Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 149 (since 2010-07-10 20:39:15)

HRK

Struggling artist type stuck in small business!

Showing comments 149 - 101
Page:

  • American Zionist responses to Tel Aviv riots-- largely indifferent, but some outrage
    • HRK May 25, 2012 at 11:34 am

      From Arthur Hertzberg's The Jews in America

      "Very early in the story of Jews in America, those who wanted to exclude them had kept saying that admitting Jews meant opening the doors to such outlandish people as Turks and Muslims. The objectors were correct. Jews succeeded only when America became an untidy jumble of ethnic identities, ideological factions, and economic interests. The fight of Jews for total equality could not be won in confrontation with a solid majority; the victory could occur only when power was widely dispersed among many, very different 'factions.'"

      An interesting quote, no? Perhaps Jewish leaders and activists were into immigration more for themselves than for the immigrants per se.

  • Aharon Appelfeld's rage at the German language (and Arendt's need for it)
    • HRK May 20, 2012 at 9:39 pm with 6 replies

      I was listening to some MP3s from the Teaching Co. this last year on the topic of European history (can't remember the professor, but they're usually leaders in their field). Anyway, the lecturer mentioned that when the Nazis were electioneering they found early on that talking about the Jews was not effective with the people and didn't work when it came to upping their party's numbers in the polls; instead, they found that their numbers went up when they kept matters general and criticized the Weimar government.

      Also, I bumped into a Youtube video featuring another leading historian on the Holocaust (I believe he was Jewish--he was the one who severely criticized Daniel Goldhagen's book) who indicated that up until 1941 even the top Nazi leadership was unaware of the final solution. The reason: they were counting on the Madagascar plan (shipping European Jews to Madagascar), which only fell through, apparently, in the early 1940s. So, of course, one can safely infer that the German people as a whole weren't aware of the final solution until at least 1941. And, of course, many say they were always unaware of it even after that date.

      Also, later on this year at my mom's place I happened to stumble upon a book about a man who started the foot-and-mouth painters association (Mom's a supporter of the organization)--a German man who had lost the use of both of his arms as a child. As near as I could tell, in around 1935 he was thrown in jail by the Nazis for producing art which was mildly critical of the Nazi regime. (And I believe, if memory serves me correctly, the person who came to arrest him put a gun up to his head, as well.) Throwing someone in jail for mild criticism is bad enough, but now imagine the ruthlessness that one has to have to throw someone in jail who's lost the use of his arms. After he was released, it took him a while to re-develop the use of his fine neck muscles so that he could paint once again. Again, that was approximately in 1935.

      If you put it all together, what you get is that by far most the German people as a whole did not want the Nazi Holocaust to happen. (I'm not arguing that they have no responsibility in it's having happened, I should add, simply that the responsibility they do have wasn't based on direct intentionality.) Yes, of course, there were varying degrees of anti-Semitism in Germany--but probably no more anti-Semitism there than elsewhere in Western Europe (at least until the Nazis fanned the flames after they acquired power).

      And, of course, let's not forget that there are varying degrees of anti-gentilism among Jews--as we can see from the AIPAC tapes blogged about on this site recently.

      After Hitler got elected, he consolidated his power. And then it was too late to even criticize. Criticism meant jail and later, death.

      So you'd have to have the expectation that ordinary ethnic Germans would be willing to risk their lives to try to help others (despite the probability of futility) during war time with all the craziness and deprivations and lack of good information that happen during war. Guess what? Very few people--today or in the past--Jew or gentile--have ever been willing to risk their lives in what might be a futile situation to help others who aren't close family.

      Be honest: Would you? If I'm exhibiting even a modicum of humility I have to admit that I really don't know how I'd react--in fact, I tend to think that if I were to be realistic about my level of bravery I'd probably find an excuse not to act. Again, I'm being realistic; of course I'm not proud of it. (And bear in mind that the Nazis also went after families: So you'd have to be willing to risk your family's security to help someone else outside of your family.)

  • 'NYT' fails to disclose Kershner's tie to Israeli government-linked think tank
    • HRK May 3, 2012 at 5:38 pm

      When the NYT does these things, they're not just being biased against the Palestinians. They're being biased against everyone except Jews. I take offense that this paper would exhibit this kind of ethnic favoritism.

      Have they no shame?

  • An account of the Guardian's racist endorsement of the Balfour Declaration
  • 'The Crisis of Zionism' and the contradictions of Israel as a liberal democratic fantasy
  • 'Tribefest' excommunicates group of young Jews who dared to speak about ethnic discrimination
    • HRK March 24, 2012 at 2:12 pm with 13 replies

      "Tribefest"? If memory serves didn't some of those who excommunicated Atzmon in part do so because, apparently, he describes Jewishness as tribal?

      I guess one could argue that there's tribal and then there's tribal. And we all use the word to convey a wide range of meanings. But then I have a request: Could a liberal anti-Zionist attempt to elucidate where the line is between tribal and tribal?

