America has changed in the face of Zionism’s frozen grimace

For a long time Zionists could count on the fact that the powerful men in London and Washington were just like them, at least when it came to popular views of non-whites. Winston Churchill, a man who’s long been lionized by a particular kind of historian, openly expressed his contempt for Africans and Arabs. If he were alive today he may be embarrassed to learn that his empire allegedly placed Barack Obama’s grandfather “in a detention camp” in Kenya. Or he may not. Racism is a hard thing to reform.

The world has mostly moved on since then. But Zionists – a musty 19th century archetype – remain committed to Jewish supremacy and the inferiority of gentiles, particularly Africans and Arabs. That hasn’t been a problem for American politicians until recently. Bill de Blasio and Deval Patrick – men with non-traditional racial backgrounds – have been forced into strained contortions over the issue.

Several months ago I attended a lecture by Joseph Nye Jr., a prominent historian and political scientist. He was direct about some of the retrograde views held by the most prominent men of the 20th century. For instance, Dwight Eisenhower reportedly believed that women had a limited role to play in public life.

But Nye also suggested that the question be evaluated in context. Should a historical person who expressed racist or misogynistic beliefs be evaluated as a product of the environment they inhabited? If vegetarianism emerges as a dominant norm in the next century or two, what will that mean for those of us who eat meat?

Nye wondered whether it may be useful to consider things in terms of standard deviations. In an environment dominated by racism – say, colonial Europe –  is one particular figure particularly racist or reprehensible? Nobody in Europe liked the Jews in the 1930s – but Adolph Hitler was especially disfigured by his irrational, malignant hatred and anti-Semitism. Churchill looked benign by comparison.

Today, Zionism is aberrational, especially viewed against the motley tapestry of American life. Few people believe that whites are more superior than blacks, or that men are more superior than women. But there are people who still believes that Jews are more superior than gentiles. Despite everything – women’s suffrage, the civil rights movement, the end of South Africa’s Apartheid and the emergence of BRICS – the worn-out relics of a flinty age are still among us. They increasingly wonder at their isolation and grow angry.

It happened that way because Zionism – a product of continental anti-Semitism – failed to adapt. The past century has seen the warped standard-bearers of race ideology wither into the grave; the world evolved and progressed without them. But the Zionists built a fortress and lined it with mirrors. Their prison-camp guards and nightclub bouncers have lived a lifetime in the thin light of the Holocaust’s penumbra. In them, life at the shadow’s edge has produced a lifelong fear of shadows.

For a long time the consequences of failing to understand how deeply misplaced European colonialism in Palestine is were minimal. America’s arms and France’s nuclear weapons protected the Ashkenazis and Sephardim in Israel from ever really coming to terms with their moral and geographical dislocation. Jewish, and to a much smaller extent fundamentalist Christian, influence in Washington helped secure the umbilical cord. The relationship turned out to be more durable than anyone could have expected, despite the colonial sepsis that began to infect America.

For decades the relationship relied on a certain peer-to-peer outlook among Zionists and the non-Jewish, non-fundamentalist members of the American political class. Bill Clinton is white, affable and secure in his privilege. His glistening teeth are warmly reflected in Shimon Peres’ rheumy eyes. Yet today’s American politician is messier – black people and people with mixed-race backgrounds are showing up more frequently than they did. And that’s produced a new, uncomfortable reality: America has changed in the face of Zionism’s frozen grimace.

The new “tension” between Zionism and the captive American political class was recently showcased in all its absurdity: A white man with a black wife and kids felt compelled to publicly express admiration for Ovadia Yosef, a dead racist. New York mayor Bill de Blasio’s newfound fealty to Zionism also caused him to meet with Shimon Peres, another Zionist. That’s after having made an early career protesting American-funded massacres and the destruction of indigenous communities in Nicaragua. And despite Peres’ personal role in the Iran-Contra scandal.

At the same time Deval Patrick, the opportunistic governor of Massachusetts, has worked with fanatical energy to win his campaign dollars. His fervent pursuit of Zionist money was fairly unremarkable until  recently, when romped on the graves of several million dead Armenians.

It’s easy to understand why men a diverse group of men like Barack Obama, Bill de Blasio and Deval Patrick feel compelled to march in lockstep with people like Richard Cohen, Shimon Peres and Ovadia Yosef. The Israel lobby is a powerful force in American life and the headaches that may result from withholding tribute are too great to warrant the effort.

But things change. It’s true that Abraham Foxman and Benjamin Netanyahu are hysterically clinging to Jewish procreation and Jewish supremacy – and that de Blasio is eager to support them in their efforts. But what about the next generation of non-traditional American politicians. All the blacks, latinos, Armenians and assorted non-whites in America, will they nod politely when racists gag and vomit in their general direction?

No. I don’t think they will.

About Ahmed Moor

Ahmed Moor is a Palestinian-American who was born in the Gaza Strip. He is a Soros Fellow, co-editor of After Zionism and co-founder and CEO of liwwa.com. Twitter: @ahmedmoor
Posted in American Jewish Community, Israel Lobby, Israel/Palestine, Israeli Government, US Policy in the Middle East, US Politics

{ 53 comments... read them below or add one }

  1. seafoid says:

    America has changed. Gay marriage says it all.
    The Dersh’s generation have lost power even if they have most of the money.
    Democracies are flexible. Ideologies aren’t. Israel is an ideology, not a democracy.

    • Krauss says:

      America has changed, yes, but has the world? Ahmed Moor says the world has changed. I’m not so sure. The Western world has changed. That’s the world Moor and Israel feel culturally connected to, even if both have a Middle Eastern identity as well. But the Western world isn’t the same as “the world”.

      But what about Korea, Japan or China? All three countries are highly developed democracies, which is why I bring them up, to avoid the “well they are not as developed” argument.
      In Korea, there is an explicit policy of “One Race Nation”. Multiculturalism isn’t really accepted, non-Korean immigrants are shunned and those who do marry Koreans often find enormous discrimination, far higher (and often lawful, on the books) than a Korean immigrant would, say, in America.

