would use them correctly. They would also pronounce the ‘t’ in ‘international’.”
Come, now. Everyone knows the first “t” is silent.
Muammar Gaddafi’s son proposed a binational state with the similar name of “Federal Republic of the Holy Land” and someone proposed this as the coat of arms, which I think needs some work but it looks pretty nice. link to kingdominfo.wikia.com
>> ‘Bloody ell’ or, alternatively, ‘Bloody fuckinell.’ I never heard anyone say ‘bloody hell.’
The ‘h’ is silent. :-D
“One of the great Hasbara lies is that Palestine only had a very small Arab population prior to Zionist immigration, with Arabs moving in illegally because they wanted a piece of the pie…”
We should have a poll. What is the greatest Hasbara lie of all time? You’ve picked a good one — but there are so many contenders…
“Zionism is a revolutionary process,” Shamir said. “And in a revolution you must be ready not to think too much about sentiments or human weaknesses….”
One of the all time classic Zionist dumb ass statements, up there with Ben Gruen’s “it doesn’t matter what the goys say , it is what the Jews do”.
Zionists are special, so f*cking special
link to youtube.com
But not for much longer
Revolutions have to deal with Monday morning monotony eventually and on Monday mornings sentiments and decorum matter.
Everyone is special !
Seafoid- Do you call Malcolm X, Malcolm Little. Do you call Muhammad Ali, Cassius Clay? Then why do you call David Ben Gurion, Ben Gruen?
Yonah
Zionism is bullshit.
When Israel sent its first team to the olympics in 1952 Ben Gruen asked all the athletes to change to a nice Hebrew name. That is the sort of crap that Zionism was built on.
I find Zionist names as real as Kool Aid strawberry.
And they never did escape Jewish history either, did they ?
“Seafoid- Do you call Malcolm X, Malcolm Little. Do you call Muhammad Ali, Cassius Clay? Then why do you call David Ben Gurion, Ben Gruen?”
Presumably, Seafoid doesn’t see Blacks taking a name with ideological implications as necessarily having any negative consequences for anyone else. On the other hand, ‘David Ben Gurion,’ ‘Yitzhak Shamir,’ etc are ideological choices with some extremely nasty consequences for the poor bastards who happened to actually live in Palestine.
You can rename yourself ‘Yonah — joy to womankind’ if you like — I don’t care. If, however, you start calling yourself, ‘Yonah — slayer of Colins’ then I have grounds for concern. A name with Zionist overtones directly implies terror, dispossession, misery and death for anyone else in Palestine.
@Yonah:
You are comparing Ali and X to a criminal like Ben Gurion…now I have seen it all!
Dexter- I suppose because Ben Gurion was a political actor, or if you prefer a criminal, one has a right to make fun of him and use his original name. But I am reminded of how Ali punished Floyd Patterson for insisting on calling him Cassius Clay, as he pounded him he kept asking, “What’s my name?” I think people are allowed to change their names and their new names should be accepted.
“reminded of how Ali punished Floyd Patterson for insisting on calling him “
It was a professional boxing event, and there was an experienced referee (or more than one) who could have stopped the fight, or even given the win to Patterson. So apprently Ali’s behavior was not excessive. And he would have had no choice but to comply.
When has Israel ever subjected itself to that? The applicable comparison is not a boxing match, but a street mugging. And we know who the mugger is.
Not to mention the thought of you getting upset on Patterson’s behalf is hilarious. Ah but that’s you, yonah, always on the side of the underdog.
Yes, but Ben Gurion changed his name to help perpetuate the myth that Ashkenazi Jews had any connection/right to historical Palestine when, of course, we all know they didn’t.
The difference is that Ali and X changed their names to escape persecution; Ben Gurion changed his name to persecute others.
Democratic Israelist. I like it. Would love to see a truly democratic Israel alongside a truly democratic Palestine.
No matter how Israelis sort it out, it shouldn’t be at the expense of a Palestinian state in which decisions can be made without Israelis calling all the shots. Or even half of them.
I don’t see why the Zionists are entitled to any of Palestine.
Hrm. So are you advocating expulsion, or just stating for the record that you think they can stay, but without any rights?
and
The counterpart to ‘Palestinian Arabs’ is not ‘Zionists’ but ‘Israelis’ or ‘Israeli Jews.’ Many of whom are not Zionists, or even Jews.
Clench
do you think the Crusaders have rights to Israel?
I doubt expulsion will ever be necessary — and so since it is unnecessary I won’t advocate it. I might, under other circumstances, but then I might recommend taking off ones pants and sliding on the ice under other circumstances: it’s a moot point.
I advocate forcing Israel to make political changes that I happen to believe will lead to the majority of Israeli Jews leaving Palestine. Palestine will then be a Palestinian state.
If, in fact, Jews and Palestinians turn out to be able to coexist as equals in a single, secular, democratic state, I’d be surprised — but that outcome, too, would be morally acceptable. Obviously, if the Palestinians can live with that outcome, it’s hardly reasonable for me to insist they shouldn’t.
All I really want is for the United States to stop supporting Israel. I want to disown this little monster. What happens to it after that is largely secondary.
“Clench
do you think the Crusaders have rights to Israel?
I don’t see why they wouldn’t. Christ was from Palestine. So were all the apostles. Christian theology pretty clearly makes Christians the successors of the Jews as ‘the chosen people’ (whatever evangelicals may think). Palestine is actually Christian, by rights (which was just about the position the Crusaders took).
Palestine was under Christian rule for about five hundred years. Lots of our holy sites ‘n stuff are there. By George (pun intended) it should belong to Christians!
Some Zionists like to pretend the Palestinian homeland should be Jordan. Perhaps we can pack all the Zionists off to Sinai. Sauce for the goose and all that. They can demonstrate their desert blooming skills.