      Presumably the former couldn't be simply (as Atzmon might say) "a person who happens to be of Jewish descent." (And certainly Azmon would agree that such a person deserves to have a benign pride in or mild sense of attachment to his or her heritage group, along with all of the other peoples of the world.) But then what is it? (And how could even that, whatever it might look like, be reconciled with liberalism?)

  • Wall Street firm slammed the door on young Warren Buffett for religious reasons
    • HRK March 16, 2012 at 3:54 pm with 1 replies

      Honestly, I can't remember exactly what event(s) written about in his biography made me think that, perhaps, he was (on some level) consciously sending signals that he was not anti-Semitic, not anti-black, etc. (--I suppose that's what I meant by not ethnocentric--simply not anti-other). Perhaps part of what made me suspicious, too, was simply that he struck me as the type of person who lived for achieving financial greatness--the type of person who was very canny and who would make the right moves to ensure that nothing stood in his way or could thwart him from achieving his life-goal.

      (Incidentally, I wonder if he now feels it was all worth it.)

      But allow me to say that I really have no evidence of this--it was really just a feeling. He might be super genuine. Or--as is the case with such a large percentage of all of our actions--his motives might have been mixed. In the very least, I do think he was ethnically aware--aware of the landscape of ethnic loyalties.

      Do I think of non-specific "white" Americans belonging to an ethnicity? Yeah, I suppose you're right--ethnicity doesn't seem to encompass something as wide as the white category. Interesting how our brains automatically sort things out, though. We might speak of Hispanic Americans as being part of an ethnic group here in America, and the Hispanic category is also pretty wide. (Is that because Hispanics are still a minority here?) I suppose there's some complicated rule underneath it all.

      I do think that white Americans have some things in common with one another--for starters, the fact that we're not minorities here. I find it interesting that some people freak out at the suggestion that white Americans might consider themselves a group or a subculture. (You, by the way?)

      The SPLC tends to do this, as in "What do you mean, 'white culture?'" --Which really gets my goat: It's almost a (ahem, truth be told, Jewish) preemptive strike against future Nazi aggression. Ridiculous.

      One of these days perhaps I'll see if Phil will print an essay I'm turning over in my mind about the religious beliefs of the gentile left. White is bad. If you repeat this mantra, you're altruistic. The universe will reward you: you'll drive a Jaguar (or, at worse, a late model Toyota), live in an upper-middle class neighborhood, and take excruciatingly difficult work sabbaticals in Italy.

    • HRK March 16, 2012 at 12:32 pm with 7 replies

      I read an older biography on Buffet a while ago. Later, after reflecting on it (and perhaps some other articles I read), I recall thinking that Buffet was very "political" on the subject of ethnicity--very straight-laced and careful not to have his actions interpreted in any way as being ethnocentric. And I remember wondering if this was his genuine self or if he simply cared about getting rich so much that he wasn't taking any chances, bending over backward to come across that way.

      Perhaps it is his genuine self. But that man definitely puts riches above just about everything else.

  • Palestinian and Palestine-solidarity activists issue critique and condemnation of Gilad Atzmon
    • HRK March 14, 2012 at 11:01 pm with 2 replies

      Individualism and tribalism exist on a continuum. So a group on the right side will always have something in common with a group to the left side. Yet, of course, there might still be important differences.

      If you were to try to design a group with a high degree of group solidarity or tribalism, one thing you might do is start with a group of people of the same ethnicity and then create a religion which would be amost exclusively practiced by that group. Religion unites disparate peoples, so having a religion which doesn't seek converts keeps the two strongest identity plates (ethnicity and religion) stacked one on top of the other, and it keeps the original people group separate and hence more unified--hence more likely to be prone toward being tribal. If you look at the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible, wasn't tribal unity the point of all the admonitions/warnings against intermarriage--even to the point that, I believe, some Jews who intermarried were killed by other Jews?

      Also: Do Jews tend to be conservative on issues which intersect with their ethnic interests? Please don't bring in abortion, etc. (Liberal Jews tend toward atheism, and so, because of that, they tend toward the pro-choice position.) I'm talking, again, about issues which intersect with Jewish interests. The answer to all but the most deluded is a very obvious yes. Why does AIPAC have a gazillion dollars to spend on what benefits Jews only in Israel/Palestine? Because AIPAC has a lot of motivated donors. Because a lot of Jews are keenly interested in policing the boundaries of their perceived interests.

      Of course, one would expect that the more tribal a group, the more likely it is to behave in a way which is conservative on matters which interesect with its perceived interests.

      Also, wouldn't we expect that the more tribal a group is the more likely it is to be able to resist the pull of assimilation? Has any group ever resisted the pull of assimilation to the extent of the Jews? 4,000 years and counting.

      And, finally, wasn't it Phil, in a previous exchange with Atzmon, saying something to this effect: [Atzmon to Weiss]: I went on to ask Weiss: “What does the word ‘Jewish’ mean for you?”

      Weiss was short and precise in his response : "My mother, my father, my grandparents, a family feeling, us-ness, in distinction to the Them."

