Something we have long predicted on this site is coming to pass: the end of Zionism as a mainstream political movement. Yes it has many adherents holding on with white knuckles, but any sign of movement, the ability to grow and change and create excitement and win new converts, that’s over. It is a dying ideology. Even Abe Foxman is getting the message. In his latest press release, on the Presbyterians’ divestment vote, he hears the thundering hoofsteps:
It is disturbing that some of the loudest voices representing the Jewish community in all of this were those of fringe groups who do not reflect the perspective of the vast majority of American Jews.
So an organization led by feminists who avoid any mention of the word Zionism is the loudest voice “representing the Jewish community…” Roll over Ben Gurion and tell Jabotinsky the news.
The biggest cause of the new climate is the Arab Spring, which in transforming Arab societies has exposed the contradictions between democracy and Zionism. But the evidence is all around us in the US mainstream. Steve Walt saying that there is a contradiction between Zionism and democracy and Peter Beinart saying virtually the same thing at alternet are a reflection of this new consensus.
An important concession came lately from Jeffrey Goldberg publishing a “thoughtful” statement that between anti-Israelism and human rights, a longtime Zionist would choose anti-Israelism.
Honestly, in my moral universe disenfranchisement, apartheid, segregation-ism or whatever you want to call it are worse sins than anti-Israel-ism. And it is quickly getting to the point where that is the choice that the government of Israel is giving folks like myself.
Goldberg wrote a year ago that our side has the wind at its back. Look for him to jump on the “anti-Israel-ism” team when he can get a big magazine cover out of it.
The best work for our side has been done by Israel and its supporters. Zionism as an ideological movement has called on very good currents in Jewish life for the last century, from liberation to intellectual dreaminess to socialism to manual labor to a new Jewish relationship to land. But in the end Zionism has worked itself out to be militant ethnocracy. Full stop. This is best expressed by Ehud Barak in a recent interview with Time Magazine, where he says in essence, If you’re Jewish in the government, it doesn’t matter what politics you have:
Basically [Netanyahu and I] see eye to eye some of the major issues and when there are differences we know how to handle them…. And I think that we are in a way old enough and more mature to know that there are many things that on the national agenda that are much more important than…we can kind of moderate sometimes.
In Israel generally speaking politics is much more familiar than any other place. We all know each other. I knew Sharon for decades, I knew Rabin, Peres. We all know each other. It’s a tiny, tiny community and the elites, the upper echelons of all kinds of pyramids, knowing each other, it’s no more than 3,000 or 5,000 people who, for quite a long time know
When all is said and done, Labor, his original party, means nothing. No, what counts in the end is being with other Jews in a siege state ethnic-cleansing government, supported by the United States thanks to other Jews. Against the Palestinians, who are not in the coalition. Against the Arabs in their spring. Against Iran, against the world.
Liberal Zionism is no refuge against this tide. Amos Oz said very much what Barak said at the start of J Street this year. The novelist long associated with Peace Now, who had fought to bring in the two-state paradigm after 1970, Oz rejected the one-state solution, saying that there is a Palestinian family and an Israeli family. And they need to be separate.
This idea of two families, and of polity based on clan, is something the Arab world is also struggling with. We can condemn it in Libya and Saudi Arabia and Yemen. We should also condemn it in Israel. There is a family of man and woman, not ethnicities. This is the great challenge of modern democracy, and Zionism is fundamentally opposed to it. Happily the American mainstream at last seems to be registering this truth.
From the Foxman link
“We look forward to continue working with them to help bring peace and repair the world.”
The most effective way for Foxman to help repair the world would be to retire. Tikkun Olam is now living in a refugee camp in Gaza and starving.
The most effective ways to repair the world would be for the Christian churches, like the Presbyterian, UMC, Episcopal, Lutheran & Unitarian Universalist churches, to
1. stop allowing themselves to be railroaded by the push-pull of divest/don’t divest. I argue that the divestment argument frames the Christian churches into a debate that zionists can control, and it saps the energy of the Christian churches.
2. Speak with their own moral voice and claim their own moral ground to declare that the oppression of the Palestinian people is immoral and illegal and will no longer be tolerated by the united Christian people of the United States. Henceforth, ministers in Christian churches will preach from their pulpits on the immorality and illegality of Israel repression of the Palestinian people. They will lead their congregations in learning the objective truths of the history of zionism; guide their congregations to assess their responsibility in justice and equity, and encourage their congregations to express their moral commitment in political action.
The goal and attitude is not to be that of demonizing Jews or Israel, yet once having informed oneself and having arrived at rigorously evaluated conclusions, congregations must not shrink from insisting that continuation of the oppression of Palestinians (and certain other bad acts of zionists, such as demonization of Iran & perpetuation of Islamophobia) will be confronted and will not be tolerated.