      I agree with Moor that Israel is completely detached from current Western culture, but that isn’t the same as ‘world culture’. True, even in a place like China, it’s far, far easier for a non-Chinese spouse to gain Chinese citizenship than it is in a place like Israel. And I don’t think China forces non-Chinese immigrants to sign papers promising not to impragnate Chinese women the way Israel does for non-Jewish work migrants.

      Nevertheless, we should be careful not to be myopic. The Western world isn’t the center of the universe, much less the Earth, and China/India will both surpass the U.S. economy and inevitably on world politics and as such, they will increasingly get the dominant say of how culture should be viewed.

      In India, they are not shy about Hindu supremacism. One of the biggest political parties is essentially an ethnic party on behalf of Hindus, the BJP. China, I’ve already discussed.

      In this world, Israel’s political culture is not going to look out of place.
      Most places are still quite multicultural and as such, the Western world’s political model, for better or worse, will be more relevant for many. But there are also many countries where multiculturalism is not the dominant ideology and seen as a threat, even in Europe this is the creeping concensus. America is becomming the exception, if you look at the emerging trends, not the rule.

      Why do I insist on being such a stiff-necked realist on these issues? Because if we are to end the occupation, we should realize that the path there isn’t as easy. True, America and parts of the Western world, is getting increasingly away from Israel’s ethnocentric ideal. But when that world loses its power, we should ask if something is as inevitable as Moor wants to believe. A lot of it will depend upon how China acts. If Israel can keep at least the U.S. veto intact for a decade or two, they may not need the American veto in 2030, when China is totally eclipsed any other nation, and China has its non-intervention policy which suits Israel perfectly.

      Moor needs to re-think these issues. Also, the long-term demographics favour Israel, and we should never put past them the fact that if there is a sufficient crisis/war, you could easily see some kind of ethnic cleansing which would help their demographic situation even more. Ethnic cleansing, after all, has been a foundational tool in Zionism from the get-go. It’s naive to think they couldn’t get away with it again at some future point. Bibi could well have been right in his late 1980s speech that had Israel done something like this during the Tian’anmen Square protests, they could have gotten away with it.

      • Krauss says:

        A second point. Ahmed Moor also mistakenly thinks that non-whites are more liberal on this issue than whites. If you look at most SJP chapters, aside from muslims and Jews, most of the volunteers there are white gentiles, at least according to Rashid Khalidi whose word I trust on this. In addition, India is the most “pro-Israel” country in the world according to the Israeli foreign ministry(how they define that is not the same as pro-democracy).

        As the ministry explains, a lot of Indians see Israel as a reflection of their battle with muslims inside India. China also has a lot of pro-Israel sentiment, which is part of the “how are Jews so good at business” philo-Semitism so common in China.

        Both of these things will affect Asian America. True, the Asian Studies Association voted for BDS; but these people are highly liberal, much more so on ethnic issues that doesn’t concern their own ethnicity, than the general Asian-American population. I was struck in the case of the student senate in Berkeley, when I was reading who voted for and against, that 5 out of 6 East Asians took the side of Israel in the BDS debate. The people who voted for were essentially Arabs, white gentiles and one Jew.

        The elite in the future of America will become a mostly white/Asian dominated elite. There will be a smattering of brown and black, but mostly token. You should remember that SAT scores are highly correlated with earnings, something Obama’s own economic advisor, Alan Kreuger, found in his research. This is particularly true for whites. A lot of tomorrow’s elite are not being educated at Ivies today. And the point about Asians is that, of course the Asian-American diaspora will be affected by the attitudes of their parents’ ancestral countries towards Israel one way or the other, especially as those countries become more dominant on the world stage, supplanting America.

        Also, if you look at the people writing about Middle Eastern issues in the progressive left, who are not Arab or Jewish, a lot of them look like Matt Duss. Moor needs to re-think his lazy assumption that whites are less progressive on these issues. Maybe the general white population, I’d concede that(especially as white evangelicals and other white religious conservatives start to dominate white demographics), but not if you look at the secular elite of each racial group, and that’s the group that actually matters on these issues, because most other people don’t care. But I do absolutely believe and agree that it is critical to reach these demographics. And so does the ADL, which has tried to co-opt student leaders as well as ethnic organizations such as La Raza to tie them to Zionism, so it’s not like there’s nothing here.

        • Betsy says:

          @Krauss: No room for progressive Christians in your categorizations? Also, you might want to check your statistics on the trends in “white demographics” in religious conservatism among young people.

      • Betsy says:

        China = “highly developed democracy”???

      • seafoid says:

        Krauss

        China may become the world’s number one economy but India won’t. It has the world’s largest concentration of poor people and so many problems it has no control over.

        China is looking at serious resource constraints too. 300 million is a better population size than 1 bn +.

        Even if China does make it Israel will have no leverage there. The holocaust? Join the queue behind the Great Leap Forward.

    • ziusudra says:

      Greetings seafoid,
      as always correct in your assessment.

      Whoever owns &/or controls the resources-
      as in agricultural America, before 1776 controlling 2 mill. people,
      under the English rule, did so after 76 with the US rule till today
      with 300 mill. -
      ziusudra

  2. The British indeed used concentration camps in Kenya, in order to stop the slaughter of scores of thousands of black civilians by other blacks who were on a rampage. This was not “racist”, in that concentration camps previously were used in South Africa to detain white civilians (during Boer WAr).

  3. W.Jones says:

    “All the blacks, latinos, Armenians and assorted non-whites in America, will they nod politely… ?”

    link to forward.com

    Apparently Rabbi Shmuley was two seats away from her at the time and witnessed the entire episode. In his piece, he explained why he decided not to “intervene” during the [abuse of the protestor, adding]:
    “the conflict is all about values, specifically the Palestinians’ growing culture of death versus the Israeli culture of life.”
    link to rabbibrant.com
    Notice the expression on his face.

  4. pabelmont says:

    Never misunderestimate the power of MONEY.
    AIPAC does not “represent” America’s Jews and it doesn’t matter if America’s Jews love Israel or hate Israel. Or whether anybody else does the one or the other.

