Right wing crazies — Remnick brings the curtain down on Zionism

Israel/Palestine
on 147 Comments

The New Yorker this week carries the piece that I have been waiting for, a thorough report by David Remnick from inside radical-right Israel. It’s a great piece of reporting, marked by scary intimate moments with three crazies, Dani Dayan, Moshe Feiglin and Naftali Bennett, and it’s intellectually bold: Remnick is bringing down the curtain on Zionism. What began as a secular movement to create a democracy has devolved into the Tea Party, a religious ideology about the bible and the land– but a Tea Party with a major role in governing the country. Remnick’s distaste for Zionism’s endpoint floods this account. This judgment is at the core of his piece: 

Their ethnocentrism is full-throated, their suspicion of democratic institutions unabashed. A typical case is Miri Regev, a former I.D.F. spokesman and a Likud candidate: she has called Arab members of the Knesset “traitors” and undocumented African immigrants “a cancer.” Last year, Regev tried, and failed, to pass an annexation bill in the Knesset.

So: Their Zionism is racism. Remnick may not have much imagination but he’s a brilliant journalist, he knows how to find the story and convey it; and he has accepted the challenge of “What is this new Israel?” in a way that Peter Beinart and Jodi Rudoren have not. Remnick obviously holds a flickering candle for the two-state solution, for the re-rise of Labor, but he’s too smart to fool himself. The right has arrived and will only grow stronger. Nine months ago Remnick editorialized about Israel’s existential threat from within, now he is documenting it. His “nut” paragraph: 

More broadly, the story of the election is the implosion of the center-left and the vivid and growing strength of the radical right. What Bennett’s rise, in particular, represents is the attempt of the settlers to cement the occupation and to establish themselves as a vanguard party, the ideological and spiritual core of the entire country. Just as a small coterie of socialist kibbutzniks dominated the ethos and the public institutions of Israel in the first decades of the state’s existence, the religious nationalists, led by the settlers, intend to do so now and in the years ahead.

Remnick doesn’t show his hand here, he’s a reporter. But he obviously despises this crowd. Consider the cynicism of Dayan in this confession:

“…for me, in this rough neighborhood where we live, the Zionist enterprise needs something deeper [as a raison d'etre] that includes [settlements] Shiloh and Beit El. This is why we came here. . . . I’m a completely secular person, even a liberal person, but I sincerely believe that without Hebron, and all it represents from a historical and cultural point of view, we are a shallow people.”

What he represents, he tells his audiences, “is a handover of the baton from security-based Zionism to a Jewish-based Zionism. If we don’t do that, it won’t work. I don’t want to show off, but, among the national-religious leaders, that stuff—corruption, et cetera—doesn’t happen. In the Army, in the settlements, whether you like it or not, there is idealism.”

The slick, rising star Naftali Bennett is the focus of the piece, along with his goal of annexation:

To Bennett, there is nothing complex about the question of occupation. There is no occupation. “The land is ours”: that is pretty much the end of the debate. “I will do everything in my power, forever, to fight against a Palestinian state being founded in the Land of Israel,” he said. “I don’t think there is a clear-cut solution for the Israeli-Arab conflict in this generation.”

Remnick shows us Bennett’s slickness (his secular appeal) and gets past it. Whatever youthful attachment Remnick had to Zionism seems to have vanished in the cold light of the Judean hills. He wants Americans to know that these folks are crazy:

[Bennett supporter Rabbi Avichai] Rontzki has said that soldiers who show their enemies mercy will be “damned,” and, after a prisoner exchange with the Palestinians that he opposed, he said that the I.D.F. should no longer arrest terrorists but, rather, “kill them in their beds.” Dov Lior, the chief rabbi of the settlement of Kiryat Arba and Hebron, once called Baruch Goldstein “holier than all the martyrs of the Holocaust”; he endorsed Bennett before moving on to a smaller, more reactionary party.

Both Bennett and Ayelet Shaked, his secular partner, put some distance between themselves and the likes of Rontzki and Lior; they insist that “politicians will make the decisions, not rabbis.” But they will not denounce such voices. The pages of Haaretz routinely report incidents of rabbinical or settler racism, and even many levelheaded conservatives acknowledge that in the past decade a kind of casual anti-Arab rhetoric has infected political life. “There are fewer inhibitions now about expressing hatred for the Arabs,” Yossi Klein Halevi, a scholar at the Shalom Hartman Institute, in Jerusalem, told me.

What is missing in this piece is political imagination– Haneen Zoabi and any idea of what democracy can do to extremists. The only way to marginalize the Tea Party is to let Everyone Vote– look at Scott Brown, who had to appeal to the mainstream. And the only way to marginalize the rightwing crazies is to let Everyone Vote. Desperate Labor says that Israel can be reformed by getting the 20 percent of Israeli society that is Palestinian to vote under the current system. But they don’t want to vote under Jim Crow! So, dammit change the system. 

The piece includes a visit to Assaf Sharon of Molad, an idealist I have tremendous respect for, who guided me to demonstrations, but it is a measure of his toughness of mind that Remnick doesn’t buy Sharon’s belief that the settlement enterprise can be reversed. The piece is bleak in its asides about binationalism and the tough neighborhood, but the more urgent warning is about the failure of democracy, and the violence that is bringing:

“This is all very bad news for the Palestinians,” Ghassan Khatib, the vice-president of Birzeit University, in Palestine, told me. “If Netanyahu and this new crowd come to power, there will be two casualties—the Palestinian Authority and the two-state solution. The simple practical changes on the ground—the settlement projects, the daily incidents of settler violence against our people—just do not allow for a two-state solution. Also, the radicalization of public opinion in Israel and the radicalization of the leadership reinforce each other. And that, of course, has an influence on public opinion in Palestine. The percentage of people here who support armed struggle is going up for the first time after ten years of decline. The Palestinian majority is still in favor of a two-state solution, but hopes are fading all the time.”…

“It seems that the next Israeli government will be much more radical,” Mkhaimar Abusada, a political-science professor at Al Azhar University, in Gaza, told me. “We are going to witness more settlements, a greater encirclement of East Jerusalem, and more frustration and despair. Which means we’ll have one of two scenarios: either meaningless negotiations or, if the stalemate continues, a new round of violence. And, in the end, violence is not a possibility—it’s almost a certainty.”

This is just what I’ve been pressing American journalists to do, bring the real story of Israeli extremism to mainstream readers. Given Remnick’s talents and influence, you can count on this despairing account to become the conventional wisdom.

Courage is discouraged. And so this is the moment of Naftali Bennett.
About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

147 Responses

  1. Dan Crowther
    January 15, 2013, 10:16 am

    I can’t believe I’m saying this, but I think the comparisons to the Tea Party are extremely unfair….. to the Tea Party. Whatever we think of them, the Tea Party – at least the true believers, not their corporate overlords- are a reaction to a form of economic colonialism here in the states, they’re protesting their condition ( in a very strange way, I admit). And while there does seem to be big racist contingent in the TP, they’re aren’t even in the same ball park as these whack-a-doos, in regards to their racism and especially the israeli’s violence. The thought of Phil trying to convert liberal zionists so they don’t become Tea-Hadists is really strange and, indeed, telling. People who have condoned extraordinary violence for decades will change their tune so as not to become compared to white trash from the flyover states. HA! Just might work.

    Back to Bennet and Co. – the real reason the TP comparison doesn’t work is that Bennet and Co. aren’t “reactionary,” they’re “anticipatory”; they’re ideology isn’t anything new, their views go back to founders of zionism – and yes, McBride, their views are represented in some rabbinical judaism- so rather than equate them with a political party in the states, it’s better to go back to the last major iteration of this vile strain within Israel: Meir Kahane and Kach. Tea-hadists? Nah. Kahanists? No doubt. So be honest with your friends Phil, they aren’t supporting the Tea Party, they’re supporting the Taliban.

    • Krauss
      January 15, 2013, 10:53 am

      I agree. While there is racial intolerance in the Tea Party, they are not about race(as some liberals tried to pretend was the case). Also, while some of the groups have been co-opted by the Koch brothers and similar interests, it is again an oversimplification to say that the entire movement is one giant astroturf. There are genuine grassroots. I’m definitely to the left of them on just about all social and economic issues but your basic point is correct.

      It’s now clear beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Wall St bailouts were grossly mismanaged – and that was not a mistake. It was specific policy. Homeowners got a mere 4 billion dollars of help, compared to 800 billion in direct support(and over 5 trillion in loans at zero interest via the Fed’s backchannels).

      The left lost that moment in a misdirected, but understandable, effort of loyalty to Obama’s new term. But yes, the Tea Party, for all its faults, was basically a reaction to an economic crime being done in the name of the American people. It was a live robber baron bank run – on the banks of the Fed, in broad daylight. There was injustice.

      Here, it is not a protest moment. It is deliberate colonization of another people. If the Tea Party had begun to talk about ‘Manifest Destiny’ again and displacing native Americans(the few who are left) and/or invade and displace Mexico then he’d have a point. But what is happening in Israel now is far, far more violent and pernicious than some misguided anti-government activists who had legitimate gripes about Wall St bailouts. That Remnick even makes that claim shows how incredibly soft he still is on Israel and/or Zionism.

      • seafoid
        January 15, 2013, 11:34 am

        “But yes, the Tea Party, for all its faults, was basically a reaction to an economic crime being done in the name of the American people. ”

        Maybe in 2009. But not now. The Tea Party wing of the wingnut party won’t tolerate Federal aid for the victims of Sandy.

      • Citizen
        January 16, 2013, 8:59 am

        I agree with Dan Crowther and Krauss, but seafood has a point too. When the Tea Party started getting noticed, what they were saying had been said by Ron Paul supporters for a long time already. When the professional Republicans and their cash cow backers took the reins the grass roots Tea Partiers lost even their original local influence.

      • seafoid
        January 16, 2013, 11:12 am

        In 2008/09 Walstreetpro2 on youtube captured the Zeitgeist very well

        link to youtube.com

        The anger at the bailouts, the rewards for failure, the shafting of the ordinary people

        That was the spark for the Tea Party
        and the energy was very successfully channeled towards tax cuts for the plutocrats and contempt for climate science

        Very like what happened in Egypt really.

      • seafoid
        January 16, 2013, 2:28 pm

        This link seems to work

      • Citizen
        January 17, 2013, 5:02 am

        @ seafoid
        Yeah, no problem for the Establishment to keep the Ron Paul folks and earlier Tea Party folks from joining forces. OWS separate too. Imagine if all of them had joined forces…

    • Ellen
      January 15, 2013, 11:02 am

      Dan, well said. But the thing about denizens of “flyover states?” For those of us with roots in the flyover country or living there, better might be simply their tune so as not to become compared to white trash. PERIOD.