“I advocate forcing Israel to make political changes that I happen to believe will lead to the majority of Israeli Jews leaving Palestine.”
You want them here in the US? Excuse me, but you’re nuts. We can’t support them and prisons are already overcrowded. So no matter what, we gotta pay for them, huh.
So tell me, Colin, how will a settler or other person used to the Israel system make a living or live peacably and within the law in the US?
I live in a residential neighborhood where I can easily hear children playing in yards that our building overlooks. It’s wonderful to hear the kids but I’m sorry to say that these tots give voice to things that put me in mind of Israel. Two that are heard very frequently are “IT’S MINE!” and “I WAS HERE FIRST!”
That Palestine should be a democracy is plain, it is the very minimum that justice demands, leaving aside the displacement and occupation issues. Yet to hear American politicians talk you would think it is the Israelis who are under occupation, not the occupiers. Anti-Semitism gets bandied about frequently by Jews who are in the top ranks of the power structure here. Doesn’t anyone, any Joe Citizen, ever pause to consider that such speakers are talking nonsense given the position they have achieved and the air-play they get?
I’ve lived over six decades in the Chicago area. I’m not Jewish, so you would think I’d be likely to hear anti-Semitic remarks freely given, particularly back in the 1950′s and 60′s while I was going through school.
The grand total of anti-Semitic remarks that I have heard comes to 1. That’s right, one, and the person from whom I heard it has been in the grave for 30 years. Yet Abe Foxman is still sounding the trumpet. What has been a frequent occurrence is my finding out someone is Jewish accidentally when they mention it themselves. My conclusion from this is that anti-Semitism is a red-herring and to call it out is the mark of a fraud.
@Clif Brown I agree, it’s very rare that I hear anyone make an anti-Semitic remark. Maybe it is an issue in certain parts of the country, though (don’t know).
However I’ve heard many people make casual slurs about Muslims/Arabs, AAs, and gays (although this last seems to be more and more of a non-issue).
“…Yet Abe Foxman is still sounding the trumpet..”
I have a pet theory about ol’ Abe.
I think he’s overcompensating. You know he was born in Poland in 1940 or so — and his Jewish parents gave him to their Polish Catholic maid or something to keep him safe — and naturally, she brought him up as a good little Polish Catholic boy?
…and then, suddenly at four, he was back with his real parents, and Jewish. I do believe there was a custody tussle, too.
…and I think he’s been trying to be Jewish ever since. Deep down inside, though, I bet every time he sees a priest he wants to bow or whatever Catholic Poles in the 1940′s did when they saw a priest.
Free Abe Foxman! Inside that poor man is a little Polish Catholic boy struggling to get out. Kind of funny — and maybe even true. We could help Abe Foxman make his own personal aliyah — to a potato patch somewhere outside Vilnius, where you can hear the cows moo and the church bells ring. He could return to his people.
We just have to help him do it.
…yep.
From Wikipedia: “…Foxman was baptized into the Roman Catholic Church as Henryk Stanislaw Kurpi, and raised as a Catholic in Vilnius between 1940 and 1944 when (after several legal custody battles) he was returned to his parents…”
I lived in Chicago from 1963 to 2002, on the South Side, Southeast Side, West side, North Shore, Skokie, Evanston, Wheeling, Lincolnwood, by the Steel Mills, in Polish and Mexican neighborhoods, all along Stoney Island Ave, etc; over those years worked all over the loop, and Chicago Metro from the worst day labor and construction jobs to clerk crap jobs to solid professional jobs requiring a doctorate. I never heard any anti-semitic remarks– except on one day, the neoNazi Frank Colin’s in a working class neighborhood park. He was a small guy with a handful of brown-shirts; the folks with Israeli flags were lined up around him, shouting him down as far as the eye could see. Colin’s little browshirts were handing out white T-shirts stamped with black letters on the back: “Niggers Beware!”
“Colin’s little browshirts were handing out white T-shirts stamped with black letters on the back: “Niggers Beware!” “
This suggests a truly evil idea.
One of the identifiers of your basic illegal up here scrounging what work he can is that he’s usually wearing a tee-shirt that he obviously picked up at some street stall for $2. It’ll say ‘Breast Cancer Awareness Walk 2003′ or something it’s very unlikely he even understands, much less cares about. For one, he may or may not read Spanish. He almost certainly doesn’t read English.
Sell off a bunch of these shirts quick — then watch for seismic activity.
Maybe it doesn’t qualify as an anti-Semitic remark, and truth be told it doesn’t piss me off too much, but are you telling me you’ve never heard, “I jewed him down.” “Don’t be such a jew,” about money. You’ve never heard that? Maybe you lead a gilded life. Comments about jews and money, I hear all the time in NYC. It ain’t no big thang, but you really never heard that?
Yeah, yonah fredman, I am saying that. OTOH, I did occasionally hear “I jewed him down” when I was a little kid age 7 to around 9 or maybe up to age 10–in Schenectady, NY. Always delivered by another kid about my age then. And never in anybody’s house. I didn’t lead a gilded life. I had two daily paper routes during that time. Schenectady Gazette.
Citizen- If both our experiences are accurate, then deep down America has no significant enmity towards Jews and that’s good to hear. I can only assume the reason I hear these disses, is because I am present irritating the speaker rather than deep down prejudice, which you testify to as not present. That’s good to hear.
I think I have heard those expressions. However, except as an example cited as you have just cited it, maybe once or twice over the course of fifty years.
That compares rather favorably with the volume of ethnic slurs I have heard directed at various other ethnic groups, including my own.
However, my impression is that anti-semitism (such as it is) is much more pronounced on the East Coast than out here — so you may very well have heard this expression more often than I have.