Nevertheless, congregations should be simultaneously warned that they will be accused of antisemitism, and assured that the charge is baseless, therefore meaningless. The charge of antisemitism must be defanged by being reduced to irrelevance.
The Christian churches, United in truth and justice, Cannot be defeated.
This, to the extent of my understanding, illustrates the disconnect between the Christian Church and Islam and provides a key to understanding.
Islam is political. There are no niceties such as separation of Church and State. A Mosque is not a “Church” in the Christian sense. It is a meeting place where all manner of topics are on the agenda.
Interesting idea – keeps the religious political and the political in touch with the underlying philosophical/moral scheme.
Christians on the other hand, have been intimidated by their historic forays into the State’s affairs and, for their own survival, have adopted an antiseptic view of politics.
The worst thing that’s ever happened to the progress of humanity is how religious authorities usurped philosophers and their provocative thinking.
“There are no niceties such as separation of Church and State. “
This is more accurate: There are no
nicetiesfictions such as separation of Church and State.Very little about Judaism is a-political — the major figures of Judaism associated themselves with the political powers of the dominant cultures in a given era.
Even less about Roman Catholicism is a-political. Depending upon their degree of evangelicalism, the major battle for Christians is Who is in charge, a question of political power.
My knowledge of Islam is limited, but this comment resonated: link to raceforiran.com
Thank you for that link Allen.
Since entering my sixties, I find myself going places I never dreamed of in previous decades. My background in History and Philosophy had stripped me of any leanings toward the mystic or esoterical.
Now as I contemplate the changes that have occurred during my lifetime and am becoming increasingly concerned at what I perceive as a move away from an ethically based, truthful World towards a “situation ethics” based modernity.
I have concluded that Politics alone cannot supply what is needed for man’s co-existence. Perhaps a little diversion may illustrate how an avowed rationalist can begin to understand the importance of ritual and religion.
There is no natural ethic. Ethics are experience based – our sense of right and wrong are derived from the culturally imposed belief systems we inherit. There are sufficient examples of diversity in “right and wrong” among different cultures to prove this point. The repository of that experience is the narrative, the stories accumulated through generations. Joseph Campbell is very good on this. That narrative is most often expressed as religion.
Without a sense of right and wrong, we cannot make sound political choices.
It seems there is another element necessary, some kind of moral underpinning to inform and guide.
There was a time when the words of the (I assume) young man writing the article linked to would have been incomprehensible to me – the ravings of a zealot.
Not so sure now. The conquest of self is, after all, a good exercise, found almost universally in belief systems, as is the direction of the mind toward high ideals through practise i.e. ritual. I do think that blind adherence is destructive but this writer seems to be very aware of this – the article is entitled “On Purity (or the Separation of Church and State)” after all.
Perhaps in times of uncertainty we all need to trust a little more in the collective wisdom, accumulated over time beyond memory – and beyond contemporary analysis?
I don’t know if it is down to the Arab spring as much as the fact that the 2 state solution has been killed and it is obvious to the world. The bots got Obama to do the dirty deed at the UN and now they are showing us that they really mean apartheid.
As long as there was a peace process Israelis could say that they would give the Palestinians a state if they complied yada yada bit now they don’t even bother with that crap.
So it’s like a peep show where the anticipated busty lady is revealed to be an IDF soldier torturing a child and then posting it on youtube. Sort of like that Canadian ex porn actor who killed that man and videoed it for internet consumption. And nobody paid for that.
there is only so much Israeli bad faith that the OECD countries can take. And the hasbara is dead.
the Arab Spring was also strangled at birth.
It was, partly because the liberals could not unite but also because America early on decided to bet on the so-called ‘strong horse’(a.k.a the islamists) because it would be easier and less messy to deal with a single force. So the Obama administration abandoned the liberals and threw them under the buss. Which, I should add, is a long-standing American tradition. America always chooses Islamists when it can’t get a dictator of it’s own.
As for this quote:
“Goldberg wrote a year ago that our side has the wind at its back. Look for him to jump on the “anti-Israel-ism” team when he can get a big magazine cover out of it.”
I laughed out loud and long at that one. Venomous! (but true, of course).
As for the post. I agree that Israel has mostly done the work for the pro-democracy crowd. But that in of itself a worrying sign. We can’t count on Israel’s hasbara to be as bad as it is now
Prime example: Israel’s interior minister who declared ‘this country belongs to the white man’ openly and bragged about it. Those kinds of quotes is like manna from heaven. You only get a limited amount and you can’t count on them forever.