    • Annie Robbins
      January 15, 2013, 11:20 am

      I can’t believe I’m saying this

      i can dan. just curious..did you read the article? let’s get more specific.
      remnick page 4:

      A rough analogy of the national-religious camp’s effect on the Likud is the Tea Party’s radicalization of the Republican Party. Just as the Republican House leadership moved farther to the right as it accommodated its Tea Party freshmen, Netanyahu will have to form a cabinet that acknowledges the presence of an increasing number of radical right-wingers in his and other parties, including Bennett’s. This process, however, did not begin with the elections. “We were around before the Tea Party and we are already deep within the Likud,” Danny Danon told me. “This is not an episode that passes with the wind. We are here to stay.” …..

      Theodore Herzl, the founding visionary of the Jewish state, would not have anticipated the co-option of Zionism by a right-wing religious movement.

      dan Whatever we think of them, the Tea Party – at least the true believers, not their corporate overlords- are a reaction to a form of economic colonialism here in the states, they’re protesting their condition

      remnick’s rough analogy to the t party pertained to the national-religious camp’s effect on the Likud. . whereas your critique seems to be directed towards the rise of the t party vs the rise of the national religious in israel and what prompted that rise.

      and krauss also, with his mentioning of wall street and why the t party formed. perhaps you could give us your ideas of remnick’s pt, the one phil was reviewing.

      The thought of Phil trying to convert liberal zionists so they don’t become Tea-Hadists is really strange and, indeed, telling.

      again, did you read the article dan?

      • Dan Crowther
        January 15, 2013, 11:55 am

        Annie,

        Yes, I read the article.

      • Annie Robbins
        January 15, 2013, 12:18 pm

        great, then what did you think of remnick’s analogy, pertaining to the effects of the national religious pushing likud to the right? as opposed to the rise of the t party which wasn’t really covered in the article or the analogy.

        btw phil’s reviewing remnick here..under the circumstances his reference to the t party was wrt remnick’s rough analogy.

      • Annie Robbins
        January 15, 2013, 12:30 pm

        also this dan:

        [Bennett supporter Rabbi Avichai] Rontzki has said that soldiers who show their enemies mercy will be “damned,” and, after a prisoner exchange with the Palestinians that he opposed, he said that the I.D.F. should no longer arrest terrorists but, rather, “kill them in their beds.” Dov Lior, the chief rabbi of the settlement of Kiryat Arba and Hebron, once called Baruch Goldstein “holier than all the martyrs of the Holocaust”; he endorsed Bennett before moving on to a smaller, more reactionary party.

        (my bold)

        not sure if you’re familiar with fair use but phil’s limited to how much of the text he can grab. the reason i asked if you’d read the article is because the kahanist play a very large roll in the article. one phil referenced in the second line: It’s a great piece of reporting, marked by scary intimate moments with three crazies, Dani Dayan, Moshe Feiglin and Naftali Bennett.

        i bring this up because of So be honest with your friends Phil, they aren’t supporting the Tea Party, they’re supporting the Taliban.

        not sure where this comes from. the part i blockquoted here is from the heart of the section of the 10 page article explaining the kahanists. assuming you know who Baruch Goldstein is?

      • Dan Crowther
        January 15, 2013, 12:34 pm

        I don’t think the religious nationalist are pushing or have ever pushed the Likud to the right – that’s why I disagree with Remnick. The Likud has been “center right” to the extent they had to be (on the surface), but the underlying ideology is the same as Bennet’s. The strain represented by Bennet and Co. has been there the entire time and can’t by definition be “reactionary” because they represent the vanguard of a expansionist ideology, they now see their opportunity and they are taking it, to think this wasn’t the plan the entire time is foolish, another reason why I – and others – disagree with Remnick.

      • Dan Crowther
        January 15, 2013, 12:43 pm

        Yo Robbins -

        Yeah, I know who Baruch Goldstein is. Do you know how to write intelligibly? I’m not here to take quizzes from the MW staff.

        It’s pretty easy to understand: Remnick let’s Zionism and Israel off easy with comparisons to a loosely assembled political group in the US – there are plenty of more appropriate examples he could use, examples where these “crazies” have state power, like they do in Israel and in much of the Middle East. Do you understand? Have I made myself clear? Are you as insulted by these types of questions as I am?

        I’ve had at least two other people agree with my original – I’m hardly out on a limb here.

      • Annie Robbins
        January 15, 2013, 12:58 pm

        The strain represented by Bennet and Co. has been there the entire time and can’t by definition be “reactionary”

        i totally agree. i don’t see any significant difference between bennet and the kahanists. that’s why i think he’s so dangerous, because he’s somehow able to build a bridge between the religious nationalist and the hard right Jabotinsky crowd.

        i guess where we differ here, is the way i read it, that was remnick’s point. i thought the heart of the article (pgs 4 thru 8) was demonstrating that. infact, one part phil blockquoted, at remnick’s introduction (as i recall) of explaining these similairties here:

        Both Bennett and Ayelet Shaked, his secular partner, put some distance between themselves and the likes of Rontzki and Lior; they insist that “politicians will make the decisions, not rabbis.” But they will not denounce such voices.

        i thought it was making that point. that they aren’t exactly outing themselves but remnick sees beyond that. i thought remnick’s point was making the same point you’re making about them being, essentially, one and the same.

      • Donald
        January 15, 2013, 1:04 pm

        I think Remnick still admires the liberal Zionists, but sees them as near extinction. I think he understands that at bottom the rightwing Zionists have the same motives, but Netanyahu feels like he has to pretend to support a 2SS and Bennet doesn’t. So I agree with Annie about where Remnick stands, I think.

        In a weird sort of way Netanyahu is rather like Morsi–the NYT today had a front page story about the vicious anti-semitic remarks he made in 2010, but these days, in order to stay friends with the US, he is keeping the peace with Israel and not expressing his uglier sentiments out in the open. The difference is that Morsi really is keeping the peace, while Netanyahu only has to pretend to support a 2SS.

      • seanmcbride
        January 15, 2013, 1:06 pm

        Dan Crowther,

        I find your recent comments to be lucid and reasonable — I can find little to disagree with in them.

      • Annie Robbins
        January 15, 2013, 1:07 pm

        Are you as insulted by these types of questions as I am?

        oh not at all. i was just interested in discussing what i regarded as the substance of remnick’s article, as opposed to the reactionary rise of the t party (or this relation to israeli political parties) which really wasn’t addressed in the remnicks article.

        i suppose i just wanted to discuss the article because i agree with phil, in that i think it’s a great piece of reporting. one of the best in explaining what’s happening with the political scene in israel. essential really. something i’ve been wanting to do for quite awhile but simply didn’t feel qualified.

      • Dan Crowther
        January 15, 2013, 1:08 pm

        My reply at 12:43 was written before Annie’s last two posts. I apologize for being gruff – Annie, we indeed agree on most. I don’t want to come off as bashing Remnick – it’s a great piece.

      • Annie Robbins
        January 15, 2013, 1:18 pm

        no worries dan, at all. i’m really excited about the conversation. sorry i offended you.

        edit: and i started out as a commenter here, i really like the threads and feel the commenters/comments are a vital part of the site. the questions i asked were my own personal questions.

      • seanmcbride
        January 15, 2013, 1:30 pm

        Annie,

        We all get a little wound up now and then — including me. :) These are incredibly intense topics and issues. It would be strange if some emotional excitement didn’t creep into the comments now and then, no matter how intellectually self-disciplined most of us are.

      • Annie Robbins
        January 15, 2013, 1:38 pm

        i have to admit sean, i am really excited about this article. i sent it to phil immediately after you posted it in the comment section yesterday..before even reading it. and then as i was reading it it hit me how perhaps, given the prominence of the newyorker, americans might really begin (for the first time) to get a sense of how off the rails things are becoming in israel.

        so i am very very excited to discuss this phenomena, as opposed to say..the rise of the t party which doesn’t interest me in the least (albeit it’s an important topic, but perhaps one that could dominate a less important thread). so as an individual i have a personal investment here. i really can’t think of any other mainstream article i have ever read that better demonstrates the radicalization of israel.

      • seanmcbride
        January 15, 2013, 1:48 pm

        Annie,

        I hear you and agree completely. This Remnick article is extremely important, for the reasons you mentioned.

        Zite discovered the article for me (on my smartphone), I immediately posted it to Mondoweiss on Friendfeed, and then linked to it here. It is one of most important articles on Mideast politics I have seen during recent months.

        I think we may be on the verge of seeing a major shift in the thinking of some influential American “liberal Zionists” — one can hope.

      • Annie Robbins
        January 15, 2013, 2:30 pm

        yeah, the part about Feiglin starting on pg 6…casts bennett as a younger slicked up version less calculating in his manner; he doesn’t pretend to be new and “fresh” more than just implying bennett is a new and fresh feiglin whom he points out feiglin’s chief lieutenant, was a follower of Meir Kahane. so he visits feiglin who talks about the secular zionism (netanyahu) /likud being ‘too soft’ and feiglin starts another party.

        The concept of Oslo has disappeared. On the right, what is fascinating is between Likud and Naftali Bennett. With all modesty, I am behind it. Since Oslo, since Zo Artzeinu, we developed a concept of what the right should do—put a different agenda on the Israeli field and create a new layer of leadership that, instead of coming from the leftist avant-garde, comes from the right avant-garde.”

        In Feiglin’s view, secular Zionism tried to gain a measure of acceptance from its neighbors and the world community by relinquishing land. “The concept we’ve started to develop is that the answer is not with the neighbors—it’s with us,” he said. “We are not like all other nations. The Jews are different. Our goal should be to develop our special culture based on the Torah and the Prophets as a message and a symbol to the family of nations, to all of entire humanity.”

        …….He would like to see a Third Temple built on the Temple Mount—…. This is no longer an unusual position; at least seven people on Netanyahu’s list support the construction of a Third Temple. “I believe in the Bible,” Feiglin said. “I believe that just as most visions of the Prophets already came true against all odds—the fact that the Jewish people survived from all corners of the world and came back to the Promised Land, as promised in the Bible, is the most fascinating miracle in history—what still remains to be done will happen, too. At the end, the Third Temple will be built.”

        When I asked him how, he shrugged, and said, “Do you think Herzl knew how it was going to happen? Read his book. He had no idea. It all happened in a different way. All he did was plant the dream in people’s mind and the rest is history.”

        but, as remnick pointed out, hertzl had only disdain for the religious. remnick later makes the pt, via another interview this right avant-garde is now ‘middle class’ and says “Naftali Bennett is the face of the next generation of religious nationalism.”

        iow Feiglin’s radicalness has now gone middle class via bennett who is just a slicked up younger version of Feiglin.

        goes on (pg 9) to quote bennett:

        Herzl’s Zionism, which was based on creating security for an endangered people, dissipated. “It was so powerful that the first generation had this mission to re-create the state, and it worked,” he said. “But only so much. My generation didn’t feel an existential threat, and it was gone.” What he represents, he tells his audiences, “is a handover of the baton from security-based Zionism to a Jewish-based Zionism…..”

        what bennett means by ‘jewish based zionism’ is of course judaic based zionism. ..now that judaism has been firmly implanted into herzel’s original non religious based zionism.

