-
-
- Resume builders: Be a broken record on Iran, cheer authoritarians … 1
- UN Committee: Israeli system ‘tantamount to apartheid’ 0
- Slater on Beinart 0
- And we live on… 0
- US official — we went to Israel first 3
- Israel lobby’s favorite senator tries to erase Palestinian refugee status … 23
- Israel takes 30 dunams of land near Salfit ‘for security … 4
- Aaron David Miller: After a short ‘peace process,’ look … 38
-
- BDS victory: South Africa strips Ahava’s ‘made in Israel’ label 713
- Video: Israeli mob demands all African refugees be deported from … 475
- Day after pogroms, Likud MK calls for internment camp for … 427
- Neverending Nakba: Israel breaks lull, attacks Gazan farmers 413
- ‘This is not fair play’: Mahmoud Sarsak’s family demands his … 389
- March of the Flags 345
- Neocons in Washington Post: Military strike on Iran would ‘calm … 323
- Nabi Saleh’s Bassem Tamimi convicted by Israeli courts based on … 293
-
- The Messiah’s Donkey: Settlers fire on Palestinian villagers as the … 235
- Aharon Appelfeld’s rage at the German language (and Arendt’s need … 156
- US to differentiate between ‘personally displaced’ Palestinian refugees and their … 129
- March of the Flags 127
- Affirming a Judaism and Jewish identity without Zionism 110
- Feeling the hate in Long Island 97
- Israeli judge to issue verdict in Rachel Corrie case 94
- WaPo’s Walter Pincus says US is ‘going above and beyond … 87
-
Recent Comments
click link to see last 100 comments- Resume builders: Be a broken record on Iran, cheer authoritarians in Gulf (1)
- Annie Robbins: Having recognized its weakness, the US knows that it will be the UN that takes the lead in Syria and...
- Did Israeli Eurovision contestant watch too much Juliano Mer Khamis? (54)
- Annie Robbins: GL, urban dictionary has PEP, just no explanation of progressive except for palestine....
- German Lefty: Annie, it looks like you got infected with the Eurovision virus. Great. The more fans, the better. The...
- US official — we went to Israel first (3)
- traintosiberia: OMG! Why I don”t have that Stockholm Syndrome yet! How long do I have to feign that I have it.
- Annie Robbins: a U.S. official…asked to remain anonymous owing to the sensitive nature of the issue. sensitive?...
- Carllarc: proof of ‘Israel firsters’, for sure
- Israel lobby’s favorite senator tries to erase Palestinian refugee status for millions (23)
- piotr: How many Jews who made aliya were actual refugees from Roman persecution? Thus the “Jew who taunted...
- Affirming a Judaism and Jewish identity without Zionism (113)
- yourstruly: what was that sound? the special relationship breaking down and the loud and sustained chorus that...
- MHughes976: I’m still a bit uncertain about what R.Brian means by ‘Zionism’: what proposition did...
- yourstruly: given, that the israel’s brutal occupation of palestine is why much of the arab/islamic world hates...
- Resume builders: Be a broken record on Iran, cheer authoritarians in Gulf (1)
Our Writers
- Philip Weiss
- Adam Horowitz
- Allison Deger
- Annie Robbins
- Kate
- Today in Palestine
- Alex Kane
- Eleanor Kilroy
Blogroll
The War of Ideas in the Middle East
"the now defunct group whose raison d’etre can be summed up in the banner: pro-Likud, pro-big business. "
Oh, shut up, MJ. Clinton was the most the famous thing to come out of the DLC, and he was not pro-Likud.
And what's Booker's big connection? And how does it relate to his comments over the weekend?
"I’d like to see a poll of the other 98% of Americans, the youth portion–does anyone think, absent such a poll (when it will come, only 98%?) that they are Israel Firsters? "
People who support a strong US-Israel relationship are not Israel-firsters anymore than people who support a Palestinian state and continued aid to Palestine are Palestine-firsters. Most Americans, across the board, are apathetic.
LOL. I don't think the views of the kids in Max's video reflect the views of the majority of young Jews in the US. Neither do the kids from Young, Jewish, and Proud. They are two extremes. Most young Jews favor the two-state solution and oppose settlements. They are not for a one-state solution, binational or otherwise.
Again, nonsense. Most liberal Jews support a two-state solution.
"Right-wing Jews and Christian fundamentalists will make up the core of the Republican party for quite some time to come."
No. Right-wing Jews are too small a part of the population to make up the core of anything.
"(as Max Blumenthal's seminal Feeling the Hate video captured the real attitudes of young American Jewish goers to Jerusalem drinking deep from the Zionist cisterns).
There is zero evidence that Max did anything but interview a bunch of drunk college students. Pick a narrative, Phil. Young Jewish Americans are either less pro-Israel than their parents or they are not.
"These new trends will expose Israel's obsession with demographics as out of date and out of step with U.S. attitudes. "
I doubt it, because, once again, Israel is not the US and the US is not Israel.
I'm waiting for you to address the irony of chastising Israel for worrying about demographics in a region where its people are a small minority who were persecuted in neighboring countries, and where most of the argument against its existence was made in demographic terms (we tolerate the Jews, just not too many of them).
If the roles were reversed, do you think the Arabs would not care about demographics?
***YAWN***. This is politics, no surprise. People raise money for candidates who support their positions.
In other news, the sky is blue.
Wow, if you can watch that debate and conclude that the positions of the two debaters are not far apart, there is something very seriously wrong with you.
The debate is from the late 1980s, well before Dershowitz ever expressed an opinion on whether ticking bombs should be tortured or not, for which Hostage and others, who have heretofore never condemned the routine torture that takes place in Palestinian prisons and other prisons throughout the Arab world, labeled him "Professor Torture."
It's unclear how Hostage determined that the event was any more "high staged" than any other debate on an issue of importance.
For the record, Dershowitz has favored the two-state solution for a very long time.
"It’s a Jewish lobby screaming for war against one of the most important Muslim nations."
Again, the policy promoted in this legislation is supported by the American people, who believe that if Iran gets an actual nuke, we should attack. Yet, you blame the Jews.
This is the crux of the argument that compares Israeli and Palestinian casualties. It is more about not enough Israelis dying than about too many Palestinians dying.
"The “end of days” is a key theological issue for Jews and Christians, and a divisive one."
Yes, of course it is. So is the widespread theology in Islam that everyone ought to be converted and gays and women are less equal. But it doesn't stop leftist atheists from finding common cause with Muslims over Palestine, does it?
"Just one of the damaging aspects of this collaboration is that the cause of Palestinian Christians is being sacrificed in order to achieve American Christian-Jewish unity around the unholy dyad of anti-Semitism/Zionism."
If there was no alliance between Israel and the Christian fundamentalists, do you think the Palestinian Christians would fare differently?
"I find this pretense to be distasteful and disingenuous. It’s disrespectful towards people who have honest beliefs that we do not share. It’s also a dangerous game which more Jews than should shrug off with a wink and a nod."
Can you agree, Elliot, that people who have different religious beliefs make political alliances all the time? That's all that this is.
No, I'm saying Phan's argument is childish, idiotic, and selective. That's all. Phan's argument is that Michael Oren is a bad guy for being a politician. It's silly and stupid more than anything else.
I don't recall using the word antisemitic, but again, leave it to the crazies to see implications when none are there. I just think Phan's argument is shitty.
Right, because as we all know, when politicians promote a political position, each and every audience or organization they address must share that political position. That's why President Obama never addresses any organization that isn't for gay rights, affirmative action, environmental protection, or health care reform. I guess Obama is pinkwashing. whitewashing, greenwashing, redwashing, and bluewashing.