      But also in the interview there's this: Phil: "I believe all people act out of self-interest. And Jews who define themselves at some level as Jews -- like myself for instance -- are concerned with a Jewish self-interest. Which in my case is: an end to Zionism. A theory of political life based on altruism or concern for victims purely is doomed to fail.”

      So here we see Phil exhibiting both tribal (Us, Them) and conservative (altruism . . . doomed to fail) features.

      Lastly, doesn't it stretch the bounds of plausibility to believe that prior to 1948 Jews were supposedly the most liberal of all people groups, but after 1948 Jews became a people group tending to support an expansionist Israel? How have they flipped so fast from liberal to conservative? (My explanation: when it comes to their own interests, they were always a conservative group to begin with. Tribalism is conservative. Marxism benefitted Jews in Russia/the Soviet Union, at least at first. Multiculturalism, at least in its first manifestations, was perceived as being beneficial to Jews in the diaspora. And, yes, I do think conservatism explains some of the persecution which has befallen Jews over the millenia. But also: we can live with a conservative world Jewry. Ultimately, it's their choice to live as they see fit. We gentiles have to respect that. What we can't live with is extreme over-reaction to the Other on either the gentile or Jewish side, though.)

      I know this might bother some Jews who like to fancy their group as liberal. (If you think I'm wrong, tell me why--I won't promise to change my mind, but I will promise to consider what you're saying.) Remember, I'm not talking so much about individual Jews, I'm talking about the group as a whole. And I'm talking about looking at conservatism through the prism of where one's group interests intersect.

    • HRK March 14, 2012 at 2:28 pm with 5 replies

      "To the extent that being Jewish is tribal, how is that different from the American tribe," etc.

      Different in degree, maybe?

    • HRK March 14, 2012 at 1:39 pm with 9 replies

      I'm not going to defend Atzmon for the simple reason that I haven't read all that much of him. (I actually bought his book, but being the lazy reader that I am, I only skimmed over it.) I do know he favors individualism, however.

      I would like to ask: Don't Jews frequently describe themselves as a tribe? Don't they frequently describe themselves as a people, a nation (even when they reside in other nations), a collective, and a family?

      (I didn't even think it was that controversial to describe the Jewish system as tribal--in fact, just last night I e-mailed Phil a letter in which I unselfconsciously described the Jewish system as a tribal one.)

      Please describe to me what being Jewish is, if not about being part of a distinct tribe.

  • 'Commentary' says amount of US political money coming from Jews is 'staggering'
    • HRK March 6, 2012 at 6:51 pm with 3 replies

      I used to be shy about talking about Jewish money in the election process. But Sheldon Adelson has liberated us all.

      If politics is a public conversation or debate, then it hardly makes sense not to talk about key political players and their motives. However. . . .

      I feel shy talking about this subject, too. I think of the hurt look on, say, my Jewish doctor's face if he ever read my name attached to a letter-to-the-editor bringing up this issue. I'm so conflicted, but ultimately, No, I just can't bring myself to write such a letter.

      Perhaps I'm what's wrong with our country.

      But it does feel unbecoming to complain about some other people group's major organizations--as if the identity groups I'm associated with (evangelicals, for example) don't have plenty of problems (the wooden literalism, the sensationalism, the Creationism, etc., etc.). As if I couldn't spend my life criticizing those matters first.

      Also, there's the matter of engendering anti-Semitism. Even though my criticism would be limited to exposing what I perceive of as a problem and (perhaps) blowing off a little steam (rightly or wrongly), there could be others who take what I have to say and go much too far with it. That's a genuine concern.

      So I'm between a rock and a hard place.

      Hypothetical: Suppose Jews never existed--no such thing as a Jew. If that were the case, it's not as if I'd be content to not engage in politics. I want to take part in the public discussion. (Why? That's a good question. I wish I knew. Sometimes I dream about "going Amish"--you know, living that content little life, focusing on local matters or getting my personal life completely in order--taking the time to make the soles of my feel soft and look nice and pink again like they were when I was young, for example--and not caring about the world outside and around me in the least.) Yet it seems to be in my DNA to engage. (Even though, in some ways, I'm not a super political person by nature, not the political wonk sort of guy.)

      And people are naturally attracted to think about, criticize, or even laud those at the top levels of political power.

      So how am I not supposed to talk about Jewish money and influence when major Jewish organizations are so obviously at the top of the political power pyramid? It's like this: Not talking about the new girl who shows up to school who looks like a super model and drives a red ferrari. "Have you noticed anyone new at school lately?" "Uh, well . . . not really. . . . ."

      And then there's this war looming. And the prospect of (mostly) lower class and lower middle class Americans getting their brains/eyes/arms/legs/balls blown off and coming back never to be the same. Tears. Anguish. Pain. Suicide, even, in some cases. What about that?

  • Young activist disrupts AIPAC panel about 'Israel on Campus'
  • Consequences of an attack on Iran are no joke
    • HRK March 1, 2012 at 9:59 pm

      Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for this excellent and extremely informative article.