      • seanmcbride
        January 15, 2013, 2:37 pm

        Annie,

        You and I are beginning to get on the same page with regard to noticing some dangerous issues with religious Zionism. Great quotes and bolded passages here — you are seeing the signals in the noise.

      • Annie Robbins
        January 15, 2013, 2:48 pm

        yeah totally sean, we’ve agreed about these things all along and i have been following them for years. where we parted ways (which i’d prefer not delving into here for obvious reasons) was the connotation and conversation regarding complete judaism engulfment into zionism and for me making the distinction between the way it’s practiced by it’s followers vs the religion itself. and i realize i am not adept and articulating my meaning and would prefer not sidetracking this particular thread. but on all these basics about what’s been happening wrt practitioners and zionism we completely agree.

      • seanmcbride
        January 15, 2013, 3:03 pm

        Annie,

        I appreciate your sensitivity about taking care not to brand all followers of Judaism in any way whatever — it requires the utmost surgical precision to delve into the topic of relations between Judaism and Zionism, and a spirit of good will and fairness. But the subject of religious Zionism must be approached aggressively, in my opinion, since it may be the most important factor driving Israel over the cliff — and the United States with it.

      • Annie Robbins
        January 15, 2013, 3:49 pm

        the subject of religious Zionism must be approached aggressively

        yes i agree. however, speaking personally of course (not representing the site, phil or adam and as a non jew with limited understanding of the religion) regardless of how ‘fused’ (your wording) the religion has become within zionism..zionism needs judaism to thrive (as was pointed out by bennett in the article) which was why it’s been co-opted for years by the secular expansionists. whereas the religion itself, no matter how miniscule amount of followers are non zionists (even if there were none left!), can at any time be interpreted as non zionist. therefore when one says there is no difference between the them, well there is. so we can approach it very aggressively as far as i am concerned, as long as we don’t promote an idea judaism doesn’t exist outside of zionism. because religion is in the mind and the religious do have the power to transcend current trends. in fact, there is a possibility the only thing that can wrench judaism out of the clutches of zionism is thru those believers. some of whom could in fact be amongst the readers of mondoweiss. (and that’s all i am going to say on that topic here)

      • seanmcbride
        January 15, 2013, 4:06 pm

        Annie,

        Again, we agree.

        I have argued many times that there are important strains in Judaism — especially Orthodox and Reform Judaism — that are non-Zionist or anti-Zionist.

        I have also argued that the secular founders of Zionism relied heavily on myths, symbols, beliefs and themes from ancient and classical Judaism, that religious Zionism has acquired increasing traction in Israel and among Zionists around the world, and that the worldwide Jewish religious establishment has, for the most part, enthusiastically embraced Zionism and fused the ideologies of Judaism and Zionism in their public statements and doctrines.

        As you can see, the two paragraphs above are logically consistent. I am making a nuanced argument.

        If you still find points of disagreement between us on this issue, feel free to express them. :) We are all trying to figure these things out as we go along.

      • seafoid
        January 15, 2013, 4:24 pm

        When the dust has all settled and the clock starts again Judaism is going to have to have a long hard look at the role of Messianism in the faith and why Jerusalem is so important. Is Jerusalem a metaphysical concept or does it have to have kosher shopping centers and be ringed with checkpoints and torture cells? How did land worship take over from basic morality ? Should concepts of architectural quality be incorporated into the relaunch ?

      • Mooser
        January 15, 2013, 4:52 pm

        Annie, as you say, no tangents on this, but there’s another, and very tragic aspect to this, which could easily confuse prejudiced observers; by now, the relative power and asset distribution between Zionism and Judaism is so one sided that the frightening possibility that Judaism has become dependent on Zionism must be considered.

      • Annie Robbins
        January 15, 2013, 5:30 pm

        i’m a secular person mooser. if i could snap my fingers i’d erase all organized religion as if it had never entered into human civilization. but i am not. i simply have to accept that i share the world with billions of people who practice religion. and so it is by sheer will and determination to decide there is goodness in all of these religions and that practitioners have the option to use their faith for good. so, i see no reason to exclude judaism from the list of religions i must contend with. and therefore will myself to afford the same generosity towards the religion that i do all others. otherwise i would have to readjust my entire mindset wrt how to deal with the reality of all these religions and the religious people out there. including christianity, christians, islam and muslims of course.

        so it’s much easier to not blame the religions and to blame the religious who can bring out the worst in the religions. a religion is not a person, therefore it cannot become dependent the way a person can. only the practitioners of a religion can become dependent.

      • Mooser
        January 15, 2013, 6:10 pm

        “a religion is not a person, therefore it cannot become dependent the way a person can.”

        Well, I was thinking, Judaism as an institution, but you are right, what happens to Judaism, the religion, as an institution is Judaism’s own look-out. And not at all a central concern in justice for, or even an improvement in the lives of Palestinians.

      • Mooser
        January 15, 2013, 6:23 pm

        “When the dust has all settled and the clock starts again Judaism is going to have to have a long hard look…”

        If I may, I’ll mention that Shmuel also (as I read his comment) thinks Zionism has retarded Judaism’s adjustment to modernity. And I assumed that, but never knew how bad it was.

      • thetumta
        January 15, 2013, 8:50 pm

        “noticing some dangerous issues with religious Zionism. ” This is recent a recent development? Your are just now noticing the Judea-Christian wing of Al-Quida. You are going to be very, very disappointed. Bad days ahead.

        Hej!

      • Citizen
        January 16, 2013, 9:45 am

        @Annie Robbins
        I would erase all religion too, if I could. Since religion is not a person, isn’t religion dependent on those who claim it and say or imply they act in its name? One could say the same thing about secular ideologies, yes? Or governments? Or is religion some kind of hybrid, a fictitious “person” given officially recognized powers and, especially recently in America under POTUS, somewhat like a corporation–it has anthropomorphic attributes? Corporations are characterized in legalese, as are governments, with the latter, (and Religion) depending on the regime in question, also by more vague “mission statements” than any corporation’s.

        Some people these days separate the historical Crusades from Christianity, and some do not. Will historical Judaism and what’s done in its name be viewed similarly in a few centuries? Enter the 1948 state of Israel up to the present time.

        Is the creed in the deed? Or not? Chicken and egg? Inductive or deductive logic?

      • Annie Robbins
        January 16, 2013, 11:38 pm

        citizen, what mooser said Judaism as an institution, but you are right, what happens to Judaism, the religion, as an institution is Judaism’s own look-out.

        please note i said i would erase all organized religion, as opposed to all religion, i meant religion as an institution. but religion as an idea is something else. you asked:

        Since religion is not a person, isn’t religion dependent on those who claim it and say or imply they act in its name?

        it is dependent on it in a sense of spreading it,or interpreting it. but religion is an idea. for example if there were ideas in a book, would they be dependent on the reader? a government or a corporation are institutions, as is organized religion. but a religion, as an idea is not the same. it becomes evil when people use the ideas for evil means.

        Some people these days separate the historical Crusades from Christianity, and some do not. Will historical Judaism and what’s done in its name be viewed similarly in a few centuries

        the crusades and christianity is a good example of what i am talking about. did christianity do horrible things, or the practitioner? zionism and what’s done in judaism’s name, has surely hurt the religion or as mooser mentioned paraphrasing shmuel “retarded Judaism’s adjustment to modernity” but i do think it will be viewed differently in the future, and that’s a very apropo analogy.

      • Citizen
        January 17, 2013, 5:16 am

        ” for example if there were ideas in a book, would they be dependent on the reader?”

        All books have at least one human author. I know of none that do not at least imply at least one idea; many imply (at least) a matrix of ideas. Sometimes the ideas in this matrix conflict. Who takes any single reader’s interpretation of a book as “gospel”? And here I am not even talking about foreign language translations.

        If a tree fell in a forest–remember that one, Annie?

        At one time, the only maps available depicted stray ships falling off the edge of the planet, and nothing but sea monsters way out there in the water…. there’s a couple of ideas/concepts easy enough to grasp without much confusion, eh? Easy as an anthropomorphic god.

      • Hostage
        January 16, 2013, 3:18 am

        Theodore Herzl, the founding visionary of the Jewish state, would not have anticipated the co-option of Zionism by a right-wing religious movement.

        In fact he was very familiar with the prevalence of that type of thinking among the members of his movement. He fantasized about defeating the religious nationalist wing in the general elections described in his book Altneuland .

        The book sets the stage for the showdown in 1923. Old-New Land is the scene of a hotly contested electoral campaign that year. A newly arrived immigrant, Rabbi Dr. Geyer, established a political party that proposed a measure to strip the non-Jewish inhabitants of their right to vote. The Rabbi claimed that citizenship and voting rights should be strictly limited to Jews in a Jewish state. He is a racist who advocates the adoption of an apartheid-like system. Although he does not advocate that the Arabs and other non-Jews should not be deported, he does insist that they be excluded from the Jewish polity and the public life of the country.

        So one of the central themes of the book is the predictable battle over the country’s soul. Its a contest between the liberals and the racists. Herzl provides accounts about speeches delivered at political rallies regarding the different meanings and aims the adversaries attached to the “Jewish” character of the country they are trying the create. In the end, the Rabbi’s party goes down in defeat, and he leaves the country humiliated. Many Zionists are embarrassed by the book, because there was nothing Jewish about the state described in Herzl’s book.

      • Annie Robbins
        January 16, 2013, 10:52 am

        how fascinating hostage

      • seanmcbride
        January 16, 2013, 11:24 am

        Hostage,

        If Theodor Herzl were able to take a good look at Israel in 2013, do you think he might come to the conclusion that the entire Zionist enterprise had been a terrible mistake? Yet another episode of false messianism among several such episodes that have bedeviled Jewish history?

      • seanmcbride
        January 16, 2013, 11:37 am

        Hostage,

        I am still thinking that it might be interesting to develop a Wikipedia/Wikidata-style reference tool devoted to formally organizing all the knowledge and facts that are regularly discussed on Mondoweiss. If you ever feel motivated to explore this possibility, let me know.

        As I envision it, it would be strongly list-oriented (surprise, surprise!), although not limited to lists. For instance, in Semantic Webese, the hashtag at the beginning of a line defines the beginning of a list, with the title of the list directly following the hashtag. A few lists that would be interesting to peruse in an effort to wrap one’s mind around Herzl:

        # Theodor Herzl: affiliations
        # Theodor Herzl: articles by by newest
        # Theodor Herzl: articles by by oldest
        # Theodor Herzl: articles by by publication
        # Theodor Herzl: articles on by newest
        # Theodor Herzl: articles on by oldest
        # Theodor Herzl: articles on by publication
        # Theodor Herzl: associates
        # Theodor Herzl: associations
        # Theodor Herzl: books on by newest
        # Theodor Herzl: books on by oldest
        # Theodor Herzl: categories
        # Theodor Herzl: images of
        # Theodor Herzl: policies
        # Theodor Herzl: quotes by by newest
        # Theodor Herzl: quotes by by oldest
        # Theodor Herzl: quotes on by newest
        # Theodor Herzl: quotes on by oldest
        # Theodor Herzl: timeline by newest
        # Theodor Herzl: timeline by oldest
        # Theodor Herzl: topics
        # Theodor Herzl: works by by newest
        # Theodor Herzl: works by by oldest
        # Theodor Herzl: works on by newest
        # Theodor Herzl: works on by oldest

        Those are 25 separate lists that need to be filled in with list items. Each list would occupy a single webpage. Each list could be filtered with incremental/progressive search.