Krauss
What sort of hasbara do you think they can use to rescue the situation? Perhaps if Israel was run by old guard Labor types who managed the show up to 1977 they could come up with something, although I doubt it. The problem is that the hasbara has to speak to their internal audience as well as the outside world. And the internal discussion is dominated more and more by extremists.
It’s like the Hebrew problem- what makes perfect sense in Hebrew increasingly sounds like Jim Crow in English.
And they have flogged democracy and gay pride to death. They aren’t the same as us.
Bibi the fluent English speaker epitomises this although on the face if it he shouldn’t. The coruscating star of the Likud who shone from his early 20s turns out to be just another Bull Connor.
The tribalism in the widest sense is dissolving in front of our eyes together with soon forgotten languages, separate ethnic clothing, religious conformity, and indigenous cuisine. Internet and all encompassing western, or western inspired media sell individuality dressed up as mediocracy and fragment any old tribal allegiances.
“Zionism as an ideological movement has called on very good currents in Jewish life for the last century, from liberation to intellectual dreaminess to socialism to manual labor to a new Jewish relationship to land”
Great Ceasar’s Ghost, said the discerning reader. What egregious nonsense the scribes talk. Zionism has called on the conservative to reactionary elements, and in opposition to the internationalist and liberal elements, as history amply shows. It is not a noble dream gone wrong, but a bad dream turned into the nightmare that was latent from the beginning.
true but i was trying to identify strains in jewish social life that were good that zionism spoke to, and could claim at times to represent
“true but i was trying to identify strains in jewish social life that were good that zionism spoke to, and could claim at times to represent”
My God, it just brings home how much Zionism has distorted Judaism and Jewishness, taken it hostage. Judaism, as you have probably said before, has not been able to confront its own problems because it has been subjugated to Zionism.
Modern Zionism is a kind of Movado watch where the two hands require the face of Hitler ever present at the midnight spot.
…is a kind of Movado watch
I just Googled that. I am now officially disabused of the notion that “Movado” is a laxative.
“from liberation to intellectual dreaminess to socialism to manual labor to a new Jewish relationship to land”
This is the only good thing that I see in original zionism, the urging Jews to become ‘builders” or ‘creators’ of something instead of being mainly those who either made their living off servicing/selling to the labor and building masses or loaning money to the builders and creators.
But their building something turned into stealing from others– so it went wrong.
Phil, they counterfeited what they were trying to appeal to. Discerning audiences knew that.
American, this “becoming builders or creators”, “building the new society”, is just the internalization of anti-semitic stereotypes. Which with the Zionists agreed wholeheartedly. Racialist anti-semitism and Zionism were fraternal twins. Anti-semitism was “legitimate self-defense”–Herzl, in a famous article
(Deprogramming Zionism 101)
“so it went wrong”.
Yea I keep dreaming
But I have it all
Ooh I’m still craving
To have all of Palestine on my side
I know the love of the Yanks is fading
But soon it will shine
And I can’t see today
And I can’t see tomorrow
You’re burning out of my head
And my Ziocaine its going wrong
And I will lie today
And I will hasbaradise tomorrow
No matter what is said or done
Even if its going wrong
Even if its going wrong (2x)
link to youtube.com
“This is the only good thing that I see in original zionism, the urging Jews to become ‘builders” or ‘creators’ of something instead of being mainly those who either made their living off servicing/selling to the labor and building masses or loaning money to the builders and creators.”
I’m gonna pretend I didn’t see this, I know you can’t be this dumb, or willing to use anti-Semitic tropes.
But I won’t challenge it, since I’m sure you’ve got the figures to back up what you say.
Stupid beyond belief.
@ Mooser,
Nothing stupid or anti semitic about it.
ACCORDING…to the history of the Jews as told by Jewish historians….Jews weren’t allowed to own land in some or most countries they lived in….therefore they were mainly merchants or engaged in “trade” or were ‘middle men’ or bankers-money lenders.
NOW, —this is the history put forth by Jewish historians themselves and given as a reason by many as to why Jews gravitated to other types of livilhoods like academics, banking, accounting and etc..not into developing land and building ‘directly’ themselves.
If you don’t like my deducing this from what Jewish historians say about the Jewish past and saying the good thing about Zionism was urging Jews to go out and build and ‘create’ their own something…then f*** you, take it up with your own historians.
“If you don’t like my deducing this from what Jewish historians say about the Jewish past and saying the good thing about Zionism was urging Jews to go out and build and ‘create’ their own something…then f*** you, take it up with your own historians.”
After being told off so well, what choice do I have? They’ll be hearing from me.
“…This is the only good thing that I see in original zionism, the urging Jews to become ‘builders” or ‘creators’ of something instead of being mainly those who either made their living off servicing/selling to the labor and building masses or loaning money to the builders and creators.