Yonah, pre justice is experienced by all groups, I guess. Women expience it almost every day. In fact there is a reason, for example, the death rate of women who have heart attacks is so much higher than that of men.
It is not because the heart attacks are worse, but because so many are simply sent back home, their condition not to be taken seriously by still mostly male physicians.
Back to that expression. Maybe I lived a gilded life, but the first time I heard that expression was when I left home and my neighbors were two young men who were Jewish. I only knew it because it was the first thing they told me about themselves. When one teased the other for “jewing” someone down. That was new language to me.
I have fond memories of those guys.
“but are you telling me you’ve never heard, “I jewed him down.” “Don’t be such a jew,” about money. You’ve never heard that?”
Oh yes, my Father-in-law used that expression, and could never remember not to use it in front of me. Oy the bright shade of red he would turn when he did it. But we smoothed it over, I told him $35.00 per incident would cover it. And he payed up like a white man.
But he had another anti-Semitic habit I couldn’t stand: He always called then “National Hebrew” franks. I’m an easy going guy, but some things are sacred, and not to be spoken of carelessly or incorrectly!
Once again, Mondoweiss clears my lungs and gives me an overdose of the best medicine. So that’s what it all comes down to, somebody might say “Jew him down?” Yeah, you can smell the eau de zyklon B and hear the rattle of the boxcars, right there.
I might add I couldn’t be to hard on the old guy, he never got over the shock when his favorite daughter married me and he found out I’m not very good with money. Thank God his wife’s daughter is. But then, word is that the long ago grandmother of one side of their family left Germany and came to America after being impregnated by an itinerant Jewish peddler. So we know where it comes from.
Must be wonderful to be able to trace your ancestry through all that persecution, all those dislocations, all those expulsions, all those wars and terror, right back to the Ten Tribes. Ah, to have pure Jewish blood!
My mother in law often used expressions like “goyischekopf” in front of me, often followed out of my presence by threats to my wife such as, “I’m going to pour a pot of boiling hot chicken soup on him!” But we smoothed it over after I worked for nothing for a long time in the store she ran with my father in law as they took turns going into the hospital. I forget the yiddish word for “crazy” but that often accompanied “goyischekopf” and always made me visualize my head in a basket with a bunch of Martian heads from a 1950′s Grade D science fantasy flick. Many other things I could tell you, but suffice for now to say that until my wife’s brother (“my son, the lawyer and a real mensch”) bought a Mercedes car, they were known by my in-laws as “a Nazi tin can–they dropped them down the fake shower heads.”
How often do you hear “He welshed on the bet”? It’s a sign of latent anti-Cymrism.
RoHa, “Drunk as an Irishman!”
RE: “. . . if Jews and Israelis show the courage to echo Tony Judt and Ali Abunimah and endorse simple ideas, I’m for democracy, for one person/one vote, for the right of consent over the government that controls a person’s life, well, we might actually get past all the fears and bring about a ‘quiet revolution’ in Israel and Palestine.” ~ Weiss
MY COMMENT: A revolution (quiet or not) is sorely needed, because Likudnik Israel and Revisionist Zionism (largely due to their effect on the U.S.*) are an “existential threat” to the values of The Enlightenment ! ! !
* THE EFFECT OF LIKUDNIK ISRAEL AND REVISONIST ZIONISM
ON THE U.S.: “America Adopts the Israel Paradigm”, by Philip Ghiraldi, Antiwar.com, 7/05/12
ENTIRE COMMENTARY – link to original.antiwar.com
P.S. No more battered
spousevoter syndrome for me!• Jill Stein for President - link to jillstein.org
SEE: “Repressive Democracy: How Not to Waste Your Vote in November”, by Andrew Levine, Counterpunch, 6/20/12
LINK – link to counterpunch.org
Phil, I agree with you that this is a significant change on the part of Bradley Burston. I first noticed him about 6 or so years back at Haaretz and found him an insufferable Zionist, though with strong liberal tendencies. He had posting rules to his commentaries then and one was that he would not accept comments that used the term ethnic cleansing. I stopped reading Haaretz since they put up the paywall but it does sound like Burston has just made a major change in his politics. This is the kind of change that Phil has been saying must happen inside the Jewish community for a just resolution to the IP conflict. And it looks like something is happening perhaps one small step at a time.
Burston is the ultimate fellow traveler. He’s always trying to cling to his liberalism and support Israel at the same time.
My money’s on him eventually rationalizing not giving the Palestinians the vote. This is just to set up the agonized ethical conflict so we can all see what a great guy he is first.
Bingo!
Phil focuses on Burston’s transnationalism. What do you propose Phil? Illegalize double citizenship? Take away citizenship from any American who expresses feelings of loyalty towards any nonAmerican player? Or is it just innuendo and internet tit for tat when the other side plays dirty?
(By the way, how many expatriate Americans are living abroad as we speak? Or is it only expats living abroad who feel loyalty to some nonAmerican player? Or is it even expats living abroad who feel affection for people whose lives depend on a nonAmerican player?)
Do you have any specific legislation that you wish to be passed on this issue or is this just street style politics?
Phil focuses on Burston’s transnationalism. What do you propose Phil? Illegalize double citizenship? Take away citizenship from any American who expresses feelings of loyalty towards any nonAmerican player?
…Do you have any specific legislation that you wish to be passed on this issue or is this just street style politics?
Pardon me, but you are making a very strained and stupid stretch in make your argument, and I suspect you are doing it partly to claim a mantel of victimization here that does not exist.
I may complain all the time about Republicans (and Democrats, too, for that matter) but that does therefore mean that I am in favor of taking away the citizenship of anyone who is a Republican, and I would consider anyone who tried to make such an argument to be deflecting and making a straw man argument, not a rational one.