        Do you see how this would work? (This approach could be used for any topic under the sun — or above it.)

      • seanmcbride
        January 16, 2013, 12:14 pm

        By the way, any discussion about building a Wikipedia/Wikidata-style reference tool for Mideast politics can be pursued on my personal Friendfeed feed here:

        link to friendfeed.com

        Some of this discussion might be a bit arcane for Mondoweiss.

      • Mooser
        January 16, 2013, 1:29 pm

        “Yet another episode of false messianism among several such episodes that have bedeviled Jewish history?”

        Jeez, Sean, have a heart! Us Jews are not entitled to the true messianism of Christianity, so we’re left with cruddy substitutes. What can you do with people like that?

      • Hostage
        January 16, 2013, 3:53 pm

        If Theodor Herzl were able to take a good look at Israel in 2013, do you think he might come to the conclusion that the entire Zionist enterprise had been a terrible mistake?

        I don’t know. I think that his Zionist works were written, at least in part, for use as propaganda to keep Gentiles from adopting principled objections to his scheme.

        I’ve noted elsewhere that he secretly wanted a global empire which could accommodate the excess population, amounting to millions of Jews. He and the leadership realized that 12-15 million Jews couldn’t all be herded into tiny Palestine.

        In addition, his draft Palestine Land Company Charter reserved the right of the Zionists to expropriate land and transfer the non-Jewish population to other parts of the Ottoman Empire on payment of compensation. In practice, compensation probably only meant bribes for the officials of the receiving countries. At least that’s the way the subsequent attempts to implement transfer schemes always played out.

      • Hostage
        January 17, 2013, 1:24 am

        Do you see how this would work?

        Yes. One of my guilty pleasures, while working in a U.S. Air Force MAJCOM staff position in the 1970s was the opportunity to obtain R&D funding for projects in my functional area of responsibility and to visit the folks doing the related work on UNIX applications at MITRE Corporation, the Berkeley Computer Science Research Center, and at Bell Labs.

        The biggest thrill was getting acquainted with my late friend Dennis Ritchie. He was on the DARPA Advisory Board at the time. It’s been a while since I poked around his interesting collection of UNIX “incunabula” @ link to cm.bell-labs.com – but there are still a couple of items there that dmr credits to yours truly;-)

      • MRW
        January 17, 2013, 5:14 am

        @Hostage,

        That link was a trip down memory lane. I worked as a consultant at Bell Labs in 1984 for the creator of UNIX IV’s project. Don’t remember his name. He was considered a Bell Labs God. We were producing a futuristic product with MIT Media Labs; I was called in because the job had to meet a deadline within three weeks that they were behind on. I stayed on as a consultant for the Labs, various locations, then AT&T Services groups for another six years. Never worked at Murray Hill, though. Just the people who had worked there, if that makes sense. But I was on the baseball team.

      • Citizen
        January 17, 2013, 5:27 am

        @ Mooser
        Let them eat Nietzsche?

      • Hostage
        January 17, 2013, 7:27 am

        I worked as a consultant at Bell Labs in 1984.

        The powers that be in government were discouraging new projects with AT&T by 1984, because of the federal antitrust lawsuit. But MITRE and the Air Force were using the Berkeley patches on Research UNIX anyway. So most of our attention had been focused on things that were being done under contracts with the research center at UC Berkeley or at MITRE. The only person from Murray Hill I ever met was Dennis and we were both visiting Sandia Labs at the time. If the project head for System IV wasn’t or Ken or Dennis, I wouldn’t know who it was.

        Never worked at Murray Hill, though. Just [with] the people who had worked there

        I stayed in contact with Dennis for years via emails, because of his work on the DARPA advisory board, our involvement in USENIX, or whenever one of us was tracking down old papers and documentation. I think most of the Bell Labs UNIX people I had any dealings with were located in Naperville Illinois or Columbus Ohio anyway (for whatever reason).

      • seanmcbride
        January 17, 2013, 9:38 am

        Hostage,

        I feel like I just stepped into an alternative universe — you also have a foot in this world — in addition to your command of international law? Amazing.

      • MRW
        January 17, 2013, 10:52 am

        @Hostage,

        I think most of the Bell Labs UNIX people I had any dealings with were located in Naperville Illinois or Columbus Ohio anyway (for whatever reason).

        They were positioned near one of the major national switch nodes.

      • American
        January 17, 2013, 12:09 pm

        “”I’ve noted elsewhere that he secretly wanted a global empire which could accommodate the excess population, amounting to millions of Jews. He and the leadership realized that 12-15 million Jews couldn’t all be herded into tiny Palestine.”…Hostage

        That’s interesting Hostage. I’ve only skimmed Herzl, never got into really studying it…so I didn’t catch that…..but it does seem to be how zionism is playing out in Israel. ..their desire to be a “global power”.

      • MRW
        January 17, 2013, 12:46 pm

        Also, I think they manufactured the 5ESS switch out there, but not sure.

      • Hostage
        January 17, 2013, 4:28 pm

        I feel like I just stepped into an alternative universe — you also have a foot in this world — in addition to your command of international law? Amazing.

        International law was a required part of the continuing professional military education of everyone in staff positions dealing with combat operations and planning at the time. I just continued to have an interest in the subject and happened to bump into people, either in real life or online, that were acknowledged experts. In a lot instances we ended-up picking one another’s brains in international law journal forums or on their blogs – just like we do here at Mondo.

        Back in the day, if you had an interest in photography and imaging, history, political science, international law, computers, or almost any other subject, it didn’t hurt to have a day job that allowed you regular access to the ARPANET and a hand in some of its funding, design, and administration.

      • MRW
        January 18, 2013, 1:08 am

        @seanmcbride, re Hostage: Back in the day, if you had an interest in photography and imaging, history, political science, international law, computers, or almost any other subject… administration .

        The net then was not the net now. It was not commercial. The mindset was so far afield from what the net has become today that unless you were there, you can’t imagine it (because ready access to info today is 5% of what it was). Really creative programmer scientists were creating the backbone of the net at places like Bell Labs, Berkeley, and CERN; they were funny, iconoclastic, subversive in a good way, off-the-wall, and smart. We used networks the way people use SMS today (because paging didn’t cut it), without the text/char restrictions, with access to databases worldwide and info that have since become unavailable to regular folk. I had a directory the size of a phone book to locate and talk to people before the www. protocol came in. That’s why I told you elsewhere that I consider most news aggregators mental strait-jackets, and I am aware of the algorithms that make those choices.

        Reading Ritchie’s description of how they designed the UNIX file structure is like listening to great music, but you had to be there. ;-)

      • seanmcbride
        January 18, 2013, 3:35 am

        Hostage,

        Two questions which you can feel to ignore — but perhaps you have some thoughts.

        1. Who do you think are currently the most important big strategic thinkers within or associated with DOD?

        2. How did neoconservatives manage to acquire such a powerful foothold within the military-industrial complex? Why weren’t they more effectively challenged by better minds?

      • seanmcbride
        January 18, 2013, 3:37 am

        Hostage,

        And a game, if you want play: which organizations, if any, would you add to this collection?

        1. ACM
        2. American Academy of Arts and Sciences
        3. ARFL
        4. CIA
        5. DARPA
        6. DIA
        7. DSB
        8. Harvard
        9. Harvard Society of Fellows
        10. Jason Society
        11. LLNL
        12. Lockheed Martin
        13. MIT
        14. MIT Center for Collective Intelligence
        15. MIT CSAIL
        16. MIT Lincoln Laboratory
        17. MITRE
        18. NAS
        19. NSA
        20. ONR
        21. PFIAB
        22. RAND
        23. Raytheon
        24. Stanford

      • Hostage
        January 18, 2013, 4:03 am

        I think most of the Bell Labs UNIX people I had any dealings with were located in Naperville Illinois or Columbus Ohio anyway (for whatever reason).

        They were positioned near one of the major national switch nodes.

        I meant that most of the people I had personal dealings with through USENIX, standards conferences, and base level contracts just happened to be from those two facilities.

        I think they manufactured the 5ESS switch out there, but not sure.

        The projects I worked on were one-off R&D prototypes. By the time the Air Force converted entire bases from analog to digital switches, they only did one or two with AT&T on a non-competitive basis (“maintenance by replacement”). I was involved in one of those projects at Tinker AFB. The other telecommunications companies went back to the Court under the antitrust settlement and demanded that they be allowed to bid on replacement projects. I only got involved with one more of those, at McConnell AFB. The contractor was Centel, and the equipment wasn’t manufactured by AT&T.

      • Ellen
        January 18, 2013, 6:08 am

        my goodness! Yes memory lane. Pre 1984 I worked with DARPA staff @ a Signal Command. A remote “foreign” node, a dusty office with green walls and metal desks, no windows. Live texting and testing with Murray Hill and “real people” working with MITRE or Bell seemed a miracle back then.

      • MRW
        January 17, 2013, 5:23 am

        Theodore Herzl, the founding visionary of the Jewish state, would not have anticipated the co-option of Zionism by a right-wing religious movement.

        Baloney. It’s sorta’ why he invented it. From historian Gabriel Kolko:

        Vienna was surely the most intellectually creative place in the world at the end of the 19th century. Economics, art, philosophy, political theories on the Right as well as Left, psychoanalysis – Vienna gave birth or influenced most of them. Ideas had to be very original to be noticed, and most were. We must understand the unique and rare innovative environment in which Theodore Herzl, an assimilated Hungarian Jew who became the founder of Zionism, functioned. For a time he was also a German nationalist and went through phases admiring Richard Wagner and Martin Luther. Herzl was many things, including a very efficient organizer, but he was also very conservative and feared that Jews without a state – especially those in Russia – would become revolutionaries.

        A state based on religion rather than the will of all of its inhabitants was at the end of the 19th century not only a medieval notion but also a very eccentric idea, one Herzl concocted in the rarified environment of cafes where ideas were produced with scant regard for reality. It was also full of countless contradictions, based not merely on the conflicts between theological dogmas and democracy but also vast cultural differences among Jews, all of which were to appear later. Europe’s Jews have precious little in common, and their mores and languages are very distinct. But the gap between Jews from Europe and those from the Arab world was far, far greater. Moreover, there were many radically different kinds of Zionism within a small movement, ranging from the religiously motivated to Marxists who wanted to cease being Jews altogether and, as Ber Borochov would have it, become “normal.” In the end, all that was to unite Israel was a military ethic premised on a hatred of those “others” around them – and it was to become a warrior-state, a virtual Sparta dominated by its army. Initially, at least, Herzl had the fate of Russian and East European Jews in mind; the outcome was very different.

        link to antiwar.com

  2. Krauss
    January 15, 2013, 10:17 am

    Remnick is so gifted, but no matter how despairing he becomes he refuses to give up on ethnic nationalism and as such I can never write of him as a liberal.