But their building something turned into stealing from others– so it went wrong…”
I wonder how valid that stereotype is? No, not many Jews have been farmers lately — but otherwise?
Thinking about the Jews whose current source of income I know, two were movers who participated in the work themselves, one is a lawyer, another a computer programmer, another a vet tech, and another is a bookstore clerk/frustrated novelist. Not exactly yeoman farmers — but not exactly ruthless exploiters of the gullible goyim either.
Going back, while of course one does have the financiers and tavern clerks beloved of anti-semites throughout the ages, how many were perfectly praiseworthy carpenters, etc?
The Zionist schtick is a pretty obvious spinoff of the ‘virtuous peasantry’ ideal so beloved of a certain brand of romantic intellectual for quite a while now — but does it actually reflect anything in particular about Jews specifically?
In most societies I can think of, various occupations do become the province of a particular ethnic and social group — like Irish firemen, for example. I once asked an Indian customer I was on a long truck ride with about all those Indians who own motels. According to her, they all belong to a specific caste that in India…owns motels.
So cattle dealers in the pre-Nazi German countryside were often Jews. So what? Presumably Jews were going to be something, and I’m reluctant to assume there was anything reprehensible as a whole about how Jews made their living prior to Zionism. I’m perfectly open to the possibility — but I don’t see why I should accept it on faith.
If anything, this is the inverse of that tedious ‘great contributions of Jewry to mankind’ schtick. It’s easy to make too much of it either way — and in both cases, a kind of self-perpetuating stereotype gets going where if a Jew isn’t Albert Einstein, he’s Bernie Madoff. I’m no knee-jerk egalitarian — but let’s not get carried away.
“I’m perfectly open to the possibility — but I don’t see why I should accept it on faith.”
Which Jews, where? If I’m not mistaken, Judaism spread pretty far, there were many different Jews, living drastically different lives, and having very different relations to the society around them.
@Collin
If it’s stereotyping it’s stereotyping I got from from Jewish accounts of history —–one being that Jews were not allowed to own land in many countries—which was true……so they went to other means of livilhood.
Now perhaps my statement was too much predicated on thinking about that Jewish condition in past centuries when I said it was good that Herzl’s zionism urged Jews to’ build and create’……something they couldn’t do in the past.
But anti semitic and stereotyping? Where the hell am I?..at the ADL?
I am tired of this stereotyping contest— so for the last time.
The Question was…..was there anything good in zionism.
I replied that zionism urging Jews to be builders and creators, even take up manual labor instead of staying in merchant and trade and other middle men fields was good.
Now you can pick whatever you choose to believe in Jewish stereotyping and no doubt some of you will pick both and then use your contradictions to at various times to label something stereotyping or anti semitic.
Chose one.
1) Jews were always builders and creators fully participating in building and creating in the countries they lived in and no anti Jewish restrictions prevented this.
Or
2) Or they were prevented from doing this in mnay places and that is why Jews were not in the building and creating sectors and were for the most part relegated to only certain endeavors and livelihoods.
In Herzl’s writings on zionism he talked about Jews being banned from owning land and from pursuing a variety of ownership professions and said the constant expulsions of Jews led to insecurity and Jews adopting artisan professions and other professions that were easily * transferable* to other countries or locations
MY opinion …is that some, not all, but enough, of this about Jews not being allowed into building and ‘ownership is true and did affect the kind of work Jews took up because historians other than Jewish ones have noted this in world history.
THERFORE, it is a perfectly logical, not stereotyping, deduction to say that if Jews had a history of being prevented from being builders in the sense of creating thing *materially permanent* then the ones ”that could” stayed away from those kind of ventures because they couldn’t take it with them if the need to flee arose.
THIS does not rule out Jewish peasants raising chickens or doing manual labor in those days.
WHAT is does say is the Jews who had any wherewithall at all either couldn’t or didn’t want to invest it in ‘building-creating hard assets” they might lose in new explusions or new rules for Jews.
So if you don’t agree with my take at least use some facts and logic to dispute it and not the usual knee jerk reactions of the bots.
There you go American, true to form. Jews have never been creators of any kind, not in art or philosophy or science or medicine. Or builders, since even when financing building the Jew is mere moneylender.
tokyobk says:
July 11, 2012 at 7:13 pm
There you go American, true to form. Jews have never been creators of any kind, not in art or philosophy or science or medicine. Or builders, since even when financing building the Jew is mere moneylender.”
Oh so Jews were land builders and not a restricted put upon minority in history?
Make up your mind which tale you’re going to go with about Jewish history—persecuted minorities kept out of certain endevors or full blown ‘builders’ fully particpating in countries they lived in.
But..wait!…I forgot, you’re a zio so you can flip back and forth to whatever truth or myth suits your accusations and arguements.