    What matters is how political money is spent. AIPAC spends it to support right-wing-Israel. And the USA’s pols (black, white, purple — doesn’t matter) know what they’ve gotta do.

    You’ve gotta know the territory! And the territory is ruled by the oligarchy. And their names are BIG-BANKs, BIG-OIL, BIG-ZION, BIG-DEFENSE, etc.

    How it is. Maybe be different later. Hard to know who, in 2050, will manipulate the money that AIPAC manipulates in 2013.

    • lysias says:

      Until the 1850′s, all respectable politicians in this country had to condemn abolitionism, if they were to continue their political careers. Money too was on the side of maintaining slavery in the South. Businessmen in the North, as well as the rich in the South, did not want southern slavery to end. There was too much money in it.

      Nevertheless, the 1850′s came, and the climate changed.

      • Politicians in the North tended to denounce slavery in the US, for many decades prior to outbreak of Civil War. But some condemned the virulent hate of some of the abolitionists, toward Southern planters.

        • lysias says:

          Which is consistent with what I said: politicians, even in the North, had to condemn abolitionism; money, including businessmen in the South, defended the continued existence of slavery in the South, because too much money was riding on it.

          Read Complicity: How the North Promoted, Prolonged, and Profited from Slavery, by Anne Farrow et al.

        • Some politicians, North and South, could see that slavery gradually would be abolished, state by state, and that the primary need was to avoid civil war. Fanaticism by some abolitionists helped to bring on that catastrophe.

        • lysias says:

          Oops, I meant “businessmen in the North”.

          All of which is kind of peripheral to my point, which is that, before the 1850′s, you couldn’t publicly support abolitionism unless you were fringe, and even then you risked being the victim of a violent assault, and many respectable people, even in the North, supported the continued existence of slavery in the South.

          That changed in the 1850′s, and there could always be a similar change in attitudes towards Israel.

  5. Dan Crowther says:

    “They increasingly wonder at their isolation and grow angry.
    It happened that way because Zionism – a product of continental anti-Semitism – failed to adapt.”
    —————————

    Israel Shahak describes zionism as a conservative counter-revolution from within the jewish community, a move to “re-close” the newly open society for Jews in Europe that was created from the outside, by the new nation states and their constitutions and so on. He views Zionism as a direct extension of orthodox “classical” judaism – “trying to put the band back together” as it were. In other words, it didn’t fail to adapt – it flat couldn’t. The grimace has been frozen since Maimonides – probably even before that.

    • Ecru says:

      ….a conservative counter-revolution from within the jewish community, a move to “re-close” the newly open society for Jews in Europe…

      That’s pretty much how I’ve come to see it.

    • W.Jones says:

      Problem with this theory- and it’s not 100% wrong, is that the leaders were “secular” nationalists- Herzl, Gurion, Jabotinsky, et al.

    • American says:

      “In other words, it didn’t fail to adapt – it flat couldn’t. “…Dan

      It flat didnt ‘want to’. Still doesnt want to.
      And I attribute that to the mjaority of the “leaders” of the tribe since ancient times….if anyone wants to argue with my theory on their Rabbis and leaders resistence during and since European Emancipation go ahead….cause the only other explanation for all these centuries of this would be to say that the Jewish collective always wanted to remain seperate from other races.

  6. bilal a says:

    “he is a Soros Fellow”.

    what kinda fella is dat?
    _______________

    Since its founding in 1981 by San Francisco philanthropist and activist Sally Lilienthal, Ploughshares says it has awarded many hundreds of grants “whose aggregate value exceeded $60 million.”

    The fund is in turn financed by a small number of foundations, including Soros’ Open Society Institute, the Buffett Foundation, the Carnegie Corporation of New York, the Ford Foundation, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and the Rockefeller Foundation
    link to israelmatzav.blogspot.com

    The Buffet-Rockeller-Soros cure may be worse than the sickness.

  7. |RE: “It’s true that Abraham Foxman and Benjamin Netanyahu are hysterically clinging to Jewish procreation and Jewish supremacy – and that de Blasio is eager to support them in their efforts. But what about the next generation of non-traditional American politicians. All the blacks, latinos, Armenians and assorted non-whites in America, will they nod politely when racists gag and vomit in their general direction? No. I don’t think they will.” ~ Ahmed Moor

    MY COMMENT: I’m not so certain!

    FROM THE AIPAC WEBSITE (undated):

    African American Political Leaders and Activists Visit Israel

    A group of African American politicians, consultants and activists arrived in Israel this week to participate in an American Israel Education Foundation (AIEF) Seminar. The group of 18 includes eight state and local elected officials and three appointed government officials, including the presidents of the city councils of Atlanta and Detroit. The other participants are all deeply involved in political and civic life in their communities, including five who are co-chairs for the DNC’s Generation44 fundraising initiative in their cities. A number of the seminar participants have already attended pro-Israel events in their communities and have shown interest in strengthening the U.S.-Israel relationship. Atlanta City Council President Ceasar Mitchell and DeKalb County Commissioner Lee May passed Iranian divestment resolutions in their jurisdictions in 2009.

    SOURCE – link to aipac.org

    • P.S. ALSO SEE: “Univision goes neoconservative”, by Charles Davis, Electronic Intifada, 2/17/12