      I had no idea that bombs not considered "nuclear bombs" dispersed radioactivity.

      All of America needs to know this.

  • Responding to commenters on recent bannings
    • HRK March 1, 2012 at 6:02 pm with 5 replies

      A person might know about Witty's writings because he read every comment Witty wrote. Alternately, a person might have a sense of what Witty wrote because they extensively sampled his writings.

      I'll admit I don't fall into either of these categories. I suppose I've dipped in here and there and happened to read Witty here and there, so, No, I can't say that I know all about who he is or what he stands for. . . .

      Having said that, I'm saddened to hear that you're banning Witty. His tone was always polite. I never understood why people came unglued at what he was saying.

      I'll just leave it at that.

  • Dershowitz wants MJ Rosenberg fired for daring to stop Iran war push
    • HRK February 28, 2012 at 11:16 am with 5 replies

      I was in favor of the term "Israeli firster" because I was thinking it was referring to one who made Israel his or her first priority among typical political issues (abortion, gun control, tax reform, etc.). But if Israeli firster refers to someone who puts Israel's interests ahead of America's interests, I have to say that such an accusation probably shouldn't be made except in rare cases in which there's actually hard evidence that this has been the intention. Yes, I do think that the effect of people who are single-issue Israel is often the same as if they were consciously putting Israel's interests ahead of America's. But I don't think they are consciously doing that. In probably almost all cases, there's no intentionality. Someone like Alan Dershowitz really believes his own hype--that supporting Israel is akin to supporting the most important civil rights movement in the world right now--which is certainly something America should do (assuming it were true).

      I prefer "single-issue Israel."

  • Judge strikes down lawsuit against Olympia Co-op boycott of Israeli goods
    • HRK February 27, 2012 at 11:39 pm with 5 replies

      I'm pro-BDS only on goods made in the settlements, so perhaps I'm not as pro-BDS as some people on this site. But I do think this ruling is good news for all of us. The Olympia Food Co-op certainly has the right to decide what products it wants to sell on its own shelves. This is a victory for freedom and against tyranny.

  • 'Christ at the Checkpoint' conference brings Evangelical leaders to Bethlehem
    • HRK February 27, 2012 at 11:29 am with 1 replies

      I'm so glad that this is happening. The ethical conclusions (of a substantial segment of evangelicals) result from taking in outside information and then passing it through a massively byzantine, multi-layered biblical filter to which they feel they must remain true. What pops out can be anyone's guess. But I've always felt that if evangelicals were presented with a counter-narrative AND if they were to see with their own eyes what the Palestinians are going through then many of them would be able to make the jump out of the Christian Zionist bandwagon to a place of thoughtfulness in which both sides' concerns were more equally taken into account.

  • New Republic says 'all of western civilization' could be threatened by Iran
    • HRK February 27, 2012 at 1:19 pm

      To clarify my thoughts on the matter: If we don't know what to do about Iran obtaining nuclear weapons, then the default position is to not go to war.

    • HRK February 27, 2012 at 1:01 pm

      I don't think a nuclear Iran would be a good thing. We can't predict the future; it's possible stopping Iran from attaining nuclear weapons would be better than doing nothing. I believe our argument shouldn't be that we know everything will be okay and that we don't at all have to be concerned about Iran. Instead, we should argue that Iraq was a disaster and that we need to resist jumping into another preemptive strike. In short, we need to be careful about getting into war. Also, we need to insist that Israel start behaving in a way so that it itself minimizes (as opposed to maximizing) conflict with its neighbors. Rolling back the settlements would be a good place to start.

  • Video: Protesters are attacked at an 'Israel Alliance' event at U of New Mexico
    • HRK February 24, 2012 at 4:24 pm with 6 replies

      I felt that Ms. Darwish should have been allowed to speak without being interrupted. There are ways to protest an event or speaker which doesn't silence the other person. I don't know what Ms. Darwish wanted to say. The point is: How do we know, since we couldn't hear her?

  • Asher Grunis discriminates his way to the top of the Israeli Supreme Court
    • HRK February 11, 2012 at 1:41 pm with 3 replies

      One more thing (and then I really have to get back to work): Okay, when I put my thinking cap on and attempt to see things from a Zionist perspective, here's what I come up with:

      1. The Jews need Israel to be a Jewish state because they were persecuted elsewhere for many centuries; safety justifies this action.
      2. Because of this exceptional situation Jews find themselves in, taking steps to ensure a Jewish-dominated state, particularly among hostile neighbors, might lead to some actions Jews wouldn't typically advocate for other countries, and, in fact, might even oppose.

      So, from this perspective (assuming one is a true believers in this perspective), hypocrisy isn't the right way to describe what's happening. It wouldn't be hypocritical because that's comparing apples to apples but this is apples to oranges--again, the Jewish situation just would be different and to that extent incomparable.