“But their building something turned into stealing from others– so it went wrong.”
No, not at all, without stealing there wouldn’t have been much of a place to build. Please don’t tell you’re gonna go with “peopleless land for a landless people
‘It is not a noble dream gone wrong, but a bad dream turned into the nightmare that was latent from the beginning.’
To be fair, both ends of this are perfectly valid. However vilified in retrospect, no political movement starts out with the platform ‘let’s all be incredibly evil.’ There has to be some positive appeal — however unrealistic and implicitly harmful to everyone else in the vicinity it may be.
Zionism offered the dream of Jews standing on their own land, working the soil and truckling to no man. In that respect, the positive vision was remarkably similar (yet again!) to Naziism, which preached a Germany freed from the constraints of Versailles and populating a vast (and also conveniently empty) realm with industrious German yeoman farmers.
The bleak comedy even goes further. The Nazis never could get many actual German peasants to move to the East — they mostly had to dragoon various groups that had no choice into doing it. Similarly, the Zionists have always had to draw on various groups with no real alternative to populate Israel — and once there, these groups have shown an obstinate disinterest in taking up the plow. Melita Maschmann — who was an activist involved in the Nazi attempt to Germanize Western Poland — discusses her experience with a barrack-full of German working class girls who had been frog-marched off to the East. Almost needless to say, they hadn’t the least interest in taking to the land.
At a guess, the Zionists of circa 1950 must have had many, many similar experiences with their abruptly transplanted Yemenis and things.
“However vilified in retrospect, no political movement starts out with the platform ‘let’s all be incredibly evil.’”
Zionism at no time had a platform which respected either the lives of the Palestinians or telling the truth to the Jews who made up its raw material and supporters. It also never had any principles concerning being truthful with the rest of the world. It never ever even attempted not to use violence, in fact, quite the opposite, it lauded violence and the “will”. It never espoused equality, nor was it fussy about the rule of law.
If you ask me, that’s deciding to be evil. Were there some nice people in there, probably. Many of the Jews who went to Palestine were displaced and didn’t have much choice.
Don’t kid yourself. Zioni$m won’t be dead until it’$ bankrupt. Zioni$m and it$ $upporter$ have been collecting $hekel$ and bank$ for over a hundred year$
Note that Zionism doesn’t need to die — just become marginalized enough so that it can no longer dictate US foreign policy.
I imagine one would still find considerable support for unifying Ulster with the rest of Ireland among Irish-Americans. However, the support is marginalized enough and weakened enough so that it no longer matters.
Consider Armenian Americans. They — ahem — feel quite strongly about Turkey. However, there are few enough of them that they cannot radically alter US foreign policy (except when the Zionist lobby chooses to exploit their sense of grievance).
If Zionism can be marginalized to the point where its adherents have no more clout than Armenians do, it won’t matter what the Zionists think.
Colin are you really proposing that American Jews could be become as politically irrelevant as Armenian Americans?
I like Philip’s optimism here, but we’re talking about the single largest, most well funded lobby in U.S. politics. If things are going to change then presumably we’ll see the emergence of a comparable counter-lobby, and I’m not talking about J Street. I don’t see it happening personally. Who is the Haim Saban, the Sheldon Adelson of anti-Zionism? They don’t exist because, frankly, you don’t get that rich committing yourself to such a controversial cause.
Ranjit Suresh
July 11, 2012 at 3:07 pm
Could be … we’re talking about the single largest, most well funded lobby in the world.
When it’s Zionism .. you can get rich committing yourself to such a controversial cause. Show promise for the cause and you’ll be invested in and supported big time.
“If Zionism can be marginalized to the point where its adherents have no more clout than Armenians do, it won’t matter what the Zionists think.” (Wright)
Yes, I love this statement.
They may end up bankrupt as well as losing Israel. So far they’ve done pretty well at buying politicians and individuals in some important governments and bodies but doubtful they have enough to buy out everyone and all the movements against them.
I think what Kretzmer say below shows where the zionist and Israel are headed…for a eventual collision with most of the world.
I think a big collision is a high probability because although most everyone, governments, the public, is fed up with and warning Israel no real action has ever been taken to stop them–and what that likely means is the world will continue to take no real action on Israel till it crosses some final point of no return.
At that point the world can fall on Israel “with complete justification” and “no other choice” so to speak, saying it has done everything it could to avoid having to take whatever drastic action but now has no other options.
‘Israel is in a dangerous position vis-a-vis the world’
Haaretz – 1 day ago
Prof. David Kretzmer, an expert on international law, also commented on the Levy committee’s determination that Israel is not an occupying …
“Something we have long predicted on this site is coming to pass: the end of Zionism as a mainstream political movement.”