      [EXCERPTS] Washington, DC – It’s not often that Univision, the leading Spanish-language television network in the United States, releases its content in languages other than Spanish. It is, after all, a Spanish-language television network. But earlier this month the broadcaster did something out of the ordinary, screening an English version of a recent report on Iran that’s received a rapturous reception from neoconservatives in Washington. And it at least appears to have done so at the behest of its hawkish new fan club.
      Why would a network best known for sappy telenovelas shift to producing sloppy war propaganda – and English-language propaganda at that? Perhaps, as is usually the case with the corporate press, Univision’s bias and peculiar programming choices are best explained by simply noting who owns it: Israeli-American businessman Haim Saban, a self-described “one-issue guy” – that issue being Israel – who has been up front about purchasing media outlets to promote his own political views.
      While those views are well-known if you look for them – hint: his public statements on Iran have invoked the Holocaust – they’re also not hard to gather from the right-wing-infused investigative reports Univision has been airing since he took over.
      Originally broadcast in Spanish late last year, the ever-so-subtly titled report that’s driving the neoconservative community wild – “La Amenaza Iraní”, or “The Iranian Threat” – received an unusual February 8 screening, in English, at the neoconservative Hudson Institute, a Washington think tank that counts former Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, convicted felon Lewis “Scooter” Libby, as one of its top scholars. Focussed on Iran’s relations with Latin America, the hour-long piece regurgitates all the pro-war right’s by now familiar talking points about nefarious Islamists acting in concert with leftist Bolivarians to bring Terror to the US’ doorstep, complete with all the ominous music and images of swarthy foreigners one would expect from a Hollywood movie or a corporate news report.
      “Iran is looking for all the support that it can get to fight back against its fiercest enemies, Israel and the United States,” declares reporter Vytenis Didziulis in the opening minute of the piece. “Latin America, because of its geographical and cultural proximity, may present the most direct way for Iran to challenge – or even attack – the US.”
      What follows is a string of allegations about Iran’s dealings with Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua and other Latin American countries notable mostly for how little there is to them. A former Ecuadorian intelligence official, for instance, fired by President Rafael Correa for insubordination amid charges that he was a CIA asset, is given time to claim – without so much as an incriminating Word file – that his former boss is “sending intelligence agents to secret Iranian training facilities” in South America. Viewers are also presented with the information that the Venezuelan military, as part of efforts to prepare for a feared US invasion back in 2005, reportedly distributed a manual on asymmetric warfare written based on the tactics employed by the Lebanese group Hezbollah – tactics the US military has itself studied.
      The “exclusive!” meat of the report is video footage from 2007 purporting to show the Iranian ambassador to Mexico at the time, Mohammad Hassan Ghadiri, discussing a plot to launch cyber-attacks against the US government with a group of Mexican college students who were posing as hackers. Nowhere in the footage, though, is there any evidence to dispute Ghadiri’s claim he was merely entertaining a group of kids he suspected, not without cause, were actually CIA agents.
      During a panel discussion following the screening, Didziulis – seemingly unconcerned with what an appearance at a far-right think tank would say about the objectivity of his reporting – acknowledged that his network was the only one to run with the story; every other media outlet that received the footage declined to run it. Such are Univision’s standards. . .

      ENTIRE COMMENTARY – link to aljazeera.com

    • P.P.S. AND SEE: “Latino stars explore Israel, stun Dominican fans”, By Leeror Bronis, Times Of Israel, 6/10/13

      [EXCERPT] A group of tourists visiting from the Dominican Republic got the shock of their lives Sunday when they bumped into two of Latin media’s most iconic faces while walking in the Ein Kerem village in Jerusalem. The tourists screamed in disbelief as famed Univision* TV hosts, Don Francisco and Raul De Molina, posed for pictures with them.
      “Just imagine all these people posting pictures to Facebook saying they met these guys in Israel,” said Irwin Katsof, director of America’s Voices in Israel, the organization responsible for bringing the stars here. “That’s why this is so important.”
      AVI, a division of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, is dedicated to bringing stars to visit Israel in an effort to help boost tourism. Previous participants included cast members from “Scandal,” “Once Upon A Time,” “House,” “Twilight,” and “Grey’s Anatomy.”
      This time, the sponsors, who are primarily AVI board members, paid an estimated $40,000 each to send five major names in Latin media to Israel. Among them was Don Francisco, the Chilean host of Univision’s “Sábado Gigante,” the longest-running entertainment program in history. Other members included famous TV host Raul “El Gordo” De Molina; Daniel Coronell, senior vice president of Univision; Gabriel Abaroa Jr., president and CEO of the Latin Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences; and Ramón J. Pineda, the general manager of Univision. . .
      . . . In Israel until Thursday, the TV stars and executives will visit all the major tourist spots in Israel while paying special attention to the Christian sites that are significant to Hispanic culture. They will also have briefings with several governmental figures in order to gain a fuller understanding of Israel from a political and diplomatic perspective.
      Katsof said he hopes De Molina will spread the word about his travels to his nearly 950,000 followers on Twitter, most of whom are Hispanic.
      “That’s an audience that would be very difficult to reach through traditional media,” he said. “Their ability to impact tens of thousands of people is just so incremental that it’s a tremendous use for us.” . . .

      ENTIRE ARTICLE – link to timesofisrael.com

      • P.P.P.S. LASTLY SEE: “Sheriff Ortiz goes to Israel”, by Eva Ruth Moravec, mysanantonio.com, 07/07/11

        [EXCERPTS] . . . For one week last month, Bexar* County Sheriff Amadeo Ortiz swapped his cowboy hat for a yarmulke as he visited Israel on an organized trip with other law enforcement leaders.
        “I’ve always had an interest in Israel,” he said in an interview Tuesday. “It was a great conference.”
        Ortiz joined 16 other sheriffs, police chiefs and organization heads, including Houston Police Chief Charles McClelland, on a week-long trip, courtesy of the Jewish Institute for National Security’s Law Enforcement
        Exchange Program…

        …Ortiz said he was impressed by Israel Defense Force soldiers, who he said are trained as soldiers and as police officers.
        “If we ever deploy troops along the Texas border, they should have training in being a soldier and in law enforcement,” he said…
        …The junket was Ortiz’s second organized trip to Israel: last year, Bexar County footed the bill to send him to an international conference on homeland security, he said…

        SOURCE – link to blog.mysanantonio.com

        * RE: Bexar County (/ˈbɛər/ bear)[1] . . . In old Spanish, the “x” in “Béxar” is pronounced the same as the Spanish letter j

        SEE: Pronouncing the Spanish X, Question of the Week, By Gerald Erichsen, About.com Guide, (UNDATED)

        ● Question: I have some pronunciation problem with the Spanish letter X. The Spanish X is sometimes pronounced like the English X, but sometimes like the English S. Are there rules when it is pronounced as an X and when as an S?
        ● Answer: Due to regional variations, there aren’t any rules that hold true throughout the Spanish-speaking world. In general, however, when between vowels (as in exactamente) the Spanish x is pronounced basically like the English “ks” sound but softer or less explosive. When it comes before another consonant (as in expedición), it has the “s” sound in some areas but the soft “ks” sound in others. In some areas, the letter’s pronunciation before a consonant varies from word to word. The only way to know for sure is to listen to someone speaking with the regional accent you wish to emulate.
        When a word begins with x (there aren’t many such words, and most are English cognates), it is usually given the “s” sound, not the “z” sound of English. Thus a word like xenofobia sounds the same as if it were spelled senofobia.
        In some Mexican place names, indeed in the name of México itself, the x is pronounced the same as the Spanish letter j.
        Making matters more confusing is that in a few words of Catalan, Basque or indigenous American origin the x is pronounced like the English “sh.” This is especially common in southern Mexican and Central American place names. One of the larger cities of Guatemala, for example, is Xela, pronounced something like SHEL-ah.