Guess what, Phan. Politicians craft different messages for different audiences. It's called R-E-A-L-I-T-Y. We live in a country where, gasp, someone can be opposed to gay rights and still, gasp, have redeeming quality as a human being. The same people can, gasp, support Israel, even though, gasp, Israel is gay-friendly, double-gasp.
"The WJC delegation from the nation state of the Jews has hundreds of nuclear weapons"
LOL. Your attempts to prove your point never fail to amaze me, Hostage.
You cited three pre-modern examples that are all controversial pieces of history to begin with; it's not clear that in any of these situations, Jews were even a majority of the realm.
The history of the Jews, particularly in Europe, in the thousand or so years before 1948, is one punctuated by expulsion after expulsion, periodic massacres, and after the Enlightenment and Emancipation, the worst massacre of all. That's key. The Holocaust came AFTER the Jews were emancipated and given equal rights in Europe. That is why, no matter how successful Jews are in America, no matter how much wealth individual Jews may accumulate, no matter how esteemed Jews are, it is not security, and the equal rights rhetoric of the one-staters is unconvincing.
We have experienced all of this before. There have been successful and wealthy Jews before; we have been esteemed as a people in the past. But when we became less than profitable, when a ruler came along who wasn't a big fan, or when the central authority got weak and peasantry out of control, wealth and esteem made no difference.
No amount of communal autonomy provided long-term stability, and as you and others have pointed out, the deals communal leaders were forced to make with individual rulers for protection from the Christian masses only made antisemitism worse in the long run.
Thus, we sought self-determination and political statehood.
The jury is out on whether this model will work better than in the past; it has been only 64 years. But the status of Jews across the world has improved more the last 64 years than in the 1000 years before that. I don't think that is a coincidence.
I'm not aware of any held by the World Jewish Congress.
"You think Jews are the only people with a history of oppression and persecution?"
Not at all. Is that an argument?
None of that is power. Power to me is the ability to control your own destiny. That's what self-determination is all about.
The ability of Jewish communities to govern themselves during the Middle Ages has nothing to do with power.
Neither does a Jew with money equal power. Jacob Schiff money could not stop the Kishniev pogrom.
Power is the ability to control your destiny. Period.
Yay Annie! You found a story about a Jew who beat up a black guy! Yay! I mean, apparently, the victim does not even want to testify, but who cares? Jew beats up black guy, I've got to post it because it makes the Jews look bad. Yay for Annie!
Why don't you enlighten us, Kathleen, about all of the power Jews had before 1948.
Why don't you enlighten us, Kathleen, as to what power Jews had before 1948.
Jack Ross writes that the American Jewish community is more of a polity than a religion because it has an umbrella org that is comprised of all of the major denominations. Another writer here, American, says, orgs like the World Jewish Congress, play into antisemitic stereotypes.
There seems to be an implicit rejection here of the right of Jews to organize themselves and define themselves.
Jews ARE permitted to act collectively as both a religious group and as a political one. They have defined themselves as such for a long time. That does not negate their ability to be citizens of other nations any more than it does Catholics who follow the church or Muslims who believe in an Ummah.
The fact that Catholics and Muslims organize themselves nationally and internationally should show that doing so has nothing to do with victimhood.
When in doubt, just post twice. It's Jack Ross's statement, not Phil's, and once again, no one has impugned the holy activism of non-Jews, Kathleen.
"Until Beinart (and others) must face that fact, that Zionism is not a subsidiary of Judaism, but that Judaism is a wholly-owned property of Zionism which would have to completely and wholly re-invent and re-organise itself without Zionism’s support. Oh well, who ever thought that cute little Golden Calf, which many people claimed had the potential to grow into a red heifer, would grow up to be such a monster."
Spoken like someone who spends a lot of time obsessing over Zionism, and knows next to nothing about Judaism.
The WJC and bodies like it are not asking you to support settlements. Israel is not the only cause the Conference of Presidents addresses, or, for that matter, the Board of Deputies in Great Britain.
Jack Ross seems to believe that by virtue of forming umbrella organizations that purport to speak for the Jewish community, we are a polity more than we are a religion, but other religious groups who do so seemingly are not. Jack wrote that "American Judaism, in the main, does not regard itself as a religion in the sense that the term is understood in the modern world" because everyone belongs to the Conference of Presidents, ie, we have umbrella orgs that purport to speak for us. One commentator here wrote that organizations like the WJC play into anti-Jewish stereotypes.
I'm asking: How is that any difference from what other faiths do? The Catholic Church purports to speak for Catholics, and they definitely take political positions. Muslims have several national organizations from CAIR to ISNA to many in between that purport to speak for them. Yes, we have international organizations too.
So do Catholics and Muslims and people of other faiths. So why does an international Jewish organization give rise to canards about Jewish influence, but an international Catholic organization like the Church, which is far, far more powerful, escape scrutiny here?
No, like protecting themselves from persecution.
How about you answer the question, Mooser? Are Jews allowed to unite to protect themselves from persecution?
Yes, it all looks absurd if you have no knowledge of history and seek to apply a special standard to Jews that you don't apply to others. If, however, you do have a knowledge of the past, it is not at all surprising that Jews, for whom persecution knew no national borders, would seek to unite amongst themselves.
The Muslims certainly do it, though organizations like the OIC. The Arabs certainly do it, through organizations like the Arab League. The Catholics certainly do it through the Catholic Church. All of these bodies represent numbers that are several dozens times the size of the worldwide Jewish community.
Why is it so surprising that Jews would seek to unite for common causes?
"I was amused to discover that he also founded something called Mazon: A Jewish Response to Hunger. I’m still fully expecting to someday see “Jews against Global Warming.”"
Didn't know Mazon was him. Mazon is a great organization. Fein writes a weekly column for the Forward.
"The piece process was never going anywhere anyways and Hamas was nurtured by Israel in the first place as a counter to the secular PLO."
Untrue. And Israel had stopped "nurturing" Hamas well before suicide bombing started.
"
The power dynamic of this conflict is self explanatory and no one needs to get into the specifics of BDS to understand that it is Israel and its cultist supporters like yourself at fault."
I forgot what a great job you're doing finding a solution.
"Oh gawd….can you shut up with this —-> ‘it’s always someone else’s fault’ stuff? "
Sorry if it's inconvenient to your worldview. It's true. Life is more complicated outside your little BDS cult.
Liberal Zionists are the ones responsible for bringing us closest to the two-state solution through Oslo. They made up a sizable chunk of Israeli Jewish society until terrorism discredited their approach in the eyes of the Israeli public. They are responsible for the founding of the State of Israel, which had 30 years of Labor governments before it had a Likud Prime Minister.
Nothing in Beinart's book suggests he is removed from the reality on the ground. The problem is that many people here are removed from the reality in Israeli society, which was mostly behind the Oslo process until the wave of suicide attacks led to the anti-Oslo Netanyahu's first term as Prime Minister, the slowing down of the Oslo, and the acceleration of settlement activity (most of which took place under Netanyahu). It is not a coincidence that in left-wing newspapers like the Guardian, mainstream Zionist voices are almost completely absent, and thus, most activists have no idea how people actually think. It's easier to use stereotypes and epithets to define them rather than actually listen to what they have to say.
Hamas had an objective in the 1990s. It was to derail the peace process. They succeeded in bringing Likud into power. That was their achievement.
Dude, this is like the seventh thread you've posted this on. It has nothing to do with this discussion. We get it.
"American Jewish organizations are calling for military action if Israel (and hence their parrots among the American Jewish organizations) do not believe the sanctions are working sufficiently and in time."
On that they're not alone.
"Netanyahu has already implied at times that it is already too late for sanctions."
True.