Likewise, in several other comments here you are focusing on anti-semitism. Would it be reasonable to assume that you are in favor of taking away the citizenship of anyone you deemed anti-semitic? Would you consider someone who wrongly inferred that you contemplated such legislation from your comments here to be making a rational argument, or would you think that they were stretching your argument in order to lay blame back upon yourself for complaining about anti-semitism? Do you seriously think that no one can or would complain about what they perceive as other people’s inconsistencies or biases without having some undisclosed wish to strip them of their American citizenship?
tree- There are countries that do not allow dual citizenship. America does. Congress could remedy this fact. Unlike the hatred in the hearts of my fellow Americans (dual citizen that I am- I can say fellow Israelis and fellow Americans, although “fellow Americans” trips off my tongue much easier and rings much truer to me) which is not something that should be illegal although hatred is not good, citizenship is something by its very nature that is given to the government to legislate its parameters when confronted with transnationalism.
Is dual loyalty an evil? Is it a flaw of character? I don’t think Phil has specified what he objects to regarding dual citizenship, other than those that deny that there could be conflicts. I think Phil uses it as a chance to score points and has never gone into it in details other than- I phil weiss have only one loyalty to america and these guys- who knows where they stand. I think it seems more like a chance to score points than something that he has analyzed. Your analogy to Jew hatred (or anti semitism) is faulty. I think it is clear why Jew hatred is bad. If it’s not, I’ll discuss that further. Whereas Phil has not clarified precisely what there is that troubles him with honest, undenied, dual citizenship.
You seemed to have entirely missed my point. Just as anti-semitism can be discussed and criticized without the critic implicitly advocating for the denial of citizenship based on it, likewise Phil can discuss and criticize dual loyalty without you needing to assume that he is advocating denying anyone’s American citizenship because of it. As I understand Phil’s point here, Burston is making a limited and tentative appeal to extend the vote to all the people that Israel rules over, regardless of ethnicity, and yet he is “proudly American” as well as Israeli, and one would think that one person, one vote should have much more of a resonance and support from someone who proudly carries his US bonafides. Its the same conflict of ideals that Phil is criticizing in many dual loyalists. They want diversity and equality and one person, one vote in the US, but support Jewish privilege, uniformity and institutional discrimination in Israel. What’s not to criticize here?
Your analogy to Jew hatred (or anti semitism) is faulty. I think it is clear why Jew hatred is bad. If it’s not, I’ll discuss that further.
I’m sure you’d love to further discuss Jew-hatred, even when your discussion is limited to a case of spoken negative stereotypes, as you have mentioned here. But at the same time you bristle at those who want to discuss the much more damaging and hurtful actions of Israel towards the Palestinians that they rule over, be it ethnic cleansing, demolishing houses, destroying and confiscating Palestinian land, denying water, or even worse. I would hope that you would likewise acknowledge that such discrimination is clearly bad, very bad, and anyone supporting it in any fashion should be fair game for criticism.
You’re so wrapped up in perceived slights to your Jewishness that you fail to see that most Israel firsters are supporting much more harmful prejudicial ACTIONS (not just words) by Israel. This doesn’t mean that Phil or anyone else is advocating stripping these people of their citizenship. It means their actions should in fact be criticized just as any other prejudice should be criticized.
When I was a youngster my mother worked with an interracial group promoting black equality. One of young black women that joined the group had recently moved from the South. We were talking one day and she confessed that she hated all white Southerners. She was not proud of her feelings, but had not known one white person where she grew up that she felt was not a bigot. Her brother had been murdered by whites, and the Jim Crow system at the time insured that justice would never be done. I honestly couldn’t fault her much, even though I knew that she was indulging in negative stereotypes about whites.
So which was worse? That she had such hateful stereotypes in her head, or that her brother’s life was taken and accorded no justice simply because he was black? Which is worse, having some idiot use the phrase “jew down”, or having your house demolished, or your life taken? Feel free to criticize petty prejudices and such, they certainly deserve criticism, but understand that dual loyalists are supporting much more insidious prejudice and discrimination. And that is Phil’s point.
Well said, tree. Spot on.
Seems to me phil has said enough over the years of this blog that one may conclude he’s not for America right or wrong, nor for Israel right or wrong. As an American he has criticized the American government, and as a Jew (with an Israeli right of return), he has criticized the Israeli government. He’s not using a double standard of morality or ethics. In terms of US foreign policy strategy, Phil has every right to parse whether or not the US government’s persistent and no-strings-attached huge funding and diplomatically immunizing Israeli policy and conduct from accountability is in the best interest of the American people, the Israeli people, the Jewish people, and the world generally.
Citizen- I am not denying the validity of the topic, but it was irrelevant to Burston’s breakthrough article. It’s just that Phil cannot resist. He mentions it not only when it’s relevant, but when it’s irrelevant as well.
That is just plain stupid if you ask me, and it encourages people who wish to punish dual loyalists. Do you wish to punish dual loyalists? Do you support legislation to illegalize dual citizenship? Do you support punishing people who write letters to their senators that you feel reflected support for Israel but ignored the US’s best interests. Recently you have expressed a desire to hang someone, although I think you meant Libby and Perle, rather than Joe Goldenbergsteinowitz from Skokie writing his senator. Your “hanging” rhetoric fits right in with Phil’s mentioning this topic when it is irrelevant. Over the top rhetoric from commentators is encouraged by gratuitous remarks from the editor.
yonah fredman, please show us here that I have “expressed a desire to hang someone.” Do you mean that I think Bush Jr and his neoncon handful in Israel First thinktanks and US regime-appointed government slots should be brought up on charges similar to what the Germans were hanged for at Nuremberg? If so, I plead guilty. Dual loyalty is a problem, as you yourself said, and why is that so? Because the USA’s current rubber-stamping of Israeli conduct and policy is detrimental to the US, Israel, and the world at large.
citizen- I will give you the exact time and place of the quote if you do not recall it. but here is the quote, copied and now pasted:
In a less hypocritical world, a bunch of Israelis would be tried, and a few dozen US neocons too. Then hanged.