Well, for how long was Zionism ‘a mainstream political movement’? It strikes me as a bit of an oxymoron to describe a movement that by definition can only draw upon 2% of the population for members as ‘mainstream’ at any time, but for how long was Zionism ‘mainstream’ among American Jews?
As I recall, at the time of the First World War, only 1% of American Jews described themselves as ‘Zionist.’ Obviously, the movement grew in popularity thereafter — but I’ve read that it only really took off after 1967.
…and now it’s relapsing into the crank, fringe, inherently indefensible doctrine it always was — and a jolly good thing, too.
joe biden: Im a Zionist
Well, we’re all Berliners too.
At a guess, ol’ Joe hasn’t the least interest in taking up the plow and heading off to Galilee.
More substantially, such statements are only evidence that Zionism hasn’t subsided into a crank, fringe movement yet. When it does, the Joe Bidens will have long since abandoned the sinking ship.
ColinWright July 11, 2012 at 2:31 pm
“At a guess, ol’ Joe hasn’t the least interest in taking up the plow and heading off to Galilee”
Neither was Herlz. Although in his lifetime he could have immigrated, bought land and settled anywhere in Palestine. Never lived there. Odd isn’t it.
Phil Weiss is correct in calling Zionism a mainstream political movement in the sense that if you asked every sitting state and national legislator in the USA whether or not she or he is a Zionist, you would get thousands of affirmative answers, very few negative ones. We should do a yearly poll of those elected officials over the next ten.
Well, the number of Jews who have been comfortably fixed yet headed for ‘Israel’ is pretty small. Generally, it’s been a refuge for those who have no real alternative — and the Zionists have intervened vigorously at times to make sure there was no real alternative.
This is actually one of the many, many things that bugs me about Israel. For most of its supporters, it seems to be more of a hobby than a homeland.
…and it’s a hell of thing that an entire people should be dispossessed and oppressed on behalf of a hobby.
Zionism not mainstream?
link to youtube.com
Please!
29 bipartisan congressional standing ovations to Natanyahu: you can’t get more mainstream than that – politically speaking, of course. And we have to say politically speaking here cuz we know that our average ‘mainstream’ American citizen wouldn’t know how to even spell the word zionism – may even think it’s some kinda fatal skin disease or something.
Those 29 ovations were like some rich dad shipping in a team of pole dancers to mark his nerd son’s birthday and when he gets to blow out the candles they all cheer even though he’ll never have a girlfriend.
“and it’s a hell of thing that an entire people should be dispossessed and oppressed on behalf of a hobby.”
Every morning I flip thru the cable news channels…every morning I see channel 2 broadcasting fund raising tear jerkers asking for $350 donations for transporting black Ethiopian Jews to Israel……While Israel is busy deporting non Jewish black Africans.
‘Those 29 ovations were like some rich dad shipping in a team of pole dancers ….’
Classy extended metaphor — but I think at least half the pole dancers were cheering from the heart.
Ker-boom!…ker boom! ….evidently some in the Church of E have turned the holocaust defense upside down. Instead of Jewish orgs using ‘remember the holocaust’ now some have stolen it and are saying what the zionist do is ”shaming the memory of the victims of the holocaust”. Well I guess that’s what they get for desecrating the holocaust victims by using them as a fig leaf to begin with.
Anyway it shows how the fight has been kicked up a notch by their opponents to fighting fire with fire. ..which was bound to happen cause the zionist don’t know what ‘enough is enough’ means.
JTA..
The statement went to say, “Moreover, to hear the debate at Synod littered with references to ‘powerful lobbies’, the money expended by the Jewish community, ‘Jewish-sounding names’ and the actions of the community ‘bringing shame on the memory of victims of the Holocaust’, is deeply offensive and raises serious questions about the motivation of those behind this motion.”"
okay, so NOW WHAT?
militant ethnocracy (good term) cannot sustain and that is all that is left in today’s zionism and state of israel, so what will the new thing look like? … to fracture an ugly and terrible thing is good, but isn’t it better for everyone if a replacement and a blueprint is ready so the construction of the new model can begin right away and avoid the stumbling among the shards and petty reprisals?