"The pro-Israeli lobby even demands that the President of the United States not be given discretion in the use of military force. "
That is not true. The only thing I've heard is that the President shouldn't take the military option off the table, which frankly, no President would.
"It wants military action written into legislation. "
I'm not sure what you mean.
"My posting resulted from talking with a number of Jews about their views on Iran. And not one who supported military action against Iran were encouraging or even in favor of their children or grandchildren serving. Are you arguing that this is not a typical reaction?"
I'd say it's pretty typical, but hardly confined to Jews who support military action. I think most people would say the same regardless of what religion they are.
The latest polling I saw suggests that Americans do not favor military action now. They do favor it if Iran gets a nuke or sanctions do not work.
There's an awful lot of play in the question of Iran getting a nuke. Most favor sanctions. Most favor giving sanctions a chance (consistent with the American public). Most don't believe sanctions will work. If they don't work, most favor military action of some kind. Again, this is consistent with what the general public believes.
"I expect that any community in America calling for our troops to engage in a military action that could easily result in war would consider itself morally compelled to contribute family members to the conflict."
I can see the point of view though I don't agree with it because it suggests that family members are obliged to act on the opinions of others and also that one cannot hold an opinion unless one is ready to act on it and be personally affected by it. This kind of thinking would also suggest that no one has the right to an opinion on Israeli policy unless one lives in Israel.
"For me it is a moral question. One should not be calling for war, if you are not prepared to see your loved ones fight in it."
The premise is first of all wrong; American Jewish organizations are not calling for war. They are calling for strong sanctions.
I know of no such moral obligation, and moreover, I certainly do not see how that carries over to the question of how many Jews serve in the Army. As you say, Annie, most American Jews do not favor military action in Iran. So it should not be suprising that Jews don't serve in the military in proportion to their population. Have you done a survey of Jews who favor military action in Iran and how many of their children serve?
This entire discussion is fraught with moral problems, but not the kind you're talking about. It's immoral to expect of the Jewish community something you don't seem to require of any other community in America.
"about that well-organized pressure group..i don’t believe they have wide support in america "
They do. Polling shows that most Americans support Israel's right to exist and a strong US-Israel relationship.
"i don’t even believe they represent most american jews"
It depends on what aspect of the policy you're talking about. Most American Jews do not support settlements. But they do support Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state.
"i think they are bullies and that’s why they have so much influence and people are afraid to stand up to them for fear of loosing their careers and other kinds of intimidation. "
They are a lobby. They're no different from any other lobby; if you don't support their agenda, they will not give you money. That's not bullying. That's American politics. If you're from certain parts of the South, you're not going to win an election if you don't support gun rights. That doesn't make the NRA a bully. If you're from certain parts of Florida, you're not going to win an election if you don't support Medicare. That doesn't make the AARP a bully.
"i also think they lie a lot, and don’t really believe lots of the stuff they say because if they did believe it, they would be sending their own kids off to war in greater numbers. "
Most the hawks say that the US should let Israel take care of Iran, not that the US should get involved.
Even if they did believe that the US should get involved, why, in your estimation does a person who favors military action, have an obligation to send his child into harms way? Isn't that first of all up to the child, and second of all, beside the point?
Do we now have a civic obligation to encourage our children to fulfill our foreign policy objectives?
Yes, it's true, some soldiers with Jewish-Christian backgrounds served in the German army to protect their families from persecution.
You unintentionally illustrate a point, though, because like many Jews in the US Army, the identity of those with a Jewish background in Wehrmacht was usually not clear, so the official numbers are probably not accurate.
I intimidated somebody? OK Annie, you tell us. Why do you think it's important so us to have a conversation about how many Jews there are in the Army? Jews serve. There's certainly no campaign to discourage them from serving.
"but heck….are they sending their sons and daughters to go fight israels wars?
Do people who advocate hawkish foreign policies have an obligation to send their children in the army?
"and if they are such a minority why is it they have so much pull with both congress and within the media?"
Do you ever get tired of asking yourself questions like this? We've established that there is a well-organized pressure group that lobbies on behalf of a strong US-Israel relationship. They are well-organized, well-financed, and their ideas have wide support in America, and so they get things done, just like any other lobby. It's not a great mystery. It's not a secret cabal. If you disagree with them, the answer is to organize your own group around your cause, rather than to spend your time making up conspiracy theories about them or asking rhetorical questions about why more members of some ethnic group don't join the army, or why members of the same ethnic group join the Supreme Court too frequently, or whatever the complaint of the week is in order to make up for why your point of view is not as dominant.
"The 30K quoted in the Jewish Week "
I believe it was quoted in the JTA. It's a liberal estimate, not established fact, as I made clear.
"Starting with the names, I would check the funeral announcements to see if the soldier had a Jewish funeral or not. The results never exceeded 1%."
Nor did I suggest that the numbers were more than 1%. Again, the most liberal estimate I saw was about 30K, which would work out to a little under 1%.
In general, I don't think this type of discussion is relevant or necessary. I grew up with someone who served in Iraq. Jews do serve; there is no campaign in the Jewish community to encourage people NOT to serve.
"Yeah, but they are Jewish news sources, so it’s okay to dismiss them as biased, as you yourself held (albeit regarding a different ethnicity. But you wouldn’t find it okay to dismiss Arab news sources as biased, but not Jewish ones, right?"
Eh? I'm not sure what you have in mind, but I'm almost sure that is not what I said. I believe there was a discussion about what I consider a Jewish news source, and several of you attempted to argue that CNN, ABC, and NBC were Jewish news sources because Jews were the chairmen of their parent companies. Then I was asked what I consider a Jewish news source, and I named some Jewish newspapers. It was something like that.
That would 2 or 3 times, not 1 time. According to the Jewish Week article, it may be double. According to the JTA article, it may be as much as 30K, or triple the reported number.
"You guys have got a Jewish problem."
Clearly.
It's OK to say the Netanyahu cheapens the Holocaust by mentioning Iran, but apparently saying this: "history will record an israeli attack on iran to have been the equivalent of nazi germany’s invasion of poland" is not cheapening the Holocaust. Hmm.
"so what do you think about netanyahu’s statements (elie wiesel too) about iran on holocaust remembrance day? just cheapening the memory of those who perished for political points?"
No Annie. I think he genuinely believes that Iran is a major threat. He may be wrong, but he's been pretty consistent in making the argument.
"but then step up to the table to lay down some numbers that ostensibly support your argument."
There don't seem to be reliable numbers; that's part of the point. The percentage of self-identifying Jews is about 1/3 of 1 percent. Most estimates seem to suggest that the real number is one or two times that.
I think this is an irrelevant discussion. I can think of all kind of ways Jews contribute to the defense of this country and all kind of ways Jews serve this country besides Army service. Why is this question important to you? Are you asserting that Jews owe a quota to the armed forces that others don't?
"where are today's Jewish GIs?"
Now we're going to play this game?
The numbers are very much in dispute.
At West Point, Jews are approximately 2 percent of each class, commensurate with percentage of population.
link to blogs.jta.org
"Which political issues do you care about more than Israel and conflicts with your ethnic, religious and national enemies?"
Eh? I'm voting for Obama. My major issues are all over the place, from the economy, to social libertarianism, to human rights, to the foreign aid budget, to immigration policy.
I don't have any ethnic, religious, or national enemies.
"Let’s see a list of your key authorities and experts on Mideast politics."
I'm not doing your homework for you. I get most of my information from reading newspapers from the New York Times to Haaretz to the Guardian to Al-Jazeera to this blog. You can look up the writers and do an ethnic assessment if you want to waste your time.