“Do you wish to punish dual loyalists?”
yonah I know you will find this hard to understand, and probably won’t bel;ieve it, but in AMerica, we can pinish the illegal or expose the unethical actions of Israel “dual-loyalties” without resorting to lynching or mob justice.
Gosh yonah, you gotta tell me, what do you think we Jews have done wrong such that any attempt to enforce the law or expose the unethical will devolve into genocide against the Jews?
“In a less hypocritical world, a bunch of Israelis would be tried, and a few dozen US neocons too. Then hanged.”
Yonah, that’s your idea of “expressed a desire to hang someone”? My, what a sensitive plant you are.
yonah, I stick to that statement of mine. I think the principals of international (first applied as charges against Nazi leaders ex post facto at Nuremberg) should apply today. Otherwise what was the allied win in WW2 other than an example of might makes right?
So what’s your point again?
“…Over the top rhetoric from commentators is encouraged by gratuitous remarks from the editor.”
You say this as if you think over the top rhetoric from commentators and gratuitous remarks from the editor are a bad thing.
I’m sorry. If I’d realized we were issuing Supreme Court verdicts here, I’d have taken a different tone.
tree- That you prefer that I would be more exercised by your issues rather than other issues which tickle my unfunny bone, is not surprising. You prefer the echo chamber and when someone raises some other issues, even if you have zero logical argument you harass and heckle, for you prefer the echo chamber.
But the issue of transnationalism or dual loyalty is more important than your guardian role of ideas expressed here on MW.
Dual loyalty is a real issue. My own personal take on the issue is that of honesty. If one confesses to dual loyalty and questions whether this loyalty to the US interests undercuts Israel interests or whether this loyalty to Israel interests undercuts US interests, to my mind this is the way to deal with the issue. Too many people do not fess up to this clash of interests and it is that dishonesty that I find upsetting. Many here hate anybody who has split loyalties even if they are honest about it and Phil feeds into that hatred by tossing the issue around in this case.
Burston has dual citizenship (as far as I know) and thus whatever he says can be attacked on this basis. Is it relevant to his calling for a quiet revolution in thought? Probably right wing Israelis will say, he can run away from the disaster his ideas will bring about, but why would Phil attack him for transnationalism? It is clear to me that it was gratuitous and Phil cannot control his uncivil tongue on the issue. And you the guardian of MW will now tell me what should occupy my thoughts in order to achieve a more perfect echo chamber without any dissenting voices.
Yonah,
If you’ll allow me one more preachy remark (feel free to ignore, as always), your comments have become increasingly bitter and petulant lately. You are right about the echo chamber, which is why your voice has been so valuable here. You may be fed up with the sticks-’n-stones (I won’t say “turn the other cheek”) approach, but it’s the only way to get your views across in an admittedly hostile environment. When you become bitter, you become just another distraction – no different from the propaganda-spouters who come here to bombard and fight rather than discuss, convince and be convinced. Haval.
shmuel- As Woody Allen said in his standup routine, be fruitful and multiply, only not in those words.
Someone swiped my computer today, so I’m not in the mood to exchange barbs (although I think you could have done a lot better than that tired and unfunny WA quip). I don’t really care if you think I’m a prick, but I wouldn’t have made my recent comments about your recent comments if I didn’t hope you might give them some thought. I’m done.
Shmuel
Sympathy.
I’m ticked off at the moment because some workmen first used, then swiped my wheelbarrow. At least it wasn’t a repository of personal info.
Thanks, Bumblebye. What really irks me is that the guy who grabbed it will probably take one look and toss it in the nearest bin. It’s old, beaten up and password-locked (not impenetrable, I know, but requiring some specialist knowledge and a little effort – with no guarantees that my personal stuff will actually be worth it). I actually went up to a suspicious looking type in the general vicinity of the scene of the crime and begged him to give it back (without making any specific accusations, of course), in return for the 50 euros I had in my wallet. It wasn’t him, and he was kind enough not to beat the crap out of me.
My sympathy for your wheelbarrow.
yonah, are you going to answer tree’s: “Which is worse, having some idiot use the phrase “jew down”, or having your house demolished, or your life taken?”
Citizen- It was a rhetorical question. And if you need an answer, yes, having your house demolished is worse.
But the point is that you prefer the echo chamber where everybody agrees with you and if someone raises a point you don’t care to hear, you say, how come you are concerned with the things that bug you, why aren’t you concerned with the bigger issues that bug me and all right minded people. To which I say, just skip all my stupid comments about trivial stuff and then you can enjoy your echo chamber.
No, yonah fredman, the point is what the state of Israel is doing to the Palestinians every day, non-stop, and the aggregate of what it has done to them in the name of Jewish self-governance for many decades, along with the partnering point that my country’s political leaders
have been enabling this atrocious Israeli conduct for too many decades both financially and by giving Israel diplomatic immunity via the US veto in the UNSC. At the present time there is no effective echo chamber to bring this news to the American people as a whole in a country that says it exists on the basis of the informed consent of its citizenry. The point is Americans are not informed on this issue, and this blog seeks to inform them. Your echo chamber is the entire American mainstream mass media and the entire American and Israeli political Establishment.
Citizen- And do you think dissing the Talmud and Jewish books helps your cause? Do you think sex offense of jew at Penn University helps your cause?
You think “hang the neoconservatives” helps your cause. (not actual quote, paraphrase) You’re echoing the wrong stuff, Citizen, and you ain’t helping the cause. To the calm casual reader I’m just a Zionist troll or a differing voice, you my friend (not literal, but colloquial) are the antisemite who hurts the cause.