I asked Phil to put up a post some time ago that elicits visualizations of the future by commenters … What Will Post-Zionist Isreal Become? … and he thought it beyond the scope of what he does …
But I truly believe that for a peaceful transition to take place to change current israel into a pluralistic, secular equal rights state with equal protections and enforcement it has to be visualized and created out of those visualizations – a great many powerful thinkers and knowledgeable people participate here on Mondoweiss … perhaps one of the activists that regularly visits this site can create such a thing? Like Twitter each post would limit the number of characters so no long screeds, and would likely limit each comment to one topic, such as: Which checkpoints come down first? How and when do all roads get opened to all people? How to remove the settlers who resist? How to compel change in attitude of IDF and police to provide equal enforcement? Is the UN brought in as permanent peacekeepers? Do Palestinians get full air and water rights – and why not, if not? What to do about the takeover of East Jerusalem by settlers? Where is the Palestinian parliament to be housed and located? Which “land-swaps” are agreeable? And so on … these are the topics that need to be hashed out now – a blueprint created so that when zionist israel’s militant ethnocracy crumbles – and it will – there is a way forward.
“Is the UN brought in as permanent peacekeepers?”
That’s a no-no, as far as Israel is concerned. The UN peacekeepers will have to fight their way in.
Miko Peled: There IS a way . . .to transform a non-democracy to a democracy.
“…militant ethnocracy (good term) cannot sustain and that is all that is left in today’s zionism and state of israel, so what will the new thing look like? … to fracture an ugly and terrible thing is good, but isn’t it better for everyone if a replacement and a blueprint is ready so the construction of the new model can begin right away and avoid the stumbling among the shards and petty reprisals? “
I don’t think it would be a good thing.
Either (a) the blueprint will secure continued Jewish economic, military, political, and territorial domination, and I certainly don’t want to see that.
or (b), once laid out, the blueprint will clearly point to a likely swift exit for most of the current Jewish population. That will make the Bradley Burstons of this world freeze in their tracks.
I’d rather leave it all warm ‘n fuzzy ‘n principled until it’s too late to reverse the process. I’ll try to shut up while everyone’s convincing themselves the ‘Sofia formula’ or whatever is actually going to work — but I’m not going to pretend I think it will too when I will be fairly (and happily) sure it won’t. I see no reason Palestine should be anything other than a Palestinian state.
At some point “zionist” alone became a pejorative, and only “liberal zionist” was considered acceptable.
Will they re-label the whole ideology at some point in the near future, dropping the Z word completely?
@Phil Weiss
enjoyed your comment about you doing manual labor by working on someones house :)
The biggest cause of the new climate is the Arab Spring, which in transforming Arab societies has exposed the contradictions between democracy and Zionism.
My anecdotal experience is that the Arab Spring made liberal Zionists realize the cost of their support of Israel. Everybody else was ecstatic about democracy in Egypt and they were miserably cautious. These decent folks finally got that it was their Zionism that was making them miss the party.
Zionism dead? I think it’s becoming a used-up movement. That’s not the same as “dead”, though.
The US and Israel are now so powerful that they hardly ever learn from their mistakes. But their power is declining. They can’t (for example) solve the severe problems of the world economy.
The Israelis have economic and military power, but the Palestinian “civil-society” movement has realistic prospects of success in the near future. The Palestinians are starting to get out their side of the story, and are supported in just about every country in the world, except two (the US and Israel).
When I think back about the people who have influenced my personal opinion about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, the biggest influences have been Jewish: Chomsky and Finkelstein, and of course Begin and Ariel Sharon. The first two tell the truth about the crimes of the last two. I greatly admire Ali Abunimah and the EI group, so they’re #5.
Re: the Arab Spring, I think in retrospect, caution (of a certain sort) was more appropriate than ecstasy. Sure, allow yourself to get caught up in the moment of the human urge for freedom, but that moment doesn’t last. The Muslim Brotherhood taking power in Egypt is only good news when viewed in contrast to the bloodshed in Syria and the powers unleashed in Libya. What’s going on in certain parts of the Arab spring make the Muslim Brotherhood look like responsible technocrats. Are the facebook liberals pleased with the direction of the revolution? Do the Egyptian Copts feel like life has taken a turn for the better or worse?
(Obviously factors including Israeli and American attitudes and the power maintained by pre revolutionary forces are involved. And let me assert that democracy is the goal and the Muslim Brotherhood is a phase, whether 20 years or 60 years, it is a phase that will pass, although the end of that phase may need to be bloodier than the Egyptian overthrow of Mubarak.)
I’ve felt for the longest time that time is not on Israel’s side. And the extent of the settlement enterprise has grown.
Regarding the US, Israel had a window of opportunity of American support in the aftermath of 9/11. They should have used it to negotiate a treaty with Abbas back in 2008. Now that opportunity has passed. America is withdrawing from the world, not to the extent that some would wish, but still withdrawing. And the occupation is ugly and the settlers certainly seem immovable, certainly with Netanyahu in charge, and which Palestinian leader is going to cede Maale Adumim or Ariel to Israel? So the objective situation is bleak.