"Mondoweiss points of view and authors are almost completely censored in the mainstream media and American Jewish establishment. "
Yes, most of the mainstream media can recognize antisemitism when they see it and reject the thesis that the Jews led us into war.
"From the standpoint of the Israel lobby, the Internet is a highly subversive and dangerous technology that needs to be brought under authoritarian control."
LOL.
"Even Peter Beinart, who is not nearly as adventurous as Philip Weiss, is now now under massive attack by the Jewish establishment and the Israel lobby for daring to state a few obvious facts about the real world."
I wouldn't say he's under massive attack. He's been pretty harshly criticized. But for the most part, he hasn't had trouble getting speaking dates at JCCs and places like the 92nd Street Y.
"The truth is, Zionism is now a reality-hostile and autocratic cult that specializes in shrill bullying and intimidation."
LOL. On a thread that featured citations from a book that blames Jews for WWII.
"How is it “antisemitic” to point out that an amazingly high number of Washington Post writers are Jewish ethnic nationalists who agitated for the Iraq War and who are now agitating for an Iran War?"
You have David Broder on the list; he's dead. You have Peter Beinart on the list; he's certainly not a supporter of going to war with Iran.
The general, though is antisemitic, because there are plenty of non-Jewish writers supporting retaining the military option with Iran as well. You conjecture, based on nothing other than the religion of the writers, that Jews must support a position because they are Jews, but apparently, non-Jews support it for other reasons. So whatever it is, if you don't like it, and a Jew supports it, it must be because of religion, not because the person genuinely believes it's good foreign policy. These guys are all foreign policy hawks. They are not the only foreign policy hawks in America.
You've presented no facts. Only a list and conjecture.
"Compare the number of New York Times op-ed articles on Israel with the number of op-ed articles on Ireland from 1960 through 2012. I am betting that the ratio is 10 to 1, or even 20 to 1, or even more. What do you think?"
I really have no idea. I imagine that the hotter the troubles got, the more op-eds appeared.
"Run the same numbers for Germany, France, Italy, Sweden, Japan, etc."
Again, I'm not sure what your point is. These are not controversial issues right now. When we were fighting in WWII, and people were interested in these countries day to day, I bet lots of articles appeared in the newspapers.
"The obsessive overfocus on Israel in the American mainstream media compared to other nations is grotesque "
I absolutely agree that there are way, way too many articles in the newspaper on Israel. But that has nothing to do with America. That is true around the world. Israel has thousands of journalists living within its borders. They are not all Americans.
"and especially when one takes into account the number of Israelis and pro-Israel Jews in the United States compared to the numbers for other national and ethnic groups."
Well, obviously, not just Jews are interested in Israel.
"The smartest move that American Jews could make at this point is to greatly reduce the level of cantankerous controversies about Israel in American politics and culture."
I know virtually no Jewish leader who would not be overjoyed if Israel were taken off the front page of the newspaper forever.
"But the level of noise and clamor about Israel seems to keep increasing with every year."
There are more than a billion Muslims and more than a billion Christians, and the Holy Land is a matter of interest to their communities. They are the ones responsible for keeping Israel on the front page, not the Jews.
"I named 32 Jewish ethnic nationalists who have been given a prominent platform on the op-ed page of the Washington Post. You didn’t challenge or question any of the names on the list."
I don't accept your premise, Sean, so we may not have any basis for discussion. I don't interpret everyone who believes in the concept of a Jewish state as a Jewish ethnic nationalist, because I don't view Israel as an ethnocracy, and I don't view everyone who supports the right of Israel to exist as a nationalist. Moreover, the vast majority of the people on your list do not write with any regularity on Israel.
"Once again: can you name any other ethnic nationalist groups that have been given a prominent platform on the op-ed pages of the Washington Post, New York Times, Wall Street Journal and other leading American mainstream newspapers?"
It's a very silly question, because not every country is subjected to the level of controversy Israel is, so not every country requires giving people a platform. That said, Palestinians from Abu Mazen to Yasir Arafat to Rashid Khalidi to Ali Abunimah have appeared in the NY Times to argue for a Palestinian state.
"Who are the Irish, Arab, German or Italian equivalents to Charles Krauthammer at the Washington Post? "
I'm not aware of constant challenges to the existence of any of these states, so I don't know why there would be a need to publish articles on a noncontroversy. Again Charles Krauthammer does not write only about Israel, so I don't really see your point.
"Keep in mind that Jews represent only 2% of the American population and aggressive Jewish ethnic nationalists even a much smaller percent "
Now they're aggressive? Peter Beinart is aggressive to you? There are a lot of Jewish journalists out there, I'll give you that.
"most American Jews do not share the views and agenda of Jewish neoconservatives and Likud Zionists."
Not everyone on your list is a neocon. And once again, Israel is not what they regularly write about.
"What is going on here? What explains the extreme bias of the American mainstream media in this domain?"
Again, I wouldn't call it extreme. You call it extreme. But there are Arab and Palestinian voices in mainstream newspapers frequently. I'd argue that the bias exists in left-wing European newspapers like the Guardian, where mainstream Zionist voices are rarely heard.
"Might it have anything to do with the agenda of the owners and top management of these media outlets?"
No. Israel is simply viewed differently here than it is elsewhere. A LOT of issues are viewed differently here than elsewhere. Like Cuba, to take one example; I am pretty sure that no country publishes as much anti-Cuba literature and reportage as this one does. There is no proliferation of Cuban journalists and newspaper owners that I know of.
"aside from the arrogance of your approach to each and every person who has stepped forward"
LOL. I'm not the arrogant one here. Look, if you want to live in this little world here and regard Israel Shahak as a credible source on Jewish history, go ahead. In the real world, there are many, many respected books on Jewish history you can read; I suggested one. Shahak's is not one of them. Usually, books can't be both political polemics and respected history books at the same time.
“I won’t accept a single cite from that book without independent verification. It’s not remotely a credible source.”
Yes, Miriam, books that blame the Jews for WWII, are written by interested parties like government officials, and do not provide citations for their claims are not usually considered credible. If I posted an unsourced list of Muslim attacks on Jews or Christians from a book written by Meir Kahane, I don't think you'd accept it as fact.
“The fact that you would rely on a book like this for anything is telling. But never mind."
Why does this trouble you? Would you rely on a book by a Holocaust denier?
"except those You decree as ‘worthy’….and who would that include? Wolfowitz? Perle? Feith? Wurmser? Abrams? "
Any respected historian or news media source. Like, you know, an actual history professor who has published on Jewish history or Palestinian history and has been peer-reviewed. A news source like, you know, a respected newspaper or wire service. See, this is how polarized the atmosphere is. I object to using Israel Shahak as a source on Jewish history, and you assume that all I could possibly accept is Bush administration officials.
"Earlier in the day you claimed to be completely unaware of any possible application of this theological teaching regarding the applicability of the commandments regarding the 7 Nations to other Gentile nationalities who might consider Israel their home. "
You've not remotely shown how that teaching is applied today. You've simply posted a Rashi and made the leap that because the community of religious fanatics in the West Bank don't like the Palestinians (who have repeatedly killed their children in an internecine war), it must be an application of this teaching, which you continuously and erroneously refer to as supercessionism.
"Hophmi is completely impervious to all the well-documented facts that you and others bring to his attention — repeatedly in this discussion he has failed to respond to or even acknowledge these facts."
I'm not impervious to Hostages, um, "facts."
He simply hasn't made his case. He said that rabbis frequently burn Christian holy books in Israel. He hasn't substantiated that claim, not remotely. He said that churches are frequently targetted for arson, graffiti, and stoning. He hasn't substantiated that claim either.
Most of his chronology comes from a book by a PLO diplomat that accuses the Jews of starting WWII, not from news articles or first-hand accounts.