    There is an important difference with genuine liberals like himself and fake ‘liberals’(actually soft Likudniks like Goldberg). Remnick’s despairing is genuine, and it is out of democratic angst. Goldberg’s et al’s “despair’ is grounded in the ethno-nationalist fear of an Arab majority. That’s why they want the 2SS, not because it is democratic, but because they are smart enough to understand that it is the best path forward to retaining an Arab-rein state.

    Remnick, on the other hand, isn’t in it for Zionism merely for the ethnic aspect, he has a strong democratic undercurrent to his sensibilities, in a way that Goldberg (or for that matter Dershowitz), does not have. And that honors him.

    • Krauss
      January 15, 2013, 10:48 am

      By the way Phil, Annie, Adam and Scott (and the rest of the staff). Just stumbled over this:

      link to freebeacon.com

      Several notes/questions: have the AIPAC/neocon crowd begun to crowdsource their services to hackers in order to delegitimize backs of Hagel?

      Second, interesting that apparently Phil and Andrew Sullivan weren’t the only people who pointed out the disaster when Abrams was able to smear Hagel as an anti-Semitie over and over again without any impunity at all. Fallows apparently felt it was wrong too(haven’t check if he wrote about it). This shows that the fact that Abrams is out there running wild without any consequences is making a lot of MSM journalists feeling sick, and it’s a wake-up call.

      Third, as I keep coming back to, how long will Goldberg stay at Atlantic? He has already half-migrated to Bloomberg. He can read the tea leaves. Bloomberg will always give him cover for his AIPAC talking points and smear campaigns(Walt a ‘grubby Jew-baiter’ anyone?)

      Atlantic is as centrist Democratic as you can get. They get people from the Economist for crying out loud. These are Clintonian Democrats. If the Israel lobbyists are losing these people, you don’t do well.

      New Yorker is moving, as illustrated above, in a staunch pro-peace direction. At some point taking a stand against de facto Apartheid has to become a priority rather than just empty denouncements.

      The only real outlet left is The New Republic, where the ‘liberal’ Zionists have been giving their own a bunch of jobs……The new owner is that facebook yuppie, and he has shown he doesn’t understand journalism(as everyone predicted) nor has he any bravery. He’s basically like Rachel Maddow. Liberal on social issues but on all other issues he just does what he is supposed to do.

      Nevertheless, without TNR, is there any mainstream liberal media institution left?
      Israel is quickly becomming a left vs right issue as the Likudniks, the Jewish settlers and pro-Apartheid New Afrikaaners solidify their strangehold on Israel.

      Goldberg wrote of the ‘settler lobby’. This is an old smokescreen. It’s the settler establishment. That is becomming increasingly clear to liberals in America. They’re not buying the bullshit Goldberg and other Israel lobbyists are peddling.

      • iamuglow
        January 15, 2013, 2:41 pm

        “Israel is quickly becomming a left vs right issue”

        It is. And the support on the right won’t be very deep when aid or the costs of more Middle East wars comes up.

        The only narrative that works accross parties is keeping people in fear of terrorism and ‘Muslims hate our way of life and want to kill us all’. TV and movies hammer that message home, and IMO Americans still believe it, but its not as strongly as they once did.

      • Mooser
        January 15, 2013, 3:41 pm

        “New Yorker is moving, as illustrated above, in a staunch pro-peace direction.”

        An welcome improvement in the magazine.

  3. Ellen
    January 15, 2013, 10:25 am

    The message is important and acknowledge by few:

    Remnick is bringing down the curtain on Zionism. It began as a secular movement to create a democracy, now it’s devolved into the Tea Party, a religious ideology about the bible and the land, but a Tea Party with a major role in governing the country.

    It is a fanatical tea party soon to have their hands on nukes. This is a real threat to Israel and the world, and not Nutiyahoo’s “This is a Bomb”Iran cartoon threats at the U.N.

    • lysias
      January 15, 2013, 12:19 pm

      Does the U.S. have the technical means to neutralize Israel’s nuclear weapons and/or delivery systems? The fate of the world and the survival of mankind may soon depend upon the U.S. or some other country having that capability.

      • seanmcbride
        January 15, 2013, 1:23 pm

        lysias,

        Does the U.S. have the technical means to neutralize Israel’s nuclear weapons and/or delivery systems? The fate of the world and the survival of mankind may soon depend upon the U.S. or some other country having that capability.

        This scenario has been out there for several decades: Israel may have already planted portable WMDs in strategic locations around the world, including the United States and Europe, as an insurance policy. If that were true, it could be difficult to neutralize that threat.

        Even a few mini-nukes, strategically placed (use your imagination), could wreak enormous damage on the United States and Europe.

        What would be the best method to neutralize this threat? Again, use your imagination. (It doesn’t require any use of violence.)

      • thetumta
        January 15, 2013, 9:16 pm

        “use of violence” is absolutely necessary. We could start with the mysterious disappearance of the 5 Israeli Dolphin submarines, their crews and their stolen nuclear cruise missiles(can anyone explain why the Germans supplied them?) Followed up by an extension of Obama’s policy of assassinating anyone he pleases, but by his replacement.
        Most of Likud are not American citizens. No problem and according to Obama the ones that are, are no problem either. And their very noisy and out there in your face. How convenient. Hollywood would become a ghost town.
        Hej!

      • seanmcbride
        January 15, 2013, 11:14 pm

        Eliminating the Dolphin submarines doesn’t deal with the problem of strategically located mini-nukes that are already in place. You need a better plan. And you need to know precisely where the tripwire for triggering the Samson Option is located.

      • Citizen
        January 17, 2013, 5:49 am

        @ seanmcbride
        Let’s see, those Dolphins and IDF F-16s could be eliminated. Israel now has an intercontinental missile system right? Jericos? (sic) The only nonmember of NNPT to have such nuclear armed reach, right? I read Israel’s is comparable to France’s.

      • Ellen
        January 15, 2013, 1:42 pm

        Of course not.

        And coming clean and addressing the Israeli nuclear arsenal will have to be a part of any negotiated peace in the region. That would be a given. But Israel has no intention ever of allowing that and this is the reason the nuclear capacity remains unrevealed and closed to international inspection.

        It is the catch 22 and another reason why in the mind of fanatics there is no motivation ever to create any conditions to allow negotiations.

        But the US allowed this condition and is perhaps blackmailed into a position of it’s own destruction.

  4. seafoid
    January 15, 2013, 10:35 am

    “Dov Lior, the chief rabbi of the settlement of Kiryat Arba and Hebron, once called Baruch Goldstein “holier than all the martyrs of the Holocaust”;”

    That is vile. As if Auschwitz was run to allow Hevron to happen.

    • Mooser
      January 15, 2013, 3:45 pm

      “That is vile. As if Auschwitz was run to allow Hevron to happen.”

      Yes, seafoid, that is the way I have always looked at Zionism’s noxious use of the Holocaust. I’m glad I saw your comment. Thanks.

      • seafoid
        January 15, 2013, 4:08 pm

        6 million people murdered but having a Hebron fund dinner in NYC once a year is what really counts, Mooser. This is destiny.

        You are Destiny’s Child.

      • MHughes976
        January 15, 2013, 4:10 pm

        Is it not implicit in the very word Holocaust, which is deeply theological and which refers to one kind of acceptable sacrifice, that the terrible events of WW2 were the sacrifice – supreme sacrifice in a stronger sense than that term usually has – that God accepted, perhaps demanded, for the Restoration of the Kingdom?

      • Mooser
        January 15, 2013, 6:14 pm

        “Is it not implicit in the very word Holocaust…”

        Sorry, MHughes but I told them, over and over, it was a lousy word, and the implications weren’t good, but they wouldn’t listen.

      • seafoid
        January 16, 2013, 4:36 am

        I think that is part of the tragedy of Zionism. When they lose their state there will be no religious meaning to the Shoah.
        It’s just a grubby world . There is no second coming.
        Instead you get to be led by donkeys like Lieberman.

        God is very cruel really.

      • Mooser
        January 16, 2013, 1:38 pm

        “God is very cruel really.”

        Bite your tongue and beg forgiveness! God has been very good to us. I live as a citizen of my country, with minimal obligations, and the State does not appoint or accept Jewish overseers. Didn’t God even arrange a “homeland” in the most religiously significant area of the world, for the displaced and persecuted among us? (Well, except, unfortunately, that they were not “good human material”)
        Seafoid, I hate to differ, but I don’t think God is especially cruel to us, any crueler than He is to anybody else. Furthermore, I was always told is was just a little presumptuous to characterise God’s actions from our mortal viewpoint. But then, you know how damn lax us Reform are about proper veneration.

        But that’s us Jews all over, huh Seafoid? We’d rather blame God, than ever blame ourselves, and Zionism. I hope He can take it.

        “God is very cruel” Excuse me, human, but how the hell would you know?

      • Mooser
        January 16, 2013, 1:42 pm

        “God is very cruel really.”

        You believe that? Wow, puts a whole new slant on that ‘chosen’ thing, donnit? We were chosen as an outlet for God’s cruelty? To be the chosen masochist to divine sadism?

        I knew there were Jewish swingers, but baby, this is freakin’!

      • seafoid
        January 16, 2013, 5:27 pm

        Blaming God just makes things worse, Mooser.

      • Mooser
        January 16, 2013, 6:42 pm

        “Blaming God just makes things worse, Mooser.”

        You are so right, Seafoid. I should never have said “God is very cruel really”. I don’t know what came over me.

        And thanks for responding, Seafoid.

      • lysias
        January 16, 2013, 7:09 pm

        When I was growing up in the 1950′s, my recollection is that what is now called the “Holocaust” was called the “Final Solution”. When I first heard it called the “Holocaust” instead, because with my high school study of Greek I associated that word with something burnt, I could not understand how it was appropriate.

      • RoHa
        January 16, 2013, 7:37 pm

        “Furthermore, I was always told is was just a little presumptuous to characterise God’s actions from our mortal viewpoint.”

        But then, of course, you can’t describe God’s actions as “good” either.
        In fact, you can’t characterise them at all. However, since there is no way of demonstrating that any event is an action fo God, there is no need to.

      • Citizen
        January 17, 2013, 5:53 am

        The way a dog knows about its master?

      • RoHa
        January 17, 2013, 8:05 pm

        Citizen, was that directed at me or Mooser? If me, I’m not sure what it is supposed to imply. A dog knows about its master by watching what the master does. We can’t see God doing anything.