        SOURCE – link to spanish.about.com

        P.P.P.P.S. FROM WIKIPEDIA (Bexar County, Texas):

        Bexar County (/ˈbɛər/ bear)[1] is a county in the US state of Texas. As of the 2010 census, the population is 1,714,773,[2] making it the 19th most populous county in the nation and the 4th most populated within Texas.[3] Its county seat is San Antonio.[4] In old Spanish, “Béxar” is pronounced [ˈbexar].
        Bexar County is the central county of the San Antonio-New Braunfels Metropolitan Statistical Area. . .

        SOURCE – link to en.wikipedia.org

  8. RoHa says:

    “…whites are more superior than blacks, or that men are more superior than women.”

    Ahmed, you need editors who are more better at English grammar.

    • Ahmed Moor says:

      Hi RoHa,

      Thanks very much for the comment. I’d initially written “more chosen than” but my editors – who are the best content editors I’ve ever worked with – suggested that the word “chosen” may be wrongly construed. So I changed it to “superior” without re-reading the sentence. The grammar errors are mine – and Adam and Phil are excellent at what they do.

      • RoHa says:

        “I changed it to “superior” without re-reading the sentence. ”

        I change sentences without re-reading all the time. Some really odd sentences result. I need an editor.

  9. tokyobk says:

    Its a powerful rhetoric but its not accurately the case that a white over black stencil can be applied here in the way you want to.

    Take the example of Rabbi Yosef being embraced by the mayor-elect as a supposed contradiction. First of all, politicians meet with leaders of groups without endorsing them entirely.The mayor’s wife was also once involved in a lesbian relationship so will it be a contradiction when he meets with a leader of the Catholic church or mainstream Islamic leader? Of course not. Its always about power, votes and or money.

    More importantly the rabbi, who was indeed an anti Muslim Arab bigot, is in fact revered by non white Jews who saw him accurately as a force counteracting Ashkenazi hegemony. I was a bit dismayed at the boundless praise given to him in the various Jews of color groups I belong to, without mention of some of the truly despicable things he said over his career.

    Your model is appealing to you because of the power of race in the West, particularly America, not because it accurately describes Israel/Palestine. Zionism is in fact a tool which necessarily created a Jewish “ethnicity,” across a color spectrum from Russian to Ethiopian to Indian to Chinese, not an enduringly European one.

    The relevant divide is Jewish/non Jewish,– not skin color. Isreal was very happy to send the black Miss Israel on a world tour representing their country. Even in the case of African immigrants, this is stark (not that life for African Jews has been easy or in all cases equitable — and not that there is not racism in Israel or Ashkenazim who also believe that they are an outpost of the white West).

    Israel is in fact browning, probably faster than any other country in the region, and there is no reason to assume brown and black Jews, who are represent the majority ancestry of the country, will be any more progressive than Ashkenazim. To do so, I believe, is a kind of white liberal naiveté.

  10. piotr says:

    Krauss asks if it matters that attitudes toward colonial style of supremacy change in USA if they do not change much in “the world”.

    The short answer is that USA remains they key. First of all, he exaggerates the trends toward nationalistic exclusivity because in most cited examples they are self-limiting. For example, in India the Hindu supremacism is self-limiting because it is scary to a large proportion of the majority Hindu, namely more liberal of the educated classes, the Muslim and the lowest castes. Now the leader of the supremacists is a certain Modi, and it becomes a lovely topic how literally fascistic creep this guy is.

    The second aspect if the situation is that it is far, far from obvious that “local exclusivists” that Krauss cites should side with Israel. In a nutshell, Zionists call for the rejection of universal morality AND for the support of Israel in the name of universal morality, in itself not truly convincing pair of arguments. The clinching argument stems from the benefits conferred from supporting Israel. But WHAT benefits? Netanyahu visited China and made a speech how Israel can help China develop the technology. Chinese are sending a vehicle to roam on the Moon and they responded with a lecture about being more constructive for peace process. The ONLY benefit is ingratiating effect in the relationship with USA.

  11. Truthbug says:

    “The Israel lobby is a powerful force in American life and the headaches that may result from withholding tribute are too great to warrant the effort.”

    Wouldn’t it be more descriptive, instructive and helpful to use the term “Jewish lobby” in place of “Israel lobby”?

    • Shmuel says:

      Wouldn’t it be more descriptive, instructive and helpful to use the term “Jewish lobby” in place of “Israel lobby”?

      How could it possibly be more “descriptive, instructive and helpful” to define a lobby not by the interest it represents, but by the ethnicity/religion of its most visible proponents?

      Would it be more “descriptive, instructive and helpful” to use the term “women’s lobby” in place of “abortion/pro-choice lobby”, or “white men’s lobby” in place of “gun lobby”, or “rich white men’s lobby” in place of “arms lobby”, or “Arab lobby” in place of “oil lobby”?

      Not only does calling the Israel lobby the “Jewish lobby” prejudge all Jews, but it reinforces the claim that Israel represents all Jews and Zionism defines what it means to be Jewish. If that is the case, what room can there be for Jewish criticism of Israel or Zionism?