      Okay, okay. But could it be the case that when people see themselves as unique and exceptional and then decide that the rules are suspended for the sake of safety--could it be the case that this type of behavior creates at least some of the persecution which they seek to avoid?

      If one is too quick to declare oneself an exception to the rules . . . this is a formula for ethnic/religious tension if there ever was one.

    • HRK February 11, 2012 at 12:46 pm with 2 replies

      I thought a little more about this article. I should have mentioned that I would be against the type of marriage in which one person of, say, country A marries a person from country B just so that the second person can gain citizenship to country A. I am against this type of thing--that's not a real marriage. If that's what this law is intended to address, then that's a completely different can of worms.

      But if we're limiting ourselves to real marriages--in which two people fall in love and really intend to build a life together--I would have to say that Grunis' ruling is draconian--and without precedent in most countries in the world, I believe.

    • HRK February 11, 2012 at 11:49 am with 3 replies

      “Human rights are not a prescription for national suicide,” Grunis wrote in the decision upholding the law that prevents Palestinians who marry Israelis from living with their spouses.

      Obviously, a horrible law. But there's also the hypocrisy. Because American Jews would certainly argue against this type of law here on the grounds of universal human rights. But where's the anger and outcry from the American Jewish community's leadership when a draconian law such as this is passed in the country of their "passionate attachment" (and to which they redirect 80 percent of our foreign aid)? Where's the attempt to use leverage (say, our foreign aid) to get them to change the law?

      It's looking to me as if a significant percentage of the Jewish leadership worldwide is behaving in a tribal way--while at the same time convincing non-Jews around them to adopt rules and regulations which they themselves, apparently, really wouldn't want pushed on them. Hypocrisy. And aggressive hypocrisy, at that. Not only suggesting to others to do what you wouldn't want done to yourself, but actively pushing it on others via heavily Jewish funded legal and lobbying organizations (here I'm thinking about the SPLC and its denunciations of "nativists").

  • How Sarah Schulman managed to get 'Pinkwashing' into the New York Times
    • HRK February 6, 2012 at 2:23 pm with 1 replies

      . . . and no sense of the "Jewish politics of the Times"

      What an incredible euphemism.

      In other words, the Times is biased in favor of Jews and what's directly and materially good for them alone (while, I might add, policing American discourse for any sign of other people's ethnic biases).

      "Tribal ethics! Tribal ethics! Get your freshly printed tribal ethics hot off the presses! All the tribal ethics that's fit to print--right here in The New York Times!"

  • Organizers say pro-Israel filmmaker with controversial past deceives, disrupts Penn BDS conference (UPDATED)
    • HRK February 5, 2012 at 11:10 am with 2 replies

      I think they should have let him in. By now, with millions of perspectives floating around our sea of media, everyone knows that one can selectively interview and edit footage to make a conference look bad or good or whatever. He was doubtlessly at PennBDS to hatchet it up, but a movement should be able to take criticism. Let people talk all they want.

  • Both sides are wrong in the ‘Israel Firsters’ debate
    • HRK February 3, 2012 at 9:03 pm with 1 replies

      Tangent alert! (My comment here isn't on the Israel/dual loyalty issue.)

      Part of your comment made me curious: Don't you think that there is a natural hierarchy of loyalty--family, state, country, etc.? Not to say that one should adopt, say, a "my family, right or wrong" approach. But I, myself, do make a point, in my charitable giving, to give to the community in which I live. I suppose I could get a map of the U.S. (if not the world) and throw a dart and pick that place to make my donation. (I do give another part of my overall donations to an organization which has worldwide concerns, I should add, but my little town gets proportionally way more than it should if I didn't have a local loyalty. Yet that doesn't mean I think people's lives in MyTown, U.S.A. are more valuable than those in YourTown, U.S.A.)

      Inherent in the notion of a country is the idea that resources aren't shared equally with those outside the country, right? Sure, this can go to far--and it can lead to theft, aggression, etc., toward the other, but I'm inclined to believe that there exists a happy medium--wherein each country looks to its own citizens' needs first but, concomitantly, also seeks to spend some of its resources on the good of the entire planet. Obviously there's a lot of room for disagreement regarding where to strike the balancing line--when a country is being too stingy or too extravagantly generous with its resources, etc.

      One of the reasons I'm opposed to any more immigration to America is that I think American citizens are being hurt more than helped right now by immigration, and I think we're in a tight spot--with a lot of our fellow countrypeople out of work, jobs shipped overseas, etc--supply and demand--lots of laborers means low pay for those who labor. Yet I mention this to some people, and the vibe I get from them is this: "How immoral! You're only thinking of your own!" Well, I am thinking of my fellow citizens first, I'll admit it. But that's not immoral, at least not by my calculation.

    • HRK February 3, 2012 at 6:36 pm

      The important thing for me doesn't have to do with characterizing someone as dually loyal; I'd just like the ordinary people out there to know that certain talking heads out there revolve a lot of politics around what's good for Israel--and we need take that into account when we're judging their stories. (In the same way we should take someone's pro-Palestinian perspective into account when we judge his or her stories).