    • Citizen
      January 16, 2013, 10:24 am

      @seafoid
      It’s like Hitler’s last political will and testament was read by Lior, who vowed to himself, “Ja, mein fuhrer! I will do all I can to implement your legacy!” Talk about shaking hands with the Devil himself.

  5. seafoid
    January 15, 2013, 10:48 am

    link to ft.com

    “Mr Bennett’s party is funnelling voters from other rightwing parties, including Mr Netanyahu’s Likud Beitenu bloc. The prime minister’s campaign has responded by questioning the credentials of some of the more radical candidates on Jewish Home’s list, who include representatives of hardcore settlers communities, and their views on women and gays.
    Liberal Israelis are appalled by the rise of the party at a time when many worry their country’s isolation is deepening and prospects for achieving a peaceful two-state solution to the conflict with the Palestinians are dimming.
    “His platform is dangerous and it will take us down a dead end,” says Meir Margalit, a member of the municipal council in Jerusalem and member of the leftwing Meretz party. “He creates an illusion in Israel that there’s a rightwing solution [to the conflict], and it’s false and dangerous.”
    Opinion polls published on Friday confirmed that Jewish Home would probably be Israel’s third-largest party after the election, following Likud Beitenu and Labour, with 13 to 14 seats in the 120-seat Knesset, suggesting it would be a significant political force inside or outside Israel’s next government.
    Jewish Home’s rise reflects a steady and long-term rightward drift in Israeli society amid a hardening of views on security and the rising numbers of Sephardic and religious Jews relative to more liberal Ashkenazim.”

  6. seanmcbride
    January 15, 2013, 10:58 am

    So, what are we looking at:

    1. Zionism has morphed into a messianic ethno-religious nationalist cult that is on an apocalyptic collision course with the entire world — and especially with the values of modern Western democracies.

    2. This apocalyptic cult is armed with a large arsenal of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons which it has threatened to unleash against the entire world (the Samson Option).

    3. This cult is passionately backed by the worldwide Jewish establishment — including the worldwide Jewish religious establishment and the leaders of contemporary Judaism.

    4. This cult at the moment thoroughly dominates both the Republican and Democratic Parties and the mainstream American media.

    5. The more this cult alienates the world at large, and the more isolated it becomes, the more paranoid and extreme it becomes.

    How will this historical situation play out? What are the most likely scenarios?

    • American
      January 15, 2013, 12:43 pm

      ”Zionism has morphed into a messianic ethno-religious nationalist cult that is on an apocalyptic collision course with the entire world — and especially with the values of modern Western democracies.”…sean

      Imo zionism was a cult from the beginning, more ethno than religious although they may have been some overlap.
      I don’t understand how the zionist thought –based on their *separation from others theory* they could create anything but some commune like community by being actually separate from the other world.
      And as we see they haven’t’ really been separate and have had to be part of and mostly dependent on the other world to exist as they do in Israel.
      Another example of ‘have your cake and eat it too’ mentality that doesn’t work which is the conflict in *their dependence on the other world* while * acting out their separation.*
      It was destined to be a conflict from the beginning.

      • seanmcbride
        January 15, 2013, 1:14 pm

        American,

        Imo zionism was a cult from the beginning, more ethno than religious although they may have been some overlap.

        Do ya think? :)

        Max Nordau, one of the founding fathers of Zionism:

        Messianism and Zionism were actually identical concepts for almost two thousand years, and it would be difficult, without subtlety and sophistry, to separate the prayers in the Jewish liturgy for the appearance of the promised Messiah from those for the not less promised return to the historic home.

        Actually, there was a great deal of overlap from the beginning between the ethnocentric and religious strains in Zionism, and in recent decades those two strains have almost completely merged and fused into a single ideology.

        Are there any significant differences between a religious true believer and a secular true believer in messianic religious myths and symbols? Not really. They are joined at the hip.

      • Mooser
        January 15, 2013, 3:52 pm

        “Are there any significant differences between a religious true believer and a secular true believer in messianic religious myths and symbols? Not really. They are joined at the hip.”

        Hey, what can I say, it’s “Judaism’s core drivers” all over. No getting away from that, if you’re stuck with an “ideology” instead of a religion. It’s a lousy spot to be in, and yeah, thanks for all your empathy.
        Oh well, I was going to suggest that “any significant differences between a religious true believer and a secular true believer in messianic religious myths and symbols” isn’t all that signifigant if we judge people by their actions, rather than our perceptions of their beliefs, but really, how wide a net would that cast?

      • seanmcbride
        January 15, 2013, 4:10 pm

        Mooser,

        I understand that some of my statements on this topic (the relations between Judaism and Zionism) have upset you, and I am sorry that this is the case.

        So far, however, I have been unable to get a handle on your basic beliefs, arguments and logical processes on this issue. But I will keep trying to do so.

      • Mooser
        January 15, 2013, 5:08 pm

        “But I will keep trying to do so.”

        Don’t you have anything better to do? You intend to bring the crushing weight of your artificial intelligence to bear on this one poor nudnik? I your questions must abide, while others pass “Go” and collect $200? And you, no doubt, get triple-word-score? While I scrabble around and break my syntax into the bargain? Is that quite the straight blat, old chum? Is that Kreckit?

      • seanmcbride
        January 15, 2013, 6:18 pm

        Mooser,

        Ok — you extracted another laugh from me — I tried to maintain a grim demeanor but failed.

      • yonah fredman
        January 16, 2013, 10:36 am

        I’m reading I J Singer’s “The Brothers Ashkenazi” in Yiddish. The main character, Max Ashkenazi, near the end of the book, considers moving to Eretz Israel. He says, that he used to think the Zionists were fantasists, hoping to turn merchants into peasants, but due to the vicissitudes of anti Jewish and anti businessman crap that he had experienced in the first three decades of the 20th century in Lodz, he had come to the realization that building a business on the unfirm land of Poland made no sense and the Jews should build their own land.

        I am not saying that 2013 and 1930 are identical. (And of course Max Ashkenazi was not conscious of the suffering of the Palestinians present and future.) But though the idealists that founded modern Zionism were like most idealists a type of a cult, with eyes aglaze looking at a distant shore and goal, at a certain point last century, with the ground burning underneath their feet in Europe there was more than one Jew who saw the foresight of the Zionist enterprise.

        Dismissing the need for a Jewish response to the “burning ground underneath their feet” and simply labeling Zionism as cult like is historically ignorant or cruel. The problem of adjusting Zionism to the post World War II realities and to the current day realities must be faced. But to dismiss the founders is perverse, given the history of the first half of the 20th century.

      • Citizen
        January 16, 2013, 10:53 am

        @ Mooser
        A large net, yet how many religions substantially rely on Heaven, pie in the sky, rather than Heaven On Earth? How many Christians do not think they will get their reward “in Heaven” or “Hell”? I never met one. How many religions’ high holidays repeatedly celebrate military battles won on earth?
        Just asking. How many religions have been reduced to short-hand by their comedic faithful as, “We won, they lost–let’s eat!” ?

        Why are Jesus, Spinoza, Luther important? Ponder the charges against each of them by the relevant religious establishment. What is said that each of them actually did during their respective lives? Or do they have no significance?

      • Mooser
        January 16, 2013, 1:45 pm

        “Ok — you extracted another laugh from me — I tried to maintain a grim demeanor but failed.”

        Thanks for that Sean, but we might as well be honest about it. I could never, ever repay you for the number you’ve given me.

      • seanmcbride
        January 16, 2013, 3:30 pm

        Mooser,

        You know what makes me laugh? The dead silence which follows whenever I ask you about your thoughts on the last book on Mideast politics you’ve read.

        Perhaps one of these times you will surprise us.

      • seanmcbride
        January 16, 2013, 11:37 pm

        Yonah,

        So goyim — “the nations” — are responsible for the bad behavior — all the vile personal attacks on their “enemies” — of Elliott Abrams, Alan Dershowitz, Pamela Geller, William Kristol, Jeffrey Goldberg, Martin Peretz and so very, very many other overexcited pro-Israel activists like them?

        That proposition is going to be a hard sell — not many rational people are going to buy it. The aggressive ethnic nationalism of these true believers, all of whom have enjoyed highly privileged and cushy positions in American life, is pro-active and self-generated. They need to take full responsibility for the social conflict and problems they are creating. They need to deprogram themselves.

  7. Ramzi Jaber
    January 15, 2013, 11:12 am

    Just one more confirmation that with lunatics like naftalie, dayan, feiglin, lieberman, etc., we will certainly end up with ALL of historic Palestine as our state!

    Newsflash to naftalie and his ilk: we, the Palestinians, are still here and will always be in spite of your genoicide plans against us.

  8. yourstruly
    January 15, 2013, 12:11 pm

    vanguard radical right idealism versus an imploding center-left?

    a reprise of nazi germany in the early thirties?

    the u.s. moving down the same dead-end path?

    a just & peaceful world?

    by popular demand?

  9. Klaus Bloemker
    January 15, 2013, 1:09 pm

    It was also a piece in The New Yorker, June 6, 2011, by Hendrik Hertzberg who said this about Netanyahu’s speech before the US Congress:
    ————————————
    But he [Netanyahu] also cast the dispute in the Biblical-tribal terms favored by the religious right, Israeli and American. In a settlement, Israel will be “required to give up parts of the ancestral Jewish homeland.” (Yes, but the Palestinians have already been required to give up parts of an ancestral Arab homeland.) “In Judea and Samaria, the Jewish people are not foreign occupiers.” (Perhaps, but in the West Bank the Israel Defense Forces are indeed foreign occupiers.) “This is the land of our forefathers, the land of Israel, to which Abraham brought the idea of one God.” (Fair enough, but Israel itself is a land of other people’s forefathers, too, and they are children of Abraham as well.)
    …..
    Nearly as appalling as Netanyahu’s intransigence was the mindlessness of the senators and representatives, Republican and Democratic, who rewarded him with ovation after standing ovation.
    ———————————-
    Read more: link to newyorker.com

  10. marc b.
    January 15, 2013, 1:18 pm

    naftali, the ‘slick’ politician. nice word play. (нафта/nafta = oil).

    btw that piece of crap dayan was on the local NPR affiliate this morning whining on about all he wants is peace, while simultaneously justifying the slaughter in gaza. (‘all the funds that they (hamas) have ever received have been used for weapons to destroy yisrael! or words to that effect.)

    i don’t share the late love fest for remnick, and the socialist/tea party dichotomy analogy he makes. the ‘democratic’ founders of israel began to regret their failure/inability to incorporate the w. bank into ’48 borders even before the guns began to cool (see ben-gurion, m.dayan) and have willingly exploited the nutters to aid in plans for territorial expansion. (eyal weizman, who i will continue to quote until this site gets his stuff up regularly, has a brilliant narrative of the tactics of expansion, one being conceptual. as settlers with military assistance established settlements qua military outposts for ‘security purposes’, rather than pen themselves into a fortress/compound, they actually built the fences/enclosures around the palestinian populations to the extent it was possible, inverting one bit of colonial history. all part of sharon’s particular brand of architectural ‘genius’.)