      • Truthbug says:

        Hi Shmuel, you make good points, though I make the argument that the “interest” represented here is, fundamentally, the interest of the majority of Jews in this country. Such interest stems from deeply imbedded cultural convictions within the Tribe, albeit many of which may be the result of trickery by Zionists. It’s not a secret that there’s a huge American Jewish interest in Israel, and indeed, if it weren’t for that interest, US policy would be very different. The Israel Lobby exists in the Interest of American Jews, and if it weren’t for American Jews, this lobby wouldn’t exist. For typical examples of such interest, with attendant coercive behavior, I refer you to Alex Kane’s article in today’s Mondoweiss. Thus, using the word “Israel” to describe this lobby is superficial. Israel is the Jewish State. The Jewish State is in the interest of a vast majority of American Jews, as illustrated by the dozens of well organized Jewish groups, some with Jewish funding amounting to over a hundred million dollars per year, which make up the vast bulk of the Israel Lobby. Thus, the Jewish Lobby is the real power in the Israel lobby.

        I also think there is precedence for my suggestion. During WWII, there was known to be the Italian Lobby, which advocated favorable treatment of Italy, when it switched sides during the conflict. There was also the Chinese Lobby, which advocated that the US support the nationalist movement in China. In Florida, there is a lobby that many refer to as the Cuban Lobby. It’s true that some people may refer to these lobbies as the Italy Lobby, the China Lobby, and the Cuba Lobby, but I don’t think there was, or is, the kind of prejudice you refer to in your last paragraph. I believe your insistence that my suggestion taints “all Jews” is an oversimplification and untrue, simply because most any label has exceptions, and it seems you want to force everyone to treat Jews differently from how we treat other groups of people. Why would you do that?

        • Shmuel says:

          I make the argument that the “interest” represented here is, fundamentally, the interest of the majority of Jews in this country

          Even if that were true (and I don’t believe that it is – the positions of Jewish “establishment” organisations notwithstanding), you do the minority an injustice by automatically identifying them – merely on the basis of their ethnicity/religion – with an ideology and interest they do not share.

          It’s not a secret that there’s a huge American Jewish interest in Israel, and indeed, if it weren’t for that interest, US policy would be very different.

          Again, for the sake of argument, let’s say that the interest of some – maybe even most – American Jews in Israel is the decisive factor in determining US policy, that still does not make the interest itself “Jewish”. Israel, not “Jewish” issues in general, remains the focus of the lobby’s activities.

          Israel is the Jewish State.

          That’s what Zionists say. Israel is, at the very most, a Jewish state. It has its own specific interests that do not coincide with the interests of all Jews. The State of Israel neither represents all Jews, nor do all Jews represent the State of Israel.

          The Jewish State is in the interest of a vast majority of American Jews, as illustrated by the dozens of well organized Jewish groups, some with Jewish funding amounting to over a hundred million dollars per year, which make up the vast bulk of the Israel Lobby. Thus, the Jewish Lobby is the real power in the Israel lobby.

          The well-organised groups merely demonstrate that there are a few very rich individuals who give a hell of a lot of money to this cause and make sure that their goals are pursued, by the unelected people they chose to head such organisations and determine their policies and strategies. They say nothing of the interests of “a vast majority of American Jews”. At the very most you could say that a few Jewish individuals are the real power in the Israel lobby, but that would still not make it the “Jewish lobby”.

          During WWII, there was known to be the Italian Lobby, which advocated favorable treatment of Italy, when it switched sides during the conflict. There was also the Chinese Lobby, which advocated that the US support the nationalist movement in China. In Florida, there is a lobby that many refer to as the Cuban Lobby.

          These lobbies consisted/consist of nationals of those countries or their immediate descendants. With the exception of actual Israeli ex-pats (a small minority), American Jews are not nor were they ever Israelis – which is why it would be ridiculous to call the Israel lobby in the United States the “Israeli lobby”. “Jewish” is not synonymous with “Israeli”.

          I believe your insistence that my suggestion taints “all Jews” is an oversimplification and untrue, simply because most any label has exceptions, and it seems you want to force everyone to treat Jews differently from how we treat other groups of people. Why would you do that?

          No, I think I have adequately explained why “Jewish” would be a misnomer in this case. I have also explained why the “precedents” you cite are not relevant. As for the reasons why I might want to “force everyone to treat Jews differently from how we treat other groups of people”, I’ll let you ponder that mystery on your own, as it is entirely your invention.

        • eljay says:

          I agree with Shmuel: Referring to the Israel lobby as the “Jewish lobby” makes all Jews culpable for the actions of the supremacist “Jewish State”* of Israel and its Zio-supremacist advocates. Seems a bit unfair, to say the least.

          (*Unlike Israeli state, German state or Chinese state, “Jewish State” is – for lack of a better term at this moment – an artificial construct. And an immoral, unjust and religion-supremacist one at that.)

        • German Lefty says:

          Wouldn’t it be more descriptive, instructive and helpful to use the term “Jewish lobby” in place of “Israel lobby”?

          No. I reject both terms. “Jewish lobby” is false because not all Jews are Zionists and not all Zionists are Jews. I don’t like the term “Israel lobby” either because it equates Israel with Zionism. However, Israel could also exist without Zionism, just like Germany can exist without Nazism. Therefore, I prefer saying “Zionist lobby”. The lobby doesn’t merely support the existence of Israel as a state but as a JEWISH state. It has a certain idea of how Israel should be, namely Zionist.

        • Truthbug- Before I parse words let me parse punctuation. I myself am very careless with capitalization, preferring small letters for my own name here for example. But you seem to be punctilious about punctuation.

          For example, the word “Lobby” versus “lobby”. In the original article by Walt and Mearsheimer, they capitalized “Lobby”, whereas when their book was published it had become “lobby”. This was a slight difference in tone, between propaganda and journalism. Phil and others here might know the chicago, sorry Chicago rules of punctuation, but if I recall, Congress is capitalized but the gun lobby is not capitalized. (punctuation and not financial capital, of course).