"Hophmi is an ethno-religious nationalist cultist."
You're a BDS cultist antisemite.
"Cultists by definition are only interested in using information to prop up their irrational and indefensible beliefs"
Exactly as you do.
"they do not use facts about the world to search out the truth with an open mind."
They use lists of Jews to make antisemitic arguments (calling them arguments is far too generous) about Jewish power in society.
"Hophmi no one takes your questions seriously. "
Well, it's real easy to ignore the questions of dissenters. Why challenge your assumptions?
"We’re talking about efforts to intimidate the network or its advertisers over a pretty tame news report which explains why Arab Christians might be leaving Israel and Palestine. "
Intimidation? What kind? So far all I've heard is that the Ambassador called CBS News to complain. Is complaining the same thing as intimidation now? Let's redefine another word.
And what intimidation it was. It seems to have had no effect, probably because it wasn't an intimidating call.
"Mondoweiss readers have seen: videos of Jews marching through the streets of Jerusalem chanting death to the Arabs and proudly showing-off their racist dark side at a Jerusalem Mall after a soccer match. "
Yes, they have. Have they seen the videos of Arabs chanting anti-Jewish slogans and Arab clerics comparing Jews to pigs and monkeys?
"We’ve seen videos of those same settlers celebrating Purim by singing the praises of Baruch Goldstein and his efforts to shoot and kill Arabs. "
Yes, there are fanatics in Israel. In Egypt, their equivalent represents the strongest political party in the country. In Palestine, their equivalent won a democratic election in 2006.
"The major Israeli newspapers have all published reports which say the majority of Jewish high school students oppose equal rights for Arabs."
An unfortunate byproduct of what happens when a terrorist group sends in suicide bombers to kill your civilians and pronounces all Israeli civilians as Zionist soldiers and thus legitimate targets. link to forward.com
"Other polls show that the majority of Jews believe the state has the right to strip Arabs of their citizenship, redraw the country’s borders to keep Arabs out, or to take action to prod Arabs to emigrate to other countries"
As usually, you're lying. The poll said most Jews think the state is entitled to encourage Arabs to emigrate, not that the state has the right to strip them of citizenship or redraw borders.
"It’s remarkable that Bob Simon and CBS didn’t mention all of that in their report on the vanishing Christian population of the Holy Land. "
Well, messianists are not a big part of the Christian population in Israel, and given the history of Christian missionizing and the dishonesty of campaigns like Jews for Jesus, in which Christian fundamentalists fund a group of Christians that they call Jews, I can see why Israel would restrict it. Not every country has to protect the right of missionaries to bother people. Would you like to make an argument that Christian missionary activity toward Jews has been historically been positive? Would you like to tell me how Christians are doing in the Muslim world?
Maybe you should take a trip to Northern Nigeria.
link to christianpost.com
Ethnic nationalists? I believe most Irish people believe Ireland has the right to exist as a state, and when the situation in Northern Ireland was in the news, I'm sure you had a lot of Irish people writing about it.
I won't dignify your nonsense about how Jews are pushing us toward war in Iran or your nonsense about the ringleaders for a war that was overwhelmingly supported by the American people when it started.
You cite Deuteronomy, which you reject as historical truth. I cite Christian persecution of Jews during the Middle Ages, which is historical truth.
I'm tired of this nonsense. Supercessionism is a Christian concept. There is no debate about that fact.
No. I'm saying that people follow Kahane the nationalist, not Kahane the rabbi. Citing his religious writing is not proof that Judaism is supercessionist (though even if he were mainstream it wouldn't make the case).
Again, just basic dishonesty on your part. This came in response to a post by Phil that said Jews should stop believing they were smarter than others, which in turn led to a comment by Gellian that it was asking people to believe in a falsehood which led to a discussion of IQ.
The vast majority of the "Jew-counting" here is not done by me.
Bad choice of language. I mean legit in the sense that it actually happened, not that it was OK.
"You are trying to downplay the fact that in many communities the Israelis have been carrying-out pogroms against Christians for many years, while the authorities and Courts have played the role of willing accomplices."
Again, you speak nonsense. A pogrom is an attack that takes place as the authorities stand by. There's zero evidence that these few attacks you speak of are anything but the work of extremists.
"You’ll hit the mother lode."
I did it. No mother lode. Same stories repeated again and again. Did see this, though.
link to topix.com
"Hophmi the readers can see for themselves that Rashi and the Jewish Encyclopedia are both talking about replacement theology in which God gave Israel the inheritance of the other nations. You’re simply proving that you either don’t know what you’re talking about or that you’re deliberately trying to misrepresent an aspect of Jewish theology which unabashedly claims that Jews and converts have a superior covenantal relationship with God than the rest of mankind, who can’t even keep the commandments of their inferior Noahide covenant."
No Hostage. You're simply proving that you can't accept the simple definition of the term and that you'll do anything to make the Jewish religion look bad. There is no replacement theology in Judaism.
Positing a "superior covenantal relationship" (whatever that means) is very, very different from positing the one covenantal relationship replaced another in the way supercessionism did for around 1500 years.
You can also do things like quote Meir Kahane. It means nothing. Kahane is one rabbi, not a mainstream Jewish theologian. His theology is a sideshow. Supercessionism was the main event in Catholicism until 1964. Countless numbers of my people died because of it.
No matter how much you try, you're not going to prove that Jews practice a replacement theology or that Jews believe in a form of supercessionism. It simply doesn't exist in the religion.
"Not it’s not. God had a Noahide covenant with everyone and it got replaced by the better one Israel received when we were given “the inheritance of the nations”, instead of the intended recipients:"
Sigh. Believe what you want, Hostage. You can say up is down and down is up if you want.
The Jewish Encyclopedia is from 1906. You quote one paragraph from a very, very long entry. The paragraph is a Talmudic quote and is a midrash about how G-d offered other nations the Torah and they declined to accept it. It is not presented as a statement of historical truth or of Jewish theology. Even if it were taken as true, it does not posit that Jewish law superceded Noahide law.
It simply is not a part of Jewish theology nor a central idea that G-d's covenant with the Jewish people superceded that of another religion or people.
"According to the Talmud, the souls of all converts were actually present at Mount Sinai when the torah was given (Talmud – Shavuot 39a). "
OK. I'm not sure what that mystical belief has to do with supercessionism.
"That may be true, but from the Orthodox Jewish theological perspective, it’s completely untenable to admit the possibility that the 7 Nations didn’t exist."
Again, it's really beside the point. There is no actual history of Jews persecuting those nations, and no stream of Judaism that I know of that draws a modern lesson from this passage that others should be persecuted based on the idea that Jews superceded them.
The theology of supercession, a Christian doctrine, exclusive to Christianity, and for centuries central to Christian theology (and still in some ways central today in more benign ways), has been responsible for the murder and maiming of countless Jews over the centuries, which is why it was more or less repealed by Vatican II.
"it’s glaringly obvious the majority of stories about the conflict in the american msm, certainly in the nyt..are covered by american jews."
It is? Substantiate that claim. It is true that the NY Times has had a run of Jewish correspondents in the Middle East, but they certainly haven't all been Jewish. Chris Hedges was not Jewish. Neil MacFarquar is not Jewish. And again, there's simply no evidence you've presented that the religion of these correspondents has influenced their reportage. Suzanne Goldenburg is Jewish; she wrote for the Guardian, and was very critical.
"any jewish person writing about i/p could be considered “based in the jewish world”. "
Why? Based on what? And how far do you extend this? PTJ would like to extend it all the way to CEOs of parent companies.
Is Suzanne Goldenburg, who covered Israel for the Guardian, very critically, based in the Jewish world?