    • Citizen
      January 16, 2013, 11:15 am

      @ marc b
      I agree the analogy to the Tea Party is counter-productive for the analogy user, especially to the original grass roots Tea Party before it was taken over by standard GOP operatives and their Moneybag corporate interests.

      • marc b.
        January 16, 2013, 1:04 pm

        citizen, i was sympathetic to some of the TP’s seemingly populist/isolationist impulses, but it all quickly fell apart for alot of reasons, the biggest being ‘the takeover’, as you put it. in NH, though, a great many of the TP politicians simply self-destructed. if i remember correctly, TP republicans gained a huge majority in the state congress in 2010, but managed to have that majority nearly reversed in 2012 (dems regained the majority, but not as large a majority) with a load of stupid antics, e.g. proposing that all social services be cut (because ‘social’ is the root word in ‘socialism’), unholstering their guns on the floor of the house, etc. unfortunately political discourse/IQ have been so debased that it is going to take some time just to deprogram the growing number of know-nothings.

  11. Krauss
    January 15, 2013, 1:48 pm

    Okay final comment. I’ve re-read the piece again. I just don’t see Remnick as damning. He bends over backwards to present the Likudnik hasbara, such as it is, without any real rebuttal in the article – and he does this multiple times. He seems to nod in agreement, ‘liberal’ Zionist-style, and leaves their objections without any counter-view point. It’s also true that his own views do come across.

    But what is the most important feature in his article is his general sympathy for the Likudnik viewpoint. I’m reminded of the people who praised the so-called ‘Likud moderates’ like Benny Begin. People who were just a little less racist – and so apparently our standards are now so low that if you’re less racist than a deranged lunatic, you’re suddenly a ‘moderate’?

    As I mentioned before, Remnick’s ideological and sentimental attachment shines through. He kvetches but he will never leave Zionism.

    • seanmcbride
      January 15, 2013, 2:23 pm

      Krauss,

      As I mentioned before, Remnick’s ideological and sentimental attachment shines through. He kvetches but he will never leave Zionism.

      If “liberal Zionists” like Remnick fail to leave Zionism, they may wake up one morning and discover that Americans and Europeans have left them. But it is of course a core tenet of religious Zionism that the irreconcilable differences between Jews and non-Jews, Israel and “the nations,” will never be reconciled until Moshiach imposes his will upon the entire world by force and ushers in a blessed new world order based on peace and harmony.

      I mention this notion as a stimulus to contemplate possible future scenarios regarding Mideast and Israeli politics. One can easily see the climax towards which this melodramatic mess is trending.

    • evets
      January 15, 2013, 4:08 pm

      ‘I just don’t see Remnick as damning.’

      I think an underlying dismay comes through. What seems missing is a sense of real alarm at what this all might lead to, and soon. It may be that he has a hard time admitting that to himself.

      • Citizen
        January 16, 2013, 11:17 am

        @ evets
        Not to mention what it’s costing non-jews now, most especially the daily Palestinian. He plays chess while the room is afire.

  12. American
    January 15, 2013, 1:51 pm

    “He (Remnick) wants Americans to know that these folks are crazy:”…Phil

    Yea they are, and that is what various governments need to understand. God forbid these people get elected and the world doesn’t comprehend just how crazy they are.
    I was so glad to see Avigail contributing here that I want to inject something she pointed out about some of the crazier zionist and politics……because this is what we are dealing with in many of them. Think it describes Netanyahu perfectly….if the Home Party is any worse than Netanyahu is it’s all over but the shooting.

    link to avigailabarbanel.me.uk

    I have always believed that my profession has a lot to offer to the understanding of politics. One important contribution we can make is to highlight the relationship between narcissism, in particular Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NDP), and politics.
    A person has to have only five of the following DSM-IV criteria to be diagnosed with NPD. He or she: (1) has a grandiose sense of self-importance; (2) is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love; (3) believes that he or she is ‘special’ and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high status people (or institutions); (4) requires excessive admiration; (5) has a sense of entitlement i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favourable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations; (6) is interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends; (7) lacks empathy: is unwilling to recongise or identify with the feelings and needs of others; (8) is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her; (9) shows arrogant, haughty behaviours or attitudes. (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders DSM IV. American Psychiatric Association. P.661)

    • seanmcbride
      January 15, 2013, 2:34 pm

      American,

      Regarding NPD (Narcissistic Personality Disorder):

      Jews have been vanguard leaders in developing psychoanalytical methods for understanding and interpreting individual behavior. I would love to see some Jewish vanguard leaders in this field shine the light of their intelligence on cultural groups, particularly in contemporary Mideast politics. Perhaps they could perform some miracles of psychic healing.

      My hunch is that most cult leaders, and many cult followers of all kinds, from all cultures, display strong signs of NPD.

      With regard to cult leaders and cults suffering from NPD that are armed with large arsenals of WMDs — watch out. This could be the most dangerous problem currently facing the human race.

      There’s a topic: NPD and WMDs. And for acronym lovers everywhere, the NYPD could be drawn into the mix.

      • Mooser
        January 15, 2013, 4:14 pm

        “Jews have been vanguard leaders in developing psychoanalytical methods…?…. Perhaps they could perform some miracles of psychic healing.”

        Ah, so psychoanalysts are the ones who do the psychic healing? I thought only real psychiatrists could do that.

      • seanmcbride
        January 15, 2013, 11:09 pm

        Mooser,

        Ah, so psychoanalysts are the ones who do the psychic healing? I thought only real psychiatrists could do that.

        I presume you know (but am not entirely certain) that the word “psychic” is often used as a synonym for “mental” or “psychological,” with no paranormal denotations or connotations — it’s used that way all the time in the humanities and social science literature.

        From Dictionary.com, the first two definitions of “psychic” (the adjective):

        1. of or pertaining to the human soul or mind; mental ( opposed to physical ).

        2. Psychology . pertaining to or noting mental phenomena.

        link to dictionary.reference.com

        But there was also a hint of ambiguity and irony in my selection of the word — some psychoanalysts are in fact as credible as Deep South faith healers and snake handlers.

      • Klaus Bloemker
        January 15, 2013, 8:09 pm

        “Jews have been vanguard leaders in developing psychoanalytical methods
        for understanding and interpreting individual behavior.” – Sean
        ————
        Sean, that’s a joke!

        Sigmund Freud has been the vanguard in lying about psychological truth.

        He knew very well from his studies in Paris with hysterical women that they had been IN FACT sexually abused by family members. But he came up with his theory that women just make it up and get hysterical.

        In a Freudian way, I would say: There are no real anti-Semites. The anti-Semites are made up/imagined by self-hating Jews who project their Jewish self-hate on the gentiles. – That’s Freud.

      • Mooser
        January 16, 2013, 1:54 pm

        “In a Freudian way, I would say: There are no real anti-Semites. The anti-Semites are made up/imagined by self-hating Jews who project their Jewish self-hate on the gentiles. – That’s Freud.”

        Exactly! And Sean thinks “psychic healers” will break us of this. You must admit, it’s not a healthy syndrome, considering what Jewish self-hatred forces Gentiles to do. It can be fatal!

    • seanmcbride
      January 15, 2013, 2:53 pm

      American,

      Some of my professors and classmates were leading neocons, and the first thing I noticed about them was the NPD vibe. They were also a bit Aspergery — a strange combination of arrogance and messianic euphoria. They only listen to the voices inside their heads. They don’t connect to the real world. That is why their confidence in the belief that the Iraq War would be a cakewalk was unshakeable.

      Letting these people get anywhere near the levers of power in government is — problematic.

    • sardelapasti
      January 15, 2013, 3:41 pm

      “…that these folks are crazy:”…Phil
      “Yea they are, and that is what various governments need to understand.” …American

      Irrelevant. It’s not the religious only, or the openly foaming-at-the-mouth only. These guys are nothing but a sideshow, or a scarecrow to hide the main crimes (like yelling about Romney to get Obama elected…) This is about any and all Zionists, especially the rational, cool, calculating, worldly-looking nationalist bastards who started the ball rolling and planned and implemented the invasion, the spoliation, the massacres and the relentless war. If you think that psychiatric characterizations make any difference here, fine, then label them all crazy but don’t limit it to the retarded: smart ones are way more dangerous.

      • American
        January 15, 2013, 5:37 pm

        @ sardelapasti

        I didn’t limit the crazies to the retarded, didn’t mention anything about retarded.
        I just said ‘some’ of them are this crazy and fit Avigail’s description of NPD.
        I don’t think ALL zionist are quite this crazy…leaving room for some ..(shutter)……liberal zionist and such who aren’t apocalyptic Give me Greater Israel or give me Death types.

    • marc b.
      January 15, 2013, 4:21 pm

      american, i don’t want to besmirch an entire profession, but the DSM, the bible of whatever, is a load of crap. it arose out of psychological screening for the military, and regularly swaps in and out various dubious disorders depending on which way the political and pharmaceutical winds are blowing. (is it still pathological to be a homosexual? please remind me.) i forget the proposed terminology, but one of the recent candidates for entry into the halls of pathology in DSM V was something or other about disenchantment with the current economic state of affairs (precisely quantified levels of pathological disenchantment of course). and will all due respect to sean’s reference below to the ‘vanguard of psychoanalysis’, freud was a quack. even most of his contemporary defenders babble on about his contribution to the ‘western literary canon’, as opposed to his contribution to the science of the mind. as far as i can see freud’s greatest scientific contribution was to reverse engineer a certain species of dysfunction that is useful is selling bacon as part of a healthy breakfast, and cigarettes as a symbol of indepedence and sophistication, and his case studies, particularly of female patients, read like some bitchy, male chauvinistic pulpy rape fantasy. ‘she vanted me deeply, but she did not know that she vanted me deeply. her ‘no’ vas in fact an emphatic ‘yes’! (not that i’m above throwing about the odd ‘diagnosis’ as insult.)

      don’t get me wrong though, i do think there is a place for therapy. it’s just not done right in most cases.

      • American
        January 15, 2013, 5:47 pm

        marc b. says:

        american, i don’t want to besmirch an entire profession
        >>>>>

        good…….cause my sister in law is a psychiatrist, treats mainly disturbed children. I’m not into all that but she is pretty normal, you’d never know she was a shrink….she even has things to say about some of the weirder individuals in her profession…lol.

        All I’m saying is Netanyahu and some other zionist fit Avigail’s list.

      • marc b.
        January 16, 2013, 8:43 am

        my sister in law is a psychiatrist

        no offense meant. one of my neighbors growing up was a psychiatrist, and he, along with my parents, were extremely influential in my political awakening.

        she even has things to say about some of the weirder individuals in her profession

        yeah, there’s that too. one of freud’s students, sandor ferenczi, after his break with papa freud developed a theory of psychoanalysis in which the patient analyzed her/his therapist as part of treatment. pretty radical departure from freud, where the therapist is a god-like cipher. ferenczi recognized in freud that the personality of the therapist deeply affected treatment.

