Jeffrey Goldberg toured West Bank settlements with Hagit Ofran of Peace Now and posted:
Later in the day, after I tweeted out news of this latest round of vandalism [against Peace Now], I received an e-mail from a self-identified settler who wrote, “Which side are you on, the Jewish side or the enemies of the Jews side, like Peace Now?” Hagit Ofran, I would only point out, is a self-described Zionist who seeks to preserve Israel’s Jewish majority, and its democracy and at that the same time afford the Palestinian people some dignity, dignity being a Jewish value, of course.
I guess some dignity beats no dignity. But think on American values for a second. Is it kosher to talk about maintaining a white majority? Or a Christian one?
Or an Aryan one?
The “white race” is a constructed concept – what the hell is white and how is skin colour the definition of a race? Religion is not a whole lot better – I thought it was anti-semetic to claim that all Jews are the same, and yet we have Israel and its one-size-fits-all. If that isn’t bad enough we have Israel is for the white people.
Christian states worked so wonderfully – think of the long lasting peace christian Europe had. In the end, Christian has also demonstrated that it too is arbitrary.
It is mind blowing to use dignity and Jewish majority in the same sentence. There is no dignity in telling people who they can and can not marry. There is no dignity in controlling what religion people belong to by punishing “incorrect” religions.
How about: Later in the day, after I tweeted out news of this latest round of vandalism [against Quakers], I received an e-mail from a self-identified Southern White who wrote, “Which side are you on, the Southern side or the enemies of the South side, like Quakers?” Hagit Ofran, I would only point out, is a self-described Christian who seeks to preserve the South’s White majority, and its democracy and at that the same time afford the Black people some dignity, dignity being a Southern White value, of course.
In an interview, Hagit Ofran said UN Resolution 242 intentionally left ambiguous how many and which post ’67 Israeli settlements must be dismantled and the land returned to the Palestinians. She must therefore be referencing the English translation of said resolution, not the French translation which was not ambiguous: all of them. And she seems equally ignorant, whether intentionally or not, of the rational and common-sensical legal interpretation principle that when one interpretation is ambiguous, and another is not, go with the latter.
“I guess some dignity beats no dignity. But think on American values for a second. Is it kosher to talk about maintaining a white majority? Or a Christian one?”
Ofran’s not American to my knowledge. And Israeli politicians never refer to Israel as having “judeo-christian values.”
The emailer settler conflated supporting the settlements with being Jewish. Obviously Ofran supports some settlements, but perhaps not all of them, in any end game for peace. That means, in that settler’s eyes, she’s not a “real” Jew. Wonder if that emailer settler was born and raised in Brooklyn? Then immigrated to an Israeli settlement to be free to be a “real,” aka fully-functioning Jew, as distinguished from being a fully-functioning American, Jewish or Gentile?
“But think on American values for a second. Is it kosher to talk about maintaining a white majority? Or a Christian one? ”
Israel isn’t America. And there are 14 million Jews in the world, not 1.5 billion with majorities in five dozen countries. How you can continue to compare the two without acknowledging that reality is beyond me. If the shoe were on the other foot, if there were 14 million Christians and 1.5 billion Jews, and there was a single state with a Christian majority, the Christians would do everything to make sure it stayed that way, particularly if they had a long history of being persecuted as a minority.
And the truth is that people in US call for maintaining white and Christian majorities all the time in not so many words. What do you think the anti-immigrant sentiment is all about? What do you think the right-wing Evangelicals would like to see? What do you think the election of anti-immigrant politicians in Europe is about? These are country that are more white and Christian than Israel will ever be Jewish. They are 90% white and Christian. Even now, they face no demographic threat from their Muslims. And in places like Holland and Austria and France, large segments of the population are going nuts trying to make sure these countries retain their “European identity.” We all know what that means.
Re: Jewish nationalism, white nationalism, black nationalism, Arab nationalism, Hindu nationalism, etc.
Does anyone disagree with the proposition that Jewish ethno-religious nationalism is precisely analogous to white Christian ethno-religious nationalism?
What is the difference between Jewish nationalists like Benjamin Netanyahu or Jeffrey Goldberg and white nationalists like David Duke and his European counterparts?
Would any Jewish nationalists here care to explain why some forms of ethnic and religious nationalism are legitimate and others are not? Perhaps hophmi or tokyobk?
I have repeatedly tried to raise this issue with Jewish nationalists here on Mondoweiss and elsewhere and have been consistently been met with a dead silence. Not a word. This is a subject they very much do not want to discuss.
It is not a coincidence that the Zionist forebears of Likud (like Lehi) expressed pro-Nazi sentiments. Ethnic nationalists of all varieties tend to support one another against the “evils” of modern Western democracies and Enlightenment values. Zionism and Americanism are radically incompatible ideologies. Eventually even Jeffrey Goldberg will figure this out — it’s a no-brainer.
“What is the difference between Jewish nationalists like Benjamin Netanyahu or Jeffrey Goldberg and white nationalists like David Duke and his European counterparts?……Sean
None?
But I doubt the Jeffery Goldbergs will ever figure that out.
I don’t really object to people who want to ‘live seperately’ for some religious or cultural reason…..the problem is when it’s’ hostile and aggressive to others” outside them, imposes on and harms others. The Quakers and some others have managed to live in their own culture and maintain some seperation to a degree without being a threat to or imposition on others.