          In your paragraph, Truthbug, you have capitalized “interest” in the phrase: “The Israel Lobby exists in the Interest of American Jews.” Why? The sentence itself is strange. I suppose based upon your argument with Shmuel, your sentence means, the Israel lobby would not exist except as an expression by American Jews of their interest in supporting Israel. I have yet to formulate how to express that idea in a briefer fashion, but your sentence does not really say that. I’m not sure what it says. Complicated by the capital Interest, it makes it very strange indeed. Was the capital an error or propaganda or what?

        • eljay says:

          >> For example, the word “Lobby” versus “lobby”. In the original article by Walt and Mearsheimer, they capitalized “Lobby”, whereas when their book was published it had become “lobby”. This was a slight difference in tone, between propaganda and journalism.

          Common and Proper Nouns

          W&M’s capitalization of the word lobby in “Israel Lobby” is correct. To suggest that it represents propaganda is a nice bit of propaganda on your part.

        • Cliff says:

          If someone says ‘Lobby’ rather than Israel lobby, then they are simply referring to the latter (beginning with a capital ‘I’ for Israel, which henceforth is analogous to the capital ‘L’).

          There is only one Israel lobby. That is why it is referred to as ‘Lobby’. The Gun Lobby should be capitalized as well.

          Do you think the term Big Pharma is anti-pharmaceutical company? Or do anti-pharmaceutical companies need a long history of pogroms and genocides to warrant your inane accusations of bias and propaganda?

          The Israel Lobby (oh no, a double capitalization!) is the only Israel lobby there is and it definitely has a character/’personality’ about it.

          Slanderous, vindictive, war-mongering, propagandistic, fear-mongering. Those are the qualities of the Israel Lobby – an Israel lobby.

          Capiche, Wondering Jew?

      • American says:

        “”Not only does calling the Israel lobby the “Jewish lobby” prejudge all Jews, but it reinforces the claim that Israel represents all Jews and Zionism defines what it means to be Jewish. ……Shumel>>>

        And whose fault is it that the Jewish lobby is called the Jewish Lobby?
        It’s not ours.
        You know very well where the connections and ‘reinforcement’ of the Jewish Lobby comes from.
        And it’s not us.

        And this is a dumb statement…..”If that is the case, what room can there be for Jewish criticism of Israel or Zionism?”".

        What you’re saying is:

        1)We need to say The Lobby isnt Jewish so Jews can criticize it and Israel because Jews cant criticize the Lobby if it’s Jewish.

        2) So it’s ‘ our’ fault Jews arent protesting the Lobby because people call it Jewish.

        I suggest that the “majority’ of Jews ‘collectively and loudly and publically” start doing some of the work regarding AIPAC and Israel if they dont want to be ‘tarred’ by the Lobby.
        How long do you expect everyone else to devote half of all the oxgyen on I/P to protecting the ‘majority’ of Jews from being tarred by Israel and the Lobby if they arent out there ‘collectively’ shouting down the Lobby/Israel/Zionist and doing anything to protect themselves?

        Sink or swim baby……we cant cover for you forever.

        • Shmuel says:

          And whose fault is it that the Jewish lobby is called the Jewish Lobby?
          It’s not ours. You know very well where the connections and ‘reinforcement’ of the Jewish Lobby comes from. And it’s not us.

          I did say “reinforce”, didn’t I? The equivalence between Jews and Zionists is claimed and constantly promoted, first and foremost, by Israel/Zionists. Why give them a hand?

          What you’re saying is …

          If I may return your compliment, that’s a pretty dumb unpacking of what I actually said. No protecting, covering or sucking oxygen necessary. If you support the Zionist premise that Judaism=Zionism and Jews=Israel-supporters, you also reinforce the idea that Jews can’t criticise Israel. No biggie to me (I’ll still be Jewish and still criticise), but it’s a Zionist position and an own goal.

          I suggest that the “majority’ of Jews …

          I’ll remember to mention that at our next “majority of Jews” meeting, assuming I can get on the steering committee.

        • American says:

          “”If you support the Zionist premise that Judaism=Zionism and Jews=Israel-supporters, you also reinforce the idea that Jews can’t criticise Israel.”…Shumel

          Oh pease.

          What “I’ think or any non Jew thinks about …’Judaism=Zionism and Jews=Israel-supporters’..has not a damn thing to do with whether or not Jews criticize Israel or anything else.

          Which was what you said…..” If that is the case, what room can there be for Jewish criticism of Israel or Zionism?”

          And the fact that you dont have a majority meeting of the collective is also not anyone elses fault—go do a sit- in at AIPAC or the ZOA and demand voting rights and elections for the Jewish nation they officially claim to represent.

          You are in a hole, quit digging.

          .

        • Shmuel says:

          You are in a hole, quit digging.

          You’ve got the whole thing backwards, American. It’s not about you or what you think. Truthbug argued that it would be better if the “Israel lobby” were referred to as the “Jewish lobby”. I explained why I didn’t think that was a good idea – including the ramifications of implying that all Jews support Israel. Among other things, it denies — whether that is the intention of those who use it or not — the possibility of Jewish criticism of Israel/Zionism. It’s not like we need you to hold our hands or give us your permission, but it’s a Zionist argument I’d think critics of Israel would want to avoid. If you’d like to go on calling it the “Jewish lobby”, knock yourself out. We’ll live.

          BTW, it’s Shmuel, not “Shumel”. The former is the name of a prophet and means “requested from God”. The latter is reminiscent of the Yiddish word for mould.

        • German Lefty says:

          What “I’ think or any non Jew thinks about …’Judaism=Zionism and Jews=Israel-supporters’..has not a damn thing to do with whether or not Jews criticize Israel or anything else.
          Not necessarily. Our attitudes could become a self-fulfilling prophecy. If we treat German Jews or US Jews like Israelis, then they might start feeling like Israelis and identifying with Israel. The same applies to the reverse case. If Zionist Jews constantly accuse non-Jews of anti-Semitism, then one day we might actually start developing hostility towards Jews simply because we are so pissed off about their false accusations.

        • American says:

          Shmuel says:
          December 4, 2013 at 2:25 pm

          You are in a hole, quit digging.

          You’ve got the whole thing backwards, American.>>>>>

          You’re still digging.
          Just surrender.
          And as the victor I’ll be very magnanimous towards you.