      • Mooser
        January 15, 2013, 7:30 pm

        I don’t need the DSM. I get along fine with this.

      • Citizen
        January 17, 2013, 6:28 am

        @ M00ser
        Or this? link to youtube.com

    • Citizen
      January 16, 2013, 11:21 am

      @ American
      That also describes a bipolar maniac on the loose–with the exception that said bipolar person doesn’t speak with so much ostensible rationality, and speaks much faster.

  13. CitizenC
    January 15, 2013, 2:47 pm

    What began as a secular movement to create a democracy has devolved into the Tea Party, a religious ideology about the bible and the land

    Began as secular, correct, in part to distinguish themselves as clearly as possible from the traditional religious reference to the Land of Israel, which found temporal interest blasphemous. However, from Ahad Ha’am onward they all had what Ze’ev Sternhell calls an “organic” view of the role of religion in nation-building, comparable to other European “organicist” (i.e. right-wing) movements (Sternhell’s specialty)

    This admitted the thin edge of the wedge, and in 1948 Ben-Gurion formed the first governing coalition with the religious parties, allowing them control over civil matters like religion and divorce, and their own educational establishment. The Arab parties would have provided Labor Zionism with a majority against the conservative parties but were excluded for Zionist reasons.

    The first West Bank settlements were actually a Labor project, in the Golan Heights, in fact the Golan conquest was undertaken during the 1967 war at the behest of the kibbutz movement, against Dayan’s better judgment. Gush Emunim were somewhat later.

    • Citizen
      January 16, 2013, 11:26 am

      @Citizen
      Show how anemic the analogy to the Tea Party is….

  14. sardelapasti
    January 15, 2013, 3:34 pm

    “…holds a flickering candle for the two-state solution, for the re-rise of Labor…”
    “existential threat from within…””
    “Desperate Labor says that Israel can be reformed by getting the 20 percent of Israeli society that is Palestinian…”

    Once more surprised by an openly Zionist paper, at least the way I read it. As if only the “right” and the religiously (yeah, sure) insane were the problem, and not “Jewish” nationalism itself. The invader presence is justified, their fiction of “minority” presence of the owners of the land validated.

    There was some hope that this site might oppose Zionism. The quoting of Remnick is here done in a way that suggests, at least to stupid people like me, that the site owner approves it all, as it often happens when he is quoting “left” Zionists.

  15. Mooser
    January 15, 2013, 4:11 pm

    Reading through, from the post itself all the way down, a question often asked seems to be: ‘where is Remnick coming from, when it comes to Zionism?’
    And what I can’t figure out is this: is it his responsibility to tell us? Consider some of the I-no-longer-love-Zionism posts on Mondo; it’s a subject people can change their minds about, radically, in way which might effect what they write.
    Or Remnick may have already done so, I don’t know. But does it matter if he doesn’t do that?

    • Citizen
      January 16, 2013, 11:31 am

      @Mooser
      In one sense, it does not matter; this is the “at last, more support against what Israel is doing with the aid of the Jewish American Establishment organizations.” In another sense it does matter: How much? Depends on how he’s pulling his punches, considering the daily life of Palestinians, and the trajectory of US enablement and its impact long term on survival of USA and the best of World values.

      • Mooser
        January 16, 2013, 1:01 pm

        Citizen, it matters in the same way we need to know the different outlooks which might produce the differering reports: 1) ‘Oh Stalin’s Russia is basically alright, just has a few minor problems. or 2) Stalin’s Russia is a mess, a brutal tyranny.
        As you remember, it’s quite possible to have both, depending on who is doing the reporting.
        If Remnick has a basic idea that Zionism is hunky-dory, or could be, it’s going to effect his writing.

        A person could make a statement, a disclaimer, saying that he is against any regime organised on an etho-religious supremacy basis, without ever mentioning Jews or Zionism.
        But give me a minute, this whole idea only occurred to me when I noticed that there was a confusion over whether Remnick was objective or not, concerning Zionism.

  16. seafoid
    January 15, 2013, 5:05 pm

    “But he obviously despises this crowd. Consider the cynicism of Dayan in this confession:”

    Remnick is educated. Dayan is a scruff. He’s a couple of sandwiches short of an intellectual picnic basket. If he was in New York he’d live in some shoddy suburb. Why would Remnick even look at him? Other than to gawk and wonder WTF happened to Herzlistan.

    • Mooser
      January 15, 2013, 6:18 pm

      “Herzlistan.”

      Have we come so far down since Herzl? How far, really?

      • seafoid
        January 16, 2013, 4:03 am

        Herzl was a secular thug.

      • Mooser
        January 16, 2013, 12:55 pm

        “Herzl was a secular thug.”

        Well, Seafoid, I would call that one step up from a religious thug, wouldn’t you? But then again, maybe Herzl came from a “shoddy suburb”.

        (You know Seafoid, as a man who grew up in, and has always preferred, and is supremely adapted for “shoddy suburbs” you really hurt my feelings. Makes me feel like nobody cares about my natural ecology.)

      • Mooser
        January 16, 2013, 1:15 pm

        And yes, it was a shoddy suburb in New York. And damn it, if you wanta get right down to cases, we had relatives who lived in Levitown.

      • seafoid
        January 17, 2013, 5:03 pm

        Shoddy doesn’t have to mean low income, Mooser. Some places naturally attract the bigoted and the cruel. Some towns are mean. They may have a high average income. Money doesn’t come in to it.

      • Citizen
        January 16, 2013, 11:33 am

        Maybe a better question is, have we come so far up since Herzl? How far, really? What is America even doing in this fight?

      • seafoid
        January 16, 2013, 2:26 pm

        A relatively decent Jew (who wasn’t interested in history) could have lived in Israel as recently as 13 or 14 years ago . They still had respect for women. It was still possible for poor kids to make something of themselves. There were only 250,000 settlers. They could maybe have done something about the Palestinians. There were still some half decent people in government . Nobody was talking about a halachic state.

        Now you can just forget it.

  17. Klaus Bloemker
    January 15, 2013, 5:27 pm

    The contract with the devil
    —————————————–
    The secular Zionists entered into a contract with the ‘holy’, religious Jews.
    But in fact that wasn’t ‘holy’, that was a Faustian contract with the devil.

    In Goethe’s play, Faust enters into a contract with the devil to learn the ultimate truth. After a while he realizes that there is something wrong with this contract and says:
    “Die Geister, die ich rief, die werd ich nun nicht wieder los.”
    (The devilish spirits that I called – I can’t get rid of them any more.)

    • Abierno
      January 15, 2013, 7:31 pm

      The follow up to Remnick’s article needs to address the uses of Zionism, the manipulation of settler crazies, the manipulation of the religious for economic purposes. Naftali Bennet is an investor and a hustler – explore his connections to
      the oligarchy, to the international business tycoons who run Netanyahu – when (not if) the West Bank is annexed, some will make extraordinary fortunes. The
      vision couched in Eretz Israel to include Judea and Samaria is a land grab by the
      1% – rich fertile soil, minerals, water and other natural resources which lie fallow in an agrarian economy. More probably than not this is off topic, but my uneducated feeling is that in all of this, this average Israeli loses, including the
      settlers who is some sense are the most deceived of all.

      • Mooser
        January 16, 2013, 12:52 pm

        Thank you Abierno. Sensibly and well put. Zionism could never have made victims of anyone else if it did not victimise Jews, first.

      • Klaus Bloemker
        January 18, 2013, 8:32 am

        “Zionism could never have made victims of anyone else if it did not victimise Jews, first.”
        ———————-
        Well Mooser, this is the way ‘good’ Germans like to argue also: The Nazis ‘could never have made victims of anyone else (in Europe) if they did not victimise the Germans, first.’

    • Mooser
      January 15, 2013, 7:43 pm

      “But in fact that wasn’t ‘holy’, that was a Faustian contract with the devil.”

      So maybe instead a psychic healer, they need a psychic lawyer. Or, perhaps, to buy liability coverage for their karma.

      • Klaus Bloemker
        January 15, 2013, 8:48 pm

        “a psychic healer … a psychic lawyer. Or, perhaps … liability coverage”
        ————————
        No Mooser, the Jews should cancel their original contract with Yahwe.
        As Faust, they should have never entered into it – it only meant disaster.

      • Citizen
        January 16, 2013, 11:34 am

        @ Stay, thou art so fair! (Never happened, was the gist.)

  18. Mooser
    January 16, 2013, 1:08 pm

    “Stay, thou art so fair!”

    “Yes,I know it, I can’t help it!”

  19. yonah fredman
    January 17, 2013, 6:50 am

    Zog Nit keynmol. Jews of my age with more than a smidgen of interest in Jewish history are familiar with the Partisans’ Song. (Those with music interests get a second crack at recognizing the tune.)
    Studying Yiddish with Weinreich’s college text, I came across the words to the song and listened to Paul Robeson’s 1947 (?) rendition available on youtube. Next to my pride in being able to understand most of the Yiddish, was my pride in hearing Robeson sing it, (especially the words with Hebrew bases, but also all the Yiddish.)

    Included in the song are the words “from the land of palms to the lands covered with snow”. I don’t know if Hirsh Glick (who wrote the lyrics but not the music) was a Zionist, but I feel fairly certain that the land of palms refers to a specific spot called I/P.

    Zog nit kenymol, starts out, “Never say you are going on the last road”. And that’s the only advice I can give to two state advocates like myself. Keep the faith. It’s not the last road. Leaden skies hide blue skies.

    On another thread Adam Horowitz trumpets the refusal of a Palestinian group to talk to a two state group. I did not carefully study the nuances of their refusal, but of the recent advocates of the two state solution I would pick two: Larry Derfner and Shlomo Sand. They seem quite convinced and are quite convincing that the two state solution is the way to go.

    (I think there is a combination of realism and morality that must be combined to advocate for this goal which seems out of reach.)

    I bet both Derfner and Sand feel that the Israel lobby is an impediment in reaching this goal. (Beinart too, but Beinart is a bit of a showboat and so it seems better to focus on Derfner and Sand.)

    If I had a time machine I would stop 99% (or more) of the Jewish building in East Jerusalem and the West Bank. The friction between the military and the occupied is increased when there is a civilian population to protect and the occupiers should have kept that friction to a minimum. I think there is no reason to be optimistic about moderation among the Palestinians when the cork has been pried loose in Egypt and Syria and the pendulum of Islamism is still in its first phase. I think the impulse to keep a military occupation of the west bank is rational. I think the fact that the occupation is not merely military but civilian looks wrong and is wrong.

    The nakba, or the refugees, or the exile of the Palestinians did not come to my knowledge until after the 67 war when I was about 12. As such it is “ancient history” to me in a way that the west bank occupation is current events. (Ancient history, when my claim on Jerusalem is the Western Wall, which is very ancient history, does not mean that it is not relevant.) I accept Larry Derfner and Shlomo Sand as my rabbis in combining politics, morality and realism, in their stances regarding the nakba.

Leave a Reply