Say. yonah, maybe you could answer a question for this wondering Jew? I’ve always felt that as a Jew, I should be the last person to accuse a person of being anti-Semitic. I mean, if they are, they will do or say something which makes it clear and others will label them as an anti-Semite. Don’t I, as a Jew, have a little bit too much self-interest to make that accusation?
I don’t know what I would do if I accused somebody of anti-Semitism and somebody rolled their eyes and said “Apparently your definition of anti-Semitism is anything you don’t agree with or an opinion you don’t like” I think I would want to sink right through the floor, from shame, and the last thing I would want is people thinking that I was making such an accusation from self-interest . I figure if an anti-Semitic act is performed against me it’ll pretty much speak for itself, and won’t require me to tell people what it is. In fact (and my parents, thank God, helped make this plain to me when I was too young to understand a social interaction this complex) I have much more to lose from the accusation than I have to gain from it.
Has that been your experience, or do you find making accusations of anti-Semitism to be an enjoyable and profitable occupation (no pun intended, it was just the right word)?
I mean, you know me, yonah (what it is it with this site and proper capitalization?) if it’s fun and profitable, I’d like to give it a try. Can you explain to me what you gain from it?
“And do you think dissing the Talmud and Jewish books helps your cause?”
What, exactly, does that have to do with the morality or immorality of what is occurring in Palestine? Cannot one be right about the morality concerning the mistreatment of the Palestinians and still hate the Jewish religious texts?
I, as an atheist, find all religious texts to be of no actual utility and find an enormous bit in the Torah/Old Testament to be horrific, evil and abhorant. What do you care? It means nothing except for that I have that opinion about those ancient myths.
“Do you think sex offense of jew at Penn University helps your cause?”
1) He isn’t Jewish, he’s an American of Polish/Irish descent. 2) It wasn’t at “Penn University” (there is no such place.) He was at the University of Pennsylvania.
Woody- Citizen’s quote is on the Commentary magazine thread and it reads:
“And what is Penn now, an enabler of sexual child abuse? There’s one guy high up in that scandal, and he’s not a goy, but rather a jew ranking high in the arena of Jewish Sports in USA.”
I was referring to his quote.
“you my friend (not literal, but colloquial) are the antisemite who hurts the cause.”
Citizen is the anti-Semite? yonah, you are really intent on making a fool of yourself today. Of course, ziocaine amnesia prevents you from remembering that Citizen has told us a lot about himself here. I don’t see how “anti-Semitism fits the case at all.
Gosh, does it feel that good to make the anti-Semitism accusa… oh never mind. My memory slipped. I forgot that accusations of anti-Semitism (especially when you have no responsibility for the consequences) is the basic Ziocaine reflex. I’m sure nothing else gets it going so reliably or so fast.
It’s the Hustler centerfold of Ziocaine.
“And do you think dissing the Talmud and Jewish books helps your cause?”
Yonah, whoops, excuse me, yonah, why would you want to reveal your insecurities about the Jewish scriptures like that. Just sit tight, smile enigmatically (my God, what a picture) and say nothing, like you know the utility, verifiability, relevance, clarity and transparency of these writings will keep the Torah and Talmud around long after Citizen has gone to the big Fontainebleau in the sky. I bet they give him a room in the back, ground floor, by the kitchen.
“But the point is that you prefer the echo chamber where everybody agrees with you and if someone raises a point you don’t care to hear, you say, how come you are concerned with the things that bug you, why aren’t you concerned with the bigger issues that bug me and all right minded people.”
Shorter yonah: ‘Damn, I hate it when Hostage (or many others) shows up with undeniable facts and I can’t premise the discussion on absurd and self-serving mendacities. It’s not fair!’
Okay, I just went to the comment archives. When and why did “Wondering Jew” become “yonah fredman”? Why would you give up a name which expressed your essence so well? “Wondering Jew” is one the most pretentiously passive-aggressive pseudonyms I’ve ever seen, and in such poor taste, to boot. I never thought you would give it up. What happened?
so, yonah fredman, what exactly is “my cause?” I’m sure you must know since I have commented here regularly practically since Phil started up this blog. The blog archives are available for anyone to cruise. And what is “the cause” you refer to that I have not been helping all these years?
Well, thanks to your great intellect, imagination, sensitivity to nuance, and careful scrutiny and research habits, we now know my cause is anti-semitism. At last, at last, thank god at last, you have found the truth about me! I hate Jews! Very courageous of you to bring my malignant psyche out into the open.
Now that we here all know that simple fact, please enlightened us as to what you mean by “the cause.” We know it’s not my cause, so that’s a start.
BTW, some of us also want to know what is your cause? From what you tell us elsewhere in this thread here, is it constantly reassessing where you can go to effectively escape if you are suddenly in the limelight?
Also, yonah fredman, just so you know I am an equal opportunity kinda guy, I don’t find any religious and/or ethnic tribal spiritual or scriptural tract or book of any net benefit to humanity. The Talmud is certainly no exception. I do think it differs a lot from, say, the Sermon On The Mount.
>> Dual loyalty is a real issue. My own personal take on the issue is that of honesty. If one confesses to dual loyalty and questions whether this loyalty to the US interests undercuts Israel interests or whether this loyalty to Israel interests undercuts US interests, to my mind this is the way to deal with the issue.
Without consequences, how does merely confessing to dual loyalty and questioning whether – or even admitting that – one’s loyalty to Israel (and its interests) undercuts one’s loyalty to the U.S. (and its interests) “deal with the issue”?
eljay- Precisely what I wanted to hear. Consequences: please specify what laws you wish to pass so that you can fix this problem. And do you plan for these laws to apply ex post facto or do you recognize ex post facto as inherently unfair, or is this so egregious that you wish to counter one unfairness with another one?