  • Alumni donor threats and more Nazi analogies as the world awaits Penn BDS conference
    • HRK February 3, 2012 at 12:56 pm with 3 replies

      This battle is quite dramatic. On the one side, you've got the artsy left, using their particular set of abilities, their hardcore activists raining down chants, slogans, and cooler-than-thou speakers on their opponents like a steady stream of elfin arrows (those activists!--they never stop--check out Occupy Wallstreet--they're still out there!). On the other side, you've got the organized, dead-serious tribalist machine maxing out its own particular set of abilities--cohesion, establishment prestige, "the Dersh" (if somewhat grizzled with age still spry when it comes to a fight). This is really epic. What can I say?: It's like The Lord of the Rings, in real life.

      It's sad but also funny, in a weird way, that this is even happening. C'mon, Israel--pull your head out of the ground! Roll back the settlements and give the Palestinians a decent state!

  • Why Christian Zionism is nothing short of outright heresy
  • 'Israel Firster' gets at an inconvenient truth
    • HRK January 20, 2012 at 10:52 am

      I agree that what Arendt wrote in 1944 was startlingly visionary.

      Also, regarding "Israel firster": One way to think about this term is that it simply refers to someone who is single issue politically, and that single issue is Israel. I wrote a while back that when I was young I was single issue pro-life. Other people are single issue flat tax or single issue unions, etc.

      The idea that it's somehow impossible that someone could pick as their single issue a nation outside of the United States as opposed to a social/cultural issue such as one side or the other of the abortion debate is ridiculous. Of course people can be single issue Israel. And, definitely, we should be able to talk about it--because it's actually a real phenomenon.

      I bristle at these complicated rules of political etiquette some would impose on us which have the effect of excluding ordinary people from taking part in the public conversation: "What, you didn't know you can't use 'Israel firster'? Go home! Shows how much you need to keep your trap closed!"

      I don't think so. "Israel firster" is reasonable. We should use it.

  • 'NYT' and 'Haaretz' and world opinion are now greatest threat to Israel, Netanyahu reportedly said
    • HRK January 19, 2012 at 1:17 pm

      I wondered about this myself.

      At least in the U.S., Israel was one of the prime beneficiaries of the alternate, Matrix-like reality far too much of the mainstream media presented us.

  • Adelson is giving Gingrich $5 million because of fear of Ron Paul -- Chris Matthews
    • HRK January 11, 2012 at 5:47 pm

      Phil,

      Just wanted to say thanks for reporting on this. Wealthy people have far too much say in our political system, and I think this is a great example of that.

      Again, a big thanks!

  • The trespassing Jew
    • HRK January 8, 2012 at 3:35 pm with 2 replies

      I really liked this part:

      I walk a lot through the woods around here and I end up trespassing now and then, in the spirit of Robert Frost. Once when I came down that ravine, he drove up to me when I was out on the road and sort of confronted me in an unstraightforward manner.

      The spirit of Robert Frost and also the part about being "confronted" in an "unstraightforward" manner--that says so much with so few words. Niiicccee!!! It takes me places.

  • Kampeas: Jewish neocons are more than 2 degrees removed from Bush's decision to invade Iraq
    • HRK December 31, 2011 at 3:08 pm with 1 replies

      You don't have to delve too deeply in neocon writings (and we could even limit those writings to pre-9-1-1 writings) to realize that the neocons pretty much revolved their world around what they perceived was good for the Jews and Israel.

      I was young when I first stumbled onto Commentary. As a "persecuted" Christian conservative type on campus with an unconscious bias toward the Jews and against the Palestinians (whom, oddly, I visualized as squatters), I welcomed the magazine when I first began reading.

      Actually, truth be told, I wasn't all that interested in middle east politics--mostly, it was their other conservative political stances. Wow! Conservative intellectuals--that's just what conservatives need!

      Even though at the time I was naive on issues surrounding ethnic/religious identity (having been raised in a home in which ethnic topics were never spoken about), even I--as supremely naive as I was--figured out within a few years that the neocons were all about what was good for Israel.

      (In fact, I remember once when I was at the university library--this was before the internet was widely popular and we still read at libraries!--and I was thumbing through Commentary. I literally looked up from the magazine and pushed it away from me, thinking: "Hey! All they care about is Israel!")

      Kampeas writes about anti-Semitism and myths: "Jews act only to advance their own interests. They do and they don't -- it's wildly complicated -- but not more than any other special interest in an American polity that is highly susceptible to special interest pressure."

      Just as Kampeas says that this is wildly complicated, I should note that my own feelings here are wildly complicated, as well. To be truthful, at the time I pushed Commentary away from me I wasn't so upset that the neocons were single issue, I was upset with them that they weren't my single issue.

      I was (and still am) pro-life, but back in my early adulthood I was much more single issue on that subject than I am today. (My view on the subject today is here: link to cognitiveparfait.wordpress.com
      ) So my reaction to them taking such die-hard pro-Israel positions was something like: "But that means they'll relegate the pro-life issue to a low priority!" (I believe this occurred to me when I read an article in Commentary which expressed support for Giuliani; strong on Israel, not pro-life.)