The Zionistas Greater Israel project is a multi billion dollar enterprise. All those juicy contracts for illegal ‘facts on the ground’ infrastructure aren’t gonna be let go of easily
It’s not just the lobby in the US, it’s also US investors in Israel. It’s every facet, from news services,. banks, social media, to drains for settler poop.
They’re all desperate to hold the US veto vote in the UNSC and the squeakiest door is….. much more effective than a majority of generally disinterested American voters. Regardless of who gets elected, the squeaky door will keep squeaking away.
Without the veto vote, Israel is faced with the law. Israel faced with the law which is 100% in favour of the Palestinian’s rights, will send Israel bankrupt for decades. There’s a 64 year backlog of compensation due.
Under the Law, the Palestinians do not have to negotiate a deal. Israel MUST negotiate a deal in order to reach an agreement with the Palestinians so that it doesn’t have to face the law. The Zionistas have had over a century of honing the skill of convincing people to put their pants and shoes on backwards for Israel.
@Phil,
Delish: “Look for him to jump on the “anti-Israel-ism” team when he can get a big magazine cover out of it.”
When I read it, I looked for the snark tag. It wasn’t there, making the statement “delish,” as you call it, and perhaps memorable. We’ll see if Goldberg shows signs of some sort of deepening thought.
Yes, yes, yes! Phil is really ‘getting his snark on’! Me likes! Me likes!!!
• The Ontology of Snark: A Prelude, by Paul Rosenberg – link to openleft.com
• Beyond The Ontology of Snark-Spliting And Projective Identification From Infancy To World Politics, by Paul Rosenberg – link to openleft.com
P.S. My current “obsession” with (over)analyzing everything from the standpoint of psychology is partly due to having read so many of Paul Rosenberg’s “diaries” at ‘Open Left’ (now inactive). So, you might say (if you are so inclined) that I am his “Frankensteinian monster”, so to speak.
That must be one mighty heavy cross to bear/bare (speaking figuratively/metaphorically, at least I think).
RE: “Honestly, in my moral universe disenfranchisement, apartheid, segregation-ism or whatever you want to call it are worse sins than anti-Israel-ism.” ~ Jeffrey Goldberg
MY COMMENT: As “we all” like to say “down here”: “Well, hush my mouth!”
That’s a cool article, Phil.
Let’s give zionism a Buddhist Sky Burial:
link to tibettrip.com
Hey Phil, off topic here but whatyado with Marwan and chaos?
The impression I received from reading this post was that the words in the statement were Jeffrey Goldberg’s. They were not, they were a quote of his from a reader’s e mail and he described them as thoughtful.
The impression I received from reading about Bradley Burston’s quiet revolution was that he had come out in favor of giving the vote to the West Bank Palestinians. He has not. His statement was: I need to think about it. (Although my faulty reading comprehension might be surprised by the actual content.)
You know, Phil, I’m beginning to think you and your readership actually believe this. After many centuries in which Jews had no political movement, and certainly no political power as a nation, you now think their political movement is dead, even as their State flourishes, close to half the world’s Jews live in it, and most of the others are committed to it. True, some aren’t – mostly in the progressive corner of American Jewry. But there’s no indication their position impresses that of all the rest.
In a recent post Adam scoffed that a certain Israeli position looks like a belief in the earth being flat. How is your position in this post any more credible, Phil?
“there is a palestinian family and an israeli family, and they need to be separate.”
separate and unequal, that is.
I second Winnica. Is Israel today is a “militant ethnocracy”, it is hard to see in what way it represent the break with the “Zionist past”. The present is never an exact copy of the past. And it is not like Israel is founded by multiculturalist pacifists.
Perhaps Zionism is not a vibrant or exciting ideology, but indeed, it is a matter of taste. Some like “militant ethnocracy” as an upgrade, now we can be proud of our ethnic group! For too many centuries we, Livonians or Ossetians or Jews lived under the yoke of all and sundry, now we can kick ass and build glorious future.
was this evident to you in 48 or 67? or to the world? even during nakba werent there competing elements in israeli political culture than militant ethnocracy, esp when you might have reduced us to racist state at that time as well?
I came to USA in 1982, so I cannot compare well with earlier times. As the mini-saga of Evelyn Garcia shows, the dominance of Zionism in American politics, on issues pertaining to Israel and related aspects of foreign policy reached unprecedented levels.
Sure, there are malcontents and “shallow supporters”, and one can see symptoms that this is the crest of a wave, perhaps past the crest, but “political death”?
One may argue that as Zionism gets “purified” it becomes intellectually hollow and unattractive, but is GOP “politically dead”? Intellectually, its ideology seems hollow and unattractive to me, but I hate American hamburger, while they clearly maintain a hefty market share. Is a tasteless slab of meat-like substance, on a tasteless bread-like substrate, covered with some yellowish stuff etc. commercially dead?