>> Consequences: please specify what laws you wish to pass so that you can fix this problem. And do you plan for these laws to apply ex post facto or do you recognize ex post facto as inherently unfair, or is this so egregious that you wish to counter one unfairness with another one?
Precisely what I wanted to hear. Feel free to go first.
eljay- Just as an idea, I think Congress should illegalize dual citizenship and they would announce that those holding dual citizenship have until January 1st to choose.
I think if you take a job that assumes loyalty to the US (army job), and you have loyalty to Israel, you should be punished.
I have dual citizenship and if forced to choose, I would choose American citizenship, partially because I believe Israel would take me despite my renunciation of Israeli citizenship and America would give me a heap load of trouble getting into America if I renounce citizenship. I would be curious about the context of such a change. What would prompt Congress to take such a step. I can’t conceive it in the short term and it seems feasible that some anti Jewish antiZionist sentiment might have accompanied this legislation to the floor of the Congress and the president’s desk, so a deep appraisal of surrounding events would be necessary as well.
“I have dual citizenship and if forced to choose, I would choose American citizenship, partially because I believe Israel would take me despite my renunciation of Israeli citizenship and America”
Oh, how cute, Yonah see Israel as a place where a Jew can avoid extradition! Now that’s Zionism on a high plane!
>> eljay- Just as an idea …
OK, thanks for that. Off the top of my head:
- No one should have dual citizenship.
- One should support one’s own country as long as supporting it does not require supporting acts of immorality and injustice carried out by one’s own country.
- No one should place the well-being or interests of another country above the well-being or interests of one’s own country.
- I would terminate dual citizenship immediately (or at the very soonest practicable time), but I would not apply retroactively whatever penalties might be deemed appropriate for those who refuse to relinquish their foreign citizenships.
yonah,
tree- That you prefer that I would be more exercised by your issues rather than other issues which tickle my unfunny bone, is not surprising.
Again, you missed my point. You were the one who wanted me to be more “exercised” by your issue-anti-semitism- than by other issues and my response was my way of letting you know why I thought other issues-ongoing ethnic cleansing and denial of Palestinian human rights, for one-were more important to me than the continuing discussion of anti-semitism that you were offering to “enlighten” me with in your statement here: “Your analogy to Jew hatred (or anti semitism) is faulty. I think it is clear why Jew hatred is bad. If it’s not, I’ll discuss that further.” Thus my point was that “dual loyalty” that supports such heinous actions by Israel is, to me, clearly just as bad as anti-semitism, and worse than the occasional garden variety negative stereotypes and slurs that had you so exercised.
You prefer the echo chamber and when someone raises some other issues, even if you have zero logical argument you harass and heckle, for you prefer the echo chamber.
How did I “harass and heckle” you? I felt and still feel that your argument that Phil was implying that dual loyalty or dual citizenship (which you continue to intertwine although they are two separate subjects) should be outlawed was a strawman argument and unfair. I stated so, which is totally in line having a “dialogue”, which you seem to constantly bemoan the lack of on this site. ( You made a comment and I listened to it and responded with my take on it.)
If I “preferred the echo chamber” I wouldn’t bother responding to anything you say, for I surely never get an “echo chamber” response from you. It seems to me that you are the one longing for an echo chamber, and lashing out because you find it so difficult to get one here. Here’s the thing about dialogue. It doesn’t guarantee that the people engaging in it will agree on anything. All it requires is that those involved listen to each others’ arguments and respond honestly. Yes, I surely acknowledge that its hard being the contrary voice, and takes a certain amount of fortitude for you to continue in that role from day to day, but, of itself, being the lone voice in opposition to something does not ipso facto make one’s argument any sounder or more right or more moral. The argument or idea rises or falls on its own merit, not whether or not anyone or everyone agrees with it. I get the sense that you want us to laud your arguments simply because they are made in opposition to the flow of most ideas here. I for one can’t do it, but I’ve never “heckled or harassed” you, and have been a sight more civil towards you than you have to Shmuel, who’s always treated everyone here with civility. Why the prickliness?
But the issue of transnationalism or dual loyalty is more important than your guardian role of ideas expressed here on MW.
I don’t have a “guardian role” here and don’t want one. I like more discussion rather than less and have never politicked for anyone being banned here. But, again, you seem to mistake disagreement with someone’s point as an attempt to silence the point.
Since you seem to want this particular discussion about dual loyalty and dual citizenship, here’s my opinion. It’s probably not the same as anyone else’s here.
First off, the two subjects are not the same. I really don’t have any informed opinion on whether dual citizenship should be allowed or not, but if pushed to give my uniformed opinion I would side with allowing it. My Israeli sister just recently denounced her American citizenship, which I think was a big mistake. I do think that government officials should not be dual citizens, however.
As to those with dual loyalty, I would hope that such people would not be elected to office or put in positions where their dual loyalties could affect government spending or policies. I’d also hope that people that are crooks or bigots or just plain too stupid or nasty or uninterested in helping others would not be elected or put in such positions, but there’s democracy for you. None of the things I would hope would be disqualifiers can be legislated out of existence and any attempt to do so would be a monumental disaster. Therefore I am totally opposed to any attempt at legislating any litmus test for dual loyalty or bigotry or stupidity or anything else. I would consider it totally “un-American”. I do believe the question of whether someone running for office or in elected office has dual loyalties should be a legimate topic for discussion, in order to allow the voters to know what and who they are voting for. If they then decided to vote for them anyway, at least they are making a more imformed decision.