        • Shmuel says:

          You’re still digging.
          Just surrender.
          And as the victor I’ll be very magnanimous towards you.

          Having a blustery day are we? To be expected on a Windsday, I guess.

        • American says:

          Shmuel says:
          December 4, 2013 at 2:51 pm

          Having a blustery day are we?
          >>>

          No, its raining, which is why I have time to rain on your parade…but we can still be friends….lol

          AIPAC is still a overwhelmingly Jewish lobby. It was started by Zionist Jews when they had to disband the original Zionist association after the Fulbright senate hearings on subversive activities in 1963.
          AIPAC is trying to get non Jews into it’s membership and going after other minorities because as the article says they expect the 2.1% of Jews in the US to dwindle down to only .08%. Despite their efforts to bring in non Jews its main membership will be Jewish for the foreseeable future.
          Personally I dont care if they are Jewish or Buddhist or Presbyterian but dont give me this nattering crap about how other people have to deny its a Jewish Lobby or be guilty of implicating all the Jews.
          You do not want it referred to as the Jewish Lobby because it doesnt represent all Jews?..fine…then start yelling ‘Houston we have a problem” at ‘your’ community not throwing it off on everyone else. All this ‘dont call things what they really are’ because it might be unfair to some Jews and cause anti semitism is becoming ridiculous. If you are so concerned why dont you sue someone, like The Forward for instance, who has thousands of articles headlined with The Jewish Lobby did this or that, or says this or that, for using ‘Jewish’ Lobby.

          link to forward.com

          AIPAC Not Just for Jews Anymore

          By Nathan Guttman
          Published March 15, 2012, issue of March 23, 2012.

          AIPAC would not provide a breakdown of participants in its policy conference based on faith or ethnicity. An unscientific survey of the audience made clear that American Jews still remain the overwhelming majority, serving as the backbone of the pro-Israel lobby. AIPAC’s board, which reflects the group’s largest donors, is made up entirely of Jewish activists.

          “We’re already planning our growth elsewhere,” an AIPAC official said.

          Sarna noted that in the wake of the 1967 Six Day War, pro-Israel activism was seen as a source of revival for the Jewish community, and therefore outreach beyond the community was ruled out. This policy has changed in recent years.

          Several demographic and political trends now guide the pro-Israel lobby as it seeks to grow and maintain its role as one of the nation’s leading political powerhouses. First is the mere fact that the proportion of Jews in America is constantly shrinking. In a March 4 presentation at the AIPAC conference, the lobby’s national political director, Robert Bassin, noted that while in 1940, American Jews made up 3.5% of the population, they are currently 2.1% of all Americans, and if the trend continues, by 2080, Jews will be only 0.8% of the population.

          Compounding the problem are geographical trends that have weakened the political power of American Jews as more Americans have moved to the Southern and Western regions from the Northeast and the Midwest. In terms of Jewish political clout, this is yet another source of concern. In his presentation, Bassin gave the example of North Carolina. The state is home to a Jewish population of only 30,000 people but has more congressional districts than New Jersey, which has a Jewish population of 500,000.

          The bottom line is clear: A shrinking Jewish population with less local power requires a boost from outside the community to get across the message.

          Among Jews, AIPAC’s support also seems to be strongest among Orthodox Jews. While there are no firm numbers of Orthodox Jews active in AIPAC, kippa-wearing participants play a dominant role in all meetings. In 2006, AIPAC appointed its first Orthodox president, Howard Friedman of Baltimore, who is still a key member in the organization’s board.

          This year, more than 70 Orthodox synagogues from across the country sent representatives to AIPAC’s policy conference and a reception organized by the Orthodox Union was attended by 400 participants.

          AIPAC’s outreach effort to the African-American community has intensified in recent years and is focused mainly on a younger generation of leaders from historically black colleges. This year, AIPAC hosted at its annual conference representatives from 23 such colleges as well as from 37 Christian- and Hispanic-centered campuses.

          Christian evangelicals are another key constituency in AIPAC’s outreach beyond the Jewish community, although this is a loose alliance.
          Most evangelical pro-Israel activists work under the umbrella of Christians United for Israel, a national organization that is led by the Rev. John Hagee . AIPAC has since made a point of holding at least one session devoted to Christian evangelical supporters.

          “Jews in America now mirror the political spectrum in Israel, and AIPAC, therefore, doesn’t have quite the same following as it had before,” Sarna said. “AIPAC’s clout will grow to the extent it can bring in new coalition partners.”

        • Shmuel says:

          OK, you’re not having a blustery day. I hit a raw nerve, and you’ve got your agenda to deal with rather than what I actually said. I understand. Feel better now? :-P

      • American says:

        I suggest we take vote on what to call The Lobby.
        I submit *The US Zionist Lobby for Israel.*
        Totally accurate and covers all bases, the US Zionist here, Jews and Christ-Zionist and any others, and Israel.

        • German Lefty says:

          I suggest we take vote on what to call The Lobby.

          That reminds me: How about weekly opinion polls on the website?

        • W.Jones says:

          Isn’t the official line that there is no “Israel Lobby” or anything of that sort, only various organizations that support the state?

        • W.Jones says:

          Yes, let’s get some opinion polls around here to spice things up.

          Unfortunately these kinds of word games are really hard to make exact, Shmuel and American. It is surprising that more Israelis are in favor of the concept of having two states (a slim majority I think) than their American counterparts. There was alot of criticism over here, like in the WSJ, about the prisoner exchange when Gilad Shalit was released- as if the State was being too liberal. If there are times when the State and Israelis are more liberal and realistic, then can you really say that it is a “pro-Israel” lobby here?
          And yet on the other hand, most American Jews were against the Iraq war, while the State was not. So there are dividing lines all over the place.

    • Woody Tanaka says:

      “Wouldn’t it be more descriptive, instructive and helpful to use the term ‘Jewish lobby’ in place of ‘Israel lobby’?”

      Hell no. It omits one of the biggest components/problems with the Lobby: the Christian zionists. Also, and most importantly, it unfairly tags all Jews as being part of the problem. The problem here is the ideology of zionism and the acts taken persuant to that ideology.