"it’s rare for a publication to regularly run features critical of israel via non jewish journalists, unless on occasion by arab journalists"
Is it? Charlie Reese published them for years in the Orlando Sentinel, I think. He's not Jewish, and he's not Arab. The LA Times has run plenty of such pieces.
You can't just make bald claims like this unless you can substantiate them.
"I actually posted three or four recent stories that contained references to burning Christian scriptures and they were about separate incidents which happened years apart."
Which you categorize as "“frequently gathering and burning copies of Christian scriptures.”
Forget about quoting Shahak. He's not remotely credible. Shahak writes: "This is strictly according to the Jewish religious law and is often done, also in Jerusalem, since the Bibles contain the New Testament which pious Jews should burn, if they can."
Cite me one mainstream Jewish source that says Jews should burn the New Testament if they can.
That religious philosophy was repeated in the Arutz Sheva OpEd that I cited above. So why don’t you address the issue and quit dissembling?"
It was not. The article was written, mostly tongue-in-cheek, by a lady in the Golan Heights, not by a rabbi. It's not a statement of Jewish law.
Again, I want to remind you that you wrote that this was a FREQUENT occurrence, something you still have not remotely substantiated.
"I also included several articles from the mainstream press about Churches that were attacked and burned. One of those articles indicated that Holy books had been burned too. Those articles covered events that happened in the last few years, although one church had been completely destroyed by fire in the 1980s, before the new building was burned again."
You included a few articles indicating that a handful of Christians were deported. That does not substantiate your claims.
As far as book burning, you include two articles on the same incident in Or Yehuda, the first of which you mislabeled 2012. It's from 2008.
In the second example you provide, regarding an arson attack in 2010 in Jerusalem, there was no evidence implicating settlers in the attack.
The third example from 2007 doesn't ID a perpetrator either, though it was probably Jewish settlers. The second article you quote on the incident mentions that the church was saved by Jewish neighbors.
The fourth example, in which "price tag" was sprayed on a Baptist church, is thought to be a copycat attack, and again, no one knows who did it.
The fifth example is a legit price tag attack.
The sixth is an example of ultra-orthodox Jews bothering Jews for Jesus.
Together, they do not make out any kind of case that churches are frequent targets of graffiti, stoning and arson.
"Out here in fly-over country, you’d better smile when you claim that an Evangelical organization isn’t a reliable source on persecution of Christians. "
I'll concede that missionaries in Israel may face more harassment from the ultra-orthodox than other Christians. There are legal restrictions on missionary activity in Israel. Caspari seems to being doing just fine in the "heart of Jerusalem."
There are fanatics in Israel, no one denies it. But to assert that churches are frequent targets of arson, stoning and graffiti is not something you've remotely substantiated.
I'm amazed that you would continue to quote from a book that accuses the Jews of starting World War II.
I won't accept a single cite from that book without independent verification. It's not remotely a credible source.
Even this list, which, again, goes up to 1989, does not remotely makes out a charge that churches are frequent targets for arson and graffiti in Israel.
"Hophmi, the man, intolerantly devoted to your opinions and prejudices and blind support of Israel."
Cue change of subject.
"The Bob Simon story didn’t begin to explain Israel’s occupation. It danced around it and was inaccurate. "
Yes, the story was 14 minutes long and focused on Palestinian Christians. It didn't cover Theodore Herzl either. Not even one mention of Yasir Arafat or Sheikh Yassin, come on. ENTIRELY left the history of 1967 war out. OMG, and they forgot to call Michael Oren a Nazi and a fascist.
I think you're probably going to be unhappy most of the time, Chu.
"Why don’t you elaborate on this a little, for those of us who don’t quite see the distinction, and in fact worry that it sounds just a little “nefarious.”"
Really? I think of an Arab news media source as a source that is based in the Arab world, generally administrated by Arabs, focusing on stories from the Arab world. An example might be Al-Hayat or Al-Ahram in Egypt.
I think of a Jewish news media souce as a source that is based in the Jewish world, generally administrated by Jews, focusing on stories from the Jewish world. An example might be the Forward or Haaretz in Israel.
CNN, ABC, NBC, and CBS are not Jewish news media sources. A media organization does not become "Jewish" when a Jewish person becomes the CEO of its parent company any more than it become Arab if an Arab person becomes CEO of its parent company any more than it become Black if an African-American becomes CEO of its parent company any more than it become Greek if a Greek-American becomes CEO of its parent company any more than it becomes Christian if a Southern Baptist becomes CEO of its parent company.
Clear now?
"hophmi, to ‘replace’ wouldn’t one have to first accept the premise jews were originally god’s chosen?"
Yes, though, again, supercessionism has a distinct meaning. Generally, the theology holds that G-d made a "new covenant" with Christians that replaced the one he had with the Israelites. Again, this is a real theology, which has had very unfortunate and documented applications over the centuries. It's different from the biblical notion of Jews conquering the land of Canaan as explained by Rashi. Jews do not posit that their covenant with G-d replaced someone else's, and that thus, they must persecute whomever they replaced. Though the Bible's command to wipe out the seven nations that inhabit Canaan is definitely one of its theological challenges, it has not had any real world application I know of; these nations do not exist today, and it's a stretch to argue that they ever existed.
Supercessionism, on the other hand, has been a part of Christian theology for 1500 years, and has provided a theological basis for all manner of persecution of Jews, mostly by the Church, de facto and de jure. Because the Christians had replaced the Jews, that Christianity offered the only road to salvation, and thus, the Jews had to occupy an inferior status in Christian society.
"is that something all christians believe? "
Replacement theology was certainly widely believed in the Catholic Church, at least until Vatican II. Vatican II essentially rejected the teaching that only Christians could be saved, and that Jews had no covenant with G-d. Read the wikipedia article; it discusses how different sects view supercessionism and its history.
"Oh, come on, hoppy. Don’t play dumb and pretend that “Jewish” is exclusviely a religious label and does not refer to a nationality or ethnicity."
I'm not playing dumb. It's a completely antisemitic argument. When Wagner wrote his tract on the Jewish influence in art, he wasn't just thinking of Judaism solely as a religion either.
Categorizing people by religion OR ethnicity OR nationality OR race in this way and assuming that based on that, they are responsible for influencing the media or finance or whatever based on that, with no actual proof other than that citation, is clear bigotry, whether you're willing to acknowledge it or not.
"You always Jew-count when it supports your arguments"
When is that?
"Sure he may not oversee all of the stories that 60 Minutes runs, but he will install those that are friendly to Israel’s developments (including ignoring stories like the 47 year occupation)"
A bad example since Bob Simon just did a story on it. Do you have PROOF that he does this because he's Jewish?
"Don’t play dumb here, it’s lame and you’re older than that."
I'm not playing dumb here; I'm just not accepting your bigotry as truth.
Whatever you want to believe, Hostage. The doctrine of supercessionism is, exactly as I said, a Christian theological concept that generally holds that Christians replaced the Jews as G-d's chosen. It's also often referred to replacement theology. Making some wiseass crack about Jimmy Wales is not going to change that. There are plenty of places besides wikipedia where you can look it up. None suggest it is a concept in Judaism.
Supercessionism as a theology unfortunately served as a basis for a great deal of persecution during the last millenium, since, unlike the nations mentioned in the biblical excerpt you quote, Jews have been very much a real and identifiable people for the last 2000 years and more. So the comparison is not well-taken.
If you want to assign some term to the concept quoted in the Rashi above, feel free. It is not supercessionism.
"- that he very clearly did not refer to religion;"
Didn't refer to religion? What did he mean when he said the chairmen of ABC, NBC, and CNN were Jewish?