It is clear to me that it was gratuitous and Phil cannot control his uncivil tongue on the issue. And you the guardian of MW will now tell me what should occupy my thoughts in order to achieve a more perfect echo chamber without any dissenting voices.
yonah, what’s “clear to you” is not clear to me, and in fact I think your perception is totally wrong. That was why made my comment in the first place. I didn’t tell you not to say what you said. I told you why I disagreed with your point and thought it was wrong and unfair. That’s dialogue. Again, you seem to be asking for a chance to make your points without anyone disagreeing with you. You are asking for an echo chamber for yourself. Otherwise, why repeatedly insist that I am attempting to silence what you say, unless it is your own attempt to silence any criticism from me?
misspelling note— I meant to say “…my un-informed opinion…” above. I don’t wear a uniform, tend to look terrible in them and hence don’t make “uniformed” opinions.
Is my memory failing me, or was “yonah fredman” known as “Wondering Jew” until just a few days ago?
Or am I mixing him up with somebody else?
He doesn’t seem to be “wondering” any more.
Maybe his mind’s all made up.
“I have dual citizenship and if forced to choose, I would choose American citizenship, partially because I believe Israel would take me despite my renunciation of Israeli citizenship and America would give me a heap load of trouble getting into America if I renounce citizenship. ”
So, wait… Are you opposed to dual loyalty or not? Because your statement here — planning which of these two you can alternatively run to — seems rather inconsistent with the notion that dual loyalty is a problem.
Woody- I am dissecting the issue honestly from my perspective. my attitude is not carved in rock, i am creating it as we speak to each other. oh that’s right, speaking to each other, you’re not used to that here. you’re just used to scoring points. what’s the score, so far?
I went first, now you go.
“the notion that dual loyalty is a problem.”
Obviously, loyalty, dual or otherwise, is not a problem for our yonah. He wouldn’t know what principled loyalty was if it bit him on the butt.
You can’t have a discussion with somebody who thinks “loyalty” is a matter of where he’ll find like-minded thieves, or where he can go to escape the consequences of his theft.
Zionism is a reactionary process.
“Zionism is a reactionary process.”
I’m about to be pedantic, but I can’t resist disagreeing with you.
In the sense you employ it, ‘reactionary’ means a blind objection to change, or a desire to return to a past condition.
Israel is certainly not that. For one, Zionists don’t object to change. They started by waging a terrorist campaign against the then rulers of the place, went on to evict most of the indigenous population, seized and redistributed most of the land, and have subsequently invaded every single one of their new neighbors. They’re big change fans, and they’re still making big changes — in case you haven’t noticed. Right now, they’re trying to stage the first-ever US-Iran war.
Then too, far from being a desire to return to a past condition, Israel is a complete novelty. There was never a solely Jewish state that controlled all of Palestine. What’s more, today’s Jews are no more ‘from Palestine’ than I am. This is not reaction — in no sense is a return to a past condition even being attempted.
Somewhat ironically, if it was being attempted, the Zionists would be all for a ‘secular, democratic state.’ In modern terms, that would be about as close as they could get to the state of affairs in Biblical times, when the Jews of Palestine variously shared power with, squabbled with, and vied for political influence with the various other peoples, cults, and powers operating in Palestine.
The Zionists are trying to establish a monopoly that may have been devoutly wished for, but that was never there before 1948. Zionism is all for change, and its goals represent a complete novelty for the region. Ergo, Zionism is not reactionary. It’s vile, misbegotten, and built on lies — but it’s not reactionary.
Yup, “Wondering Jew” is now “yonah fredman”. Went to the archives and checked. Not that there’s anything wrong, or difficult, about changing your user name. If I’m not mistaken it’s as simple as ‘editing your profile’. But I wish I knew why, since “Wondering Jew” was so appropriate for him. For all the wrong reasons, but still, very appropriate.
Dual loyalty is hardly new — or confined to Jews. My great great grandmother used to thump her chest and announce “Ich bin Preusse!” Italian Americans took great pride in Mussolini.
Etc. The problem is that unlike Prussia in the 1860′s, or Italy in the 1920′s, Israel demands continuous support from the US, relies heavily on her protection, and mercilessly exploits our sympathy for her.
Dual loyalty wouldn’t be an issue if — say — we were talking about Chile, or Belgium, or Thailand. But we’re not: we’re talking about Israel, and the potential conflict tends to become actual about twice monthly.
Now this is more the Burston I know (if not exactly love). His latest:
“‘If a million American Jews moved to Israel, there’d be peace’
If a million North Americans had come to live in Israel 20 years ago, or even five, this would be a better country.”
Of course that’s just the problem, isn’t it? A million North Americans have not come to live in Israel because they’ve a choice in the matter, and Israel is not their country. Israel is a frigging hobby, not a homeland — and just because Burston failed to make the distinction does mean others should feel obliged to repeat his mistake.
Notice too, that Burston’s (rather academic, since a million North American Jews are not going to emigrate to Israel) proposal has a couple of happy (to him) side effects.
For one, it establishes a comfy Jewish majority in greater Israel. That way, Jews can practice democracy without suffering the consequences.
For another, he imagines it would replace that nasty, contentious, bloody garrison state with a pleasing simulacrum of an affluent Jewish suburb back home (!). Everyone would be white and slender and chock-full of progressive, politically correct sentiments. Probably recycle their garbage and be nice to the brown maid. No obscenely obese Israeli politicians promulgating murderous dicta and shamelessly pawing the secretary.
Never mind that the Israel Burston actually loathes does have the dubious virtue of resembling all too closely the murderous, intolerant, irrational society whose existence is fantasized about in the Bible.
Burston doesn’t want to be an Israeli at all. He wants to be an American Jew — and he’s just upset because not enough American Jews will follow him to make Israel into a kind of Hawaii — an offshore outpost of America.
It is an utterly intellectually bankrupt, impractical, unfulfillable vision that tramples into the dust the rights of a very real, perfectly legitimate people — to wit, the Palestinians, who have committed the unforgivable sin of happening to live right where Burston wants to put his swimming pool.