      Today, I think I realize that many Americans don't share my viewpoint and that for social conservatives to obsess about winning on one issue puts other important issues in jeopardy. For example, social conservatives tried to win by rolling into bed with economic conservatives (I'm certainly not the first to note this, and I don't think it was super-intentional--it was just a matter of turning where you can find friends). But economic conservatives (btw, I'm visualizing WASPS here but really I mean to simply not blame any one ethnic group for this) were always craftier than we social conservatives--throwing us a bone here and there while they sponged up all the lucre from America's middle and working classes.

      So Kampeas is correct that a lot of groups push issues that are important to them.

      However, I do think that there is a correlation between the "groupiness" of a group and the extent to which its members become animated to push for what's in their own group's interests. And, of course, is there a group that values it's own sense of being a group more than the Jews?

      Is believing this anti-Semitic? A toxic myth? I don't think so, but the "complicated truth" is that a person who values peace who nonetheless comes to this conclusion is in a "complicated" situation. Publicize this fact and generate unwanted anti-Semitism. Be quiet about this fact and then watch a thin strata of animated, group-driven individuals (like the neocons) push for policies which disproportionately benefit their group (as they see it) but not others. Which generates unwanted anti-Semitism, as well.

      Jews and gentiles: We'll both be here as long as there's an earth. I know if we tone done the worst in each group we'll get along well together. Can we do that?

  • Muslims ban Christmas and rape white women, in latest Latma satire
    • HRK December 31, 2011 at 11:55 am with 3 replies

      Phan,

      Thanks for your reply. I can't address all of the points you bring up, so I've picked two.

      First point:

      I've mentioned once before on this site that compared to many of the people on this site I seem to be less "bookish." I probably do read more than the average person, but I've never been an inveterate bookworm type, despite knowing that with that bookworm personality comes certain advantages--there's a lot that can be learned from books, I'll admit.

      However, there's a lot that can be learned by "looking around" for yourself, as well. Why is that "book types" like many of the people on this site (possibly you) can't deal with anecdotal information? It is a type of information. I would submit that many research projects leading to books, reports, printed material, etc. are led by people who have no intent to come to the truth.

      Also, many people are unwilling to publish their true feelings on a matter, but if you buttonhole them at a bus stop, or sit down with them at a coffee shop, they might open up to you. (And, additionally, one has the advantage of assessing their honesty based on non-verbal cues, which are difficult--although not impossible--to disguise.)

      Academic people = book people = equate what's in books with truth = tendency to equate what they see with garbage or in the least value-less data.

      But what you see is a "primary document," if you will. In line with the idea that you assemble truth by touching many different parts of the elephant, anecdotal information has a place. Also, I did verify the hearsay information I had been exposed to by asking two Japanese nationals about the situation.

      (Other generalizations about the Japanese--they tend to be more collectivist than the West. Would you disagree with this, as well? --By the way, I think Japan has a very "cool" culture, so by labeling them as relatively collectivist I'm by no means denigrating them.)

      Second point:

      Regarding blasphemy laws. I should make clear that I'm not saying that Islamic-majority countries will invariably lead to blasphemy laws, nor am I arguing that in the future Islamic-majority countries won't be able to banish such laws.

      Blasphemy laws worry me. I suspect that they worry most Christians who actually still have a genuine connection to their faith (as opposed to merely cultural Christians or deists who masquerade as Christian clergy for the sake of 401Ks, etc.). I don't think it's unreasonable to be worried about this. No, I don't know that blasphemy laws won't be replicated if Muslims gain majority political power in a previously Christian country. But why do I have to know (as in Know) before I become concerned?

      You disconnect the people in Islamic-majority countries with blasphemy laws from the laws themselves--as if there's no connection. I suspect that such laws have at least a fair amount of popular support. Why would leaders of Islamic-majority countries maintain such laws on the books if the laws undermined their popularity with their own people?

      You could argue that the laws are only popular with their religious leaders. But then how did the people pick such religious leaders? And why don't they pick better ones?

      You could argue it's a divide and conquer strategy, but in some countries in question here Christians are such a small minority there's no point in dividing and conquering the populace--the populace already is Islamic to a high degree.

      I'll note that anti-blasphemy laws used to be common in Christian Europe. In Geneva in the 1500s, John Calvin put Michael Servetus to death for publicizing his disbelief in the Trinity.

      To argue that two populations of "little people," underneath all their rulers' laws, really both have the same view of blasphemy laws is implicity to argue that two groups separated by geography and historically contingent events somehow have evolved in lockstep with one another (and have done so for ever and always--for centuries), which is even more implausible than arguing that at any given time the two groups in question are the same with regard to what the little people want.

      Though I'm sure you think my view is elitist and "superior-ist," in a way, your view seems extremely elitist: the idea that people who move here will immediately drop their ideas about right and wrong and transform themselves into people just like ourselves. Did it ever occur to you that others are happy with themselves and don't want to change?