"It’s funny how Zio-supremacists have no problem claiming that Arab media sources are biased because of some tribal “Arab nation” thing, but then get all whiny and defensive and accusatory when someone claims that Jewish-owned/-run media sources are biased because of some tribal “Jewish nation” thing."
Come on. You know very well that arguing a source that is an Arab news source is biased is different from arguing that a source run by a parent company whose CEO is a Jew is biased. That's comparing apples and oranges. If the President of Time-Warner were an Arab, it would not make CNN an Arab media source. Similarly, the fact that the President of Time-Warner is Jewish does not make CNN a Jewish media source.
I'm not engaging in these debates over who is and who is not Jewish in the media. The original claim was that the "Chairman of ABC is Jewish too. And the Chairman of NBC. And the Chairman of CNN."
The clear assumption here that Jews direct and influence the reportage of news at these places. Is this Stormfront.com? Rense? Those are the sites where it's OK to simply list people who happen to be Jewish to suggest nefarious schemes of Jewish control.
And in fact, the statement is not true. It's the chairman of the parents companies that happen to be Jewish.
Here's what you said, Chu: "There’s religion and then there is tribal political power structure. Don’t confuse the two concepts. You clearly know the difference."
All I know is that people here seem to think it's OK to present a list of powerful Jews and nothing more in lieu of an argument that the news networks don't report stories from the point of view they want. That's not a valid form of argument. It's the kind of thing bigots do. And just like the bigots, the claim is imprecise; the point is to come up with the list of Jews to fit the theory. So it doesn't matter if the President of a news org is not Jewish; if the chairman of the parent company is, that's enough to combine the two and say the chairman of the news org is, because the point is to link Jew to media organization in order to argue that Jew influences media organization in a nefarious way. That's what's going on here, Chu.
Yes, there were plenty of Sephardi Jews in Europe, particularly those in Spain and Portugal who later navigated to Amsterdam, England, and other places.
Again, Hostage, you're being blatantly disingenuous and dishonest. You wrote: "Rabbis frequently gather and burn copies of the Christian scriptures."
Your links are overwhelmingly about one story involving Jews for Jesus missionaries where some of the local yeshiva students burned some missionary pamphlets. That is not "frequently gathering and burning copies of Christian scriptures." It's not even technically anti-Christian violence, because the targets identify as Jews.
As far as church burning, you say:
"The Encyclopedia of the Palestine Problem, by Issa Nakhleh documents dozens of examples. "
The Encyclopedia of the Palestine Problem dates from 1991.
link to palestine-encyclopedia.com
That's 22 years ago. The book's author is a Palestinian diplomat, not a scholar or historian. In the book, he accuses Zionists of "hating Christianity" and a "deep-felt hatred of everything Christian." He says that "Israeli Authorities censor all films and plays to prevent mentioning the name of Jesus Christ" and includes a version of Jewish history that people like David Duke might appreciate, claiming all kinds of Jewish plots against Christians.
Oh yes, and it claims that World War II was a "Jewish war" and that the Jews "declared war on Hitler."
link to palestine-encyclopedia.com
The fact that you would rely on a book like this for anything is telling. But never mind. The book includes a list of the attacks. There are nine incidents on the chronology in the book, all from 1982-1985. Of those nine, five involved arson. The worst damage recorded was a fire that destroyed a church piano.
That is not "dozens of examples."
Caspari is (predictably), an evangelical mission, not a source "that routinely translate[s] Hebrew press reports on instances of religious intolerance, persecution, price tag attacks, and acts of terror.
So your claim that "Churches there have always been targets for arson, stoning, and graffiti" is based on a chronology of nine incidents from the mid-80s from a 22-year-old book written by a PLO diplomat that claims Zionists have a pathological hatred of Christianity, Jews have no connection to the Holy Land, Jews are mostly Khazars, and oh yes, how can I forget, that Jews declared war on Germany.
You claim that "Rabbis frequently gather and burn copies of the Christian scriptures," as if there is some widespread anti-Christian campaign, based primarily on a single instance where yeshiva students gathered up some missionary materials from Ethiopian immigrants.
You're a joke, Hostage.
"All of the above are Jewish. (The one remaining major news outlet in this country is Fox, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp.) Jews represent 1 1/2% of the U.S. population. You should be celebrating your ethnic success, hophmi, not denying it."
You're insinuating that their religion has something to do with the reporting. As I've pointed out, most of the heads of the news divisions are not Jewish.
I won't engage in this kind of discussion with you.
I don't. Supercessionism is a Christian ideology.
link to en.wikipedia.org
"And we all know that mentioning that amazing coincidence is “antisemitic"
Pointing out like this, yes, is antisemitic. You insinuate that the fact that they are Jews has something to do with the way the story was reported without alleging any facts that it made any difference. That's antisemitic.
And stupid, because it's not accurate. As far as I know, the Presidents of CNN and NBC News are not Jewish. The only reference I see to Jeff Fager's Judaism is on Holocaust denial websites.
"there have always been targets for arson, stoning, and graffiti
How many churches have been bombed by Jews since 1948?
"Rabbis frequently gather and burn copies of the Christian scriptures"
When did this happen? And what proof do you have that it happens "frequently?"
"“Messianic” Jews [Jews for Jesus] have been given Purim baskets containing pipe bombs."
When?
"Shrinking Christian population in the Palestinian territories is a long-time and painful fact. Before coming to Washington as a Haaretz correspondent, I used to visit Palestinian Christians in Bethlehem, Ramallah, the village of Taybeh and East Jerusalem. Some of the Palestinian specialists were happy to speak in Russian - they received their education in the Soviet Union. Nobody was happy about the security situation, especially during the Intifada years, or the Israeli occupation.
But many of them also had complaints about some of their Muslim neighbors. Some businessmen said they were forced out of business by local thugs. But they requested I keep that part off the record, out of concerned for the security of their families."
link to haaretz.com
Except that the Federation letter does not say anything like that. It encourages people to contact CBS after the program has been aired if it is what they think it is. How is that an attempt to keep it from airing?
"Ambassador Oren “there is a first time for everything” You know this is not the first time Oren or other Israeli officials have called executives at the MSM outlets. You know this is not the first time"
If you believe Bob Simon when he says that CBS News has never gotten a complaint about a story before it was aired, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. That is definitely among the more ridiculous things I've ever heard. Yes, there is a first time for everything. This was not one of those times.
"Christianity is supercessionist. Rabbinic Judaism is supercessionist. "
I think it is relevant to point out both that Judaism is not supercessionist, and that Christian supercessionism posits that Christianity superceded Judaism, a theology that has led to a hell of a lot of persecution.
That said, I don't think the Kairos document is an endorsement of supercessionism.
"but hophmi, israel is the most moral country in the world, with the most moral army in the world, the most sensitive country in the world to the victimization of minorities, the most ‘gay friendly’ country in the ME, the most . . . the most . . . the most. we only want israel to live up to its inherent potential. "
Or, Bob Simon is a journalist in the West, which is mostly Christian, and the Christians still have an historical interest in the Holy Land that exceeds the interest they have in places like Iraq and Egypt (and Nigeria and Somalia and so on), so Bob is doing yet another story in the Holy Land, because there haven't been enough of them yet.
"‘why should i give a flying f*ck about the existential threat posed by iran to israel, when . . . darfur!!"
Because hundreds of thousands of people have died in Darfur, and there are thousands of journalists based in the Holy Land, where a few hundred die, if that, in a year. It would seem like we could send some of those journalists over there.
"wadja think hophmi, can we walk and chew gum?"
Apparently we can't, because the Holy Land is so oversaturated with journalists that they will report on 60 Minutes on how a community has gone from 30K to 11K in fifty years because Israel built a wall, rather than how hundreds of thousands of Iraqi Christians have been displaced in a campaign of intimidation and murder. Something is wrong with that.
Bob Simon got Michael Oren. Yay. Meanwhile in Iraq:
link to en.wikipedia.org
In Egypt:
link to en.wikipedia.org
link to en.wikipedia.org
Stories about this on Mondoweiss = 0.
"what percentage of jews are zionists? im guessing 50 percent. "
It depends on your definition of Zionism. I think it's a lot higher than 50%. If you ask Jews whether they believe Israel should exist as a Jewish state, most answer yes.
How are you defining organized Jewry? I assume you mean the establishment, and yes, it should come as no surprise that the establishment is overwhelmingly Zionist.
As far as Iran, I don't see any support in the JCPA for military action. That places them well within the mainstream of Americans, most of whom favor sanctions. That is true of most of the establishment as well; most do not want military action to happen. As you go further right, that changes, but that's as true for the rest of America as it is for the Jewish community.
The JCPA is not neo-conservative. Not even remotely. Where do you get this crap from?
Yes, Phil, most Jews are Zionists, and most of those are liberal Zionists who want a two-state solution. That does not make them neo-cons.
There was no taboo on criticizing Israel in Germany. This is getting silly. Has anyone ever read a German newspaper around here? Der Spiegel is available in English.
"oh sorry, I forgot how you guys despise your traditional mother-tongue language, too, you just compulsorily replaced it by some newly-engineered language! "
Hebrew is not a new language.
"In fact, the only identity that Zionists are defending is, to use your words, “their white identity”"
That would come as news to Jews who hail from Arab countries.
"Gee, most folks would think if you went to the bible to explain and/or justify your stance on an issue, that you were basing your opinion on your religion. "
The rules of kashrut are post-biblical. Again. And again. I was simply comparing two sets of rules, not making any kind of value judgment.
"What is the source of your rules, those you live by daily, hophmi?"
Difficult question to answer. I imagine, like most people, I'm a product of my environment. I live by my own set of values, or try to at least. Those come from all over the place. Some are based in religion; I pray, I keep kosher, I observe Jewish holidays. Some are based in secular culture; I value free speech; I value the Constitution. Some are informed by both religious and secular culture; I believe in one's obligation to one's fellow man, I believe in doing for others, I believe in treating people with kindness and compassion.
To put it on a more elemental level, I have said from time to time that the major difference between our culture and Judaism is that we live in a rights-based society, and Judaism is an obligation-based religion. So I say that my sense of obligation is primarily religion-based and my sense of self is American culture based. But it's a combination of the two, and my life is informed by both.
I wonder how other people of faith would answer this question. Christianity makes a division between the sacred and the profane that Judaism does not, and so perhaps it is easier for some Christians to define what part of their lives are informed by religious values and what part are not.
Judaism does not make that division; in Judaism we can find a rule to govern each and every action one performs for almost every situation. So very religious Jews might well argue that their values are wholly formed by religion. Islam is closer to Judaism in the sense that it is a pretty legislated faith.
"How about your dietary rules? Please explain why you adhere to them. "
Kashrut is notoriously difficult to explain in rational terms because it's a law that has no rational explanation; there are a few of these in the Torah, maybe 8 or 9 of the 613. (Another one is the Parah Adumah, or the laws of purity and the sacrifice of a red cow.)
I believe in G-d; I'm a Jew, and I've chosen to keep kosher as a result of that. Explaining why is difficult for me. I can only really explain in the negative; I would feel wrong if I ate non-kosher food. I'm no paragon of consistency (no one is), but it's a practice I've chosen to follow.
"Which rationale do you use to justify your daily eating habits?"
I guess philosophical, although generally kosher meat tends to be better because of all of the hoops one flies through to make a piece of meat kosher. I think we're at the point where most kosher meat consumers are not Jewish, and this may be one reason why.
I hope that helps somewhat. I am a person who is always struggling with faith. I try to do justice to my religion and my sense of personal freedom, and it is often complicated for me to navigate it all.
"But, again, it wasn’t a legal discussion, it was a religious one, and no amount of excuse-making about how certain religions term their doctrines and rules “laws” will change that."
And again, religious and legal are not mutually exclusive. I'm really not trying to be disingenuous. I really, truly did not intend to put down Christianity by talking about standards. It was a comparison of RULES, not BELIEFS. That is why I think of it in legal terms, not religious terms.
"I would suggest you stop playing the martyr, but I would be afraid that you would use the comment as an excuse to further insult Christians."
I'm not playing the martyr. This is getting very silly. I didn't mean to insult Christians. I simply meant to compare two different practices in terms of the amount of rules to be followed. That's all. Period. End of discussion.
"Again, BFD. We’re not talking about law, so even if a religion uses the word “law” it doesn’t thereby excuse your bigoted statement by pointing to inapplicable legal terminology. "
BFD is not, repeat, not a counterargument. None of this is a BFD. That's why I'm LMFAO.
"And, again, irrelevant. "
It's quite relevant.
"“Loathsome disease” is a valid legal term concerning defamation, but if you described someone’s religion as a “loathsome disease,” your insult isn’t excused because “it’s a legal term.” "
I think you're either dense or willfully nonsensical. First of all, I didn't describe Christianity as a loathsome disease. Secondly, I'm not asking you to excuse something I said because I used a legal term, I'm asking you to eexcuse it because I interpreted it as a legal discussion.
"You should get out more. That expression doesn’t mean what you think it means."
It means I could not care less that you take offense, because it's clear that you're doing it in the most cynical way.
"Great. And religious rules have nothing to do with law. So your lame defense about the equivalency between “lower” and “lesser” in the law is irrelevant."
In my religion, the rules are known as law. Thus the term, Jewish law and in Catholicism, Canon Law. LOL, how long are we going to go back and forth with this?
"BFD. We’re talking about religion, not law."
As I said before, the definition of law is not restricted to something passed by a government body.
"Only an illiterate (or someone trying desperately to fit a square peg into a round hole) would describe being required to fill out “more forms” or a “larger number” as being a “higher” or “lower” standard."
ROTFLMFAO. And getting out my tiny violin.
"So you claim."
I forgot. Good faith doesn't apply here. My mistake.
"And if we were talking about law, rather than religion, that might be meaningful. "
Religions have rules too. I think of Kashrut as a set of rules I follow, not as my religion.
"Wow, really? You’re going to try to fight against the notion that you didn’t intend to express anti-Christian bigotry by expressing even more anti-Christian bigotry?? "
What is anti-Christian about making a wood and nails joke? Were you born without a sense of humor?
"Except “higher” and “harder” are not synonyms, nor are “lower” and “easier.” And you’ve already said that when you’re talking about these religious practices that “[i]t’s actually not accurate to talk in terms of standards.” "
In law they are. Higher standard means harder standard to meet. It does not mean better standard to meet. Actually, it's not just law. If you go to the DMV, and you have to fill out 10 forms to get a new driver's license and 2 forms to renew your license, the first standard is higher and second is lower. Which is better?
"So instead of simply apologizing for the first of your two bits of anti-Christian bigotry on this thread"
LOL.
"you expect everyone here to believe that you purposefully used the wrong word as a synonym to describe the “standard,” even though you admit that it is wrong to discuss it in terms of standards. "
It's less precise than it could be, because one religion has a whole complex set of rules regarding food and the other one does not. It's simply different. But it's not wrong. What is wrong is to cynically call me a bigot because you disagree with my symantic choices.
"So you’re saying that, in your case, two wrongs here actually did make a right??"
I'm saying you're a silly goose, that you say crazy offensive things all the time to me, and that I am not remotely convinced that you actually take offense at anything I said.