      I'll at least grant others as having pride in their own views, even if I disagree with those views.

      Last thing: I have no problem with non-whites talking about white supremacism. When I asked about Vietnamese supremacism I wasn't really reacting to your critique per se, but instead, I suppose, to my sense that in America in general there's just so much talk about white supremacism it seems a little crazy to me--as if whites are exclusively the problem. We're all "the problem," in my view!

    • HRK December 30, 2011 at 10:44 am with 10 replies

      My issue with this entire article is that it presumes that people groups are exactly identical in all important characteristics. Sure, Mr. Nguyen would probably allow for "boutique" differences--Italians talk with their hands, Jews--so funny!, those inscrutable Chinese, etc., etc., But what if--what if--two people groups did, in fact, exhibit differences in crime levels?

      Under what set of naturalistic assumptions (stress on naturalistic as opposed to supernatural, fantastical, leftist-wishful-thinking-because-I-no-longer-believe-in-God-but-I'm-scared-to-death-of-the-abyss, etc.) would it be impossible for two people groups/cultures to have different crime levels (--and allow me to add to the hypothetical that the people group with the higher crime level can't blame that high level on the people group with the lower crime level)?

      Take the Japanese culture. I spoke to two people from Japan a few years back and asked them about a report I heard concerning people losing wallets in sprawling Tokyo. I had heard that if you lose your wallet there, you have a good chance of getting it back. The women confirmed to me that this was the case. Not so in many other large, urban areas. Not so in New York. Definitely not so in some other big cities.

      Also, it's known that Japanese have ultra-low crime rates. S0 wouldn't it follow that if people from a culture with high crime rates immigrated by the millions into Japan that the Japanese might experience a crime wave? Unless you think that crime patterns in the immigrating group will simply vanish overnight (right as they pass over the border line), you'd have to admit that the Japanese would have some legitimate gripes about immigration.

      So why can't the same be said about Western culture? For the record, I haven't studied Muslim crime rates, so I'm not speaking about that issue here. My point is that why are Westerners always putting their own culture on the very bottom of the pile--as if every other culture must be better than our own in all important aspects (or else we're racists).

      Also, I'm curious why Mr. Nguyen doesn't write about his own heritage group. You talk about classic white supremacist thinking--why don't you tell us a little about classic Vietnamese supremacist thinking? Or is there such a thing, in your opinion?

      By the way, Christianity Today has an article on blasphemy laws in majority Islamic societies. See link to christianitytoday.com

      So why wouldn't Christians have issues with mass Islamic immigration? --It's not implausible to think that if Muslims became a majority the same kind of blasphemy laws could be set up in previously Christian-majority countries.

  • Ron Paul and the left
    • HRK December 28, 2011 at 12:09 pm with 22 replies

      Lizzy,

      Thanks for the article. I was hoping that Ron Paul's newsletters were published within a very short period of time--say one or two months--because in my mind it would be much more plausible for him to claim that he was unaware of the contents in that case. (I worked for a politician briefly, and though I was just a low-level employee even I could tell that higher level staffers, and not the pol himself, did almost all of his writing, despite the fact that the man was very bright.)

      I'm really, really hoping he can still pull out a plausible explanation, but I'm extremely skeptical that that can happen now.

      I understand the point that many of the commentators are making regarding how his saving us from war with Iran makes up for any of his shortcomings, but my own feeling is that if he can't come up with a plausible explanation his presidency would too greatly divide our country along racial lines, and I couldn't vote for him.

      Although I suppose if I knew for sure in advance that we would go to war if Obama or Romney or Gingrich won, then that might change things for me. Hundreds of thousands dead is much worse than past racist comments not written by a man who also has disavowed them.

      For me (I'm thinking as I'm writing, can't you tell?), I'm going to have to try to determine the likelihood of any other person dragging us to war. If it's really high, I guess I'll vote for Paul. If it's low, I won't vote for Paul. If it's in between, . . . ????

      (Knowing my luck, it'll be in between!)

  • BDS comes to Penn
    • HRK December 25, 2011 at 1:39 pm

      American high schools teach that diversity is our greatest strength. Literally, I once read a sign prominently posted above the entrance to a high school: "Diversity is our greatest strength."

      I actually have some issues with that pronouncement given how ubiquitous fighting between various ethnic groups has been historically, and given how that often creates societies which are anything but strong (think Iraq). But to the extent that American liberals have pushed this proposition, I can't think how they also can reconcile it with the idea of Israel being a demographically Jewish-dominated state much less with an official "Jewish state." (Even I wouldn't support the latter position, incidentally, since it seems to relegate 20 percent of the Israeli population to second-class citizenship.)

      I'm looking for consistency. (I only support a limited BDS, by the way--BDS of products made in the Occupied Territories.)

      If one has issues with multiculturalism, then one can argue that having a state with two ethnic groups of approximately equal demographic strength might not be such a great thing. But if one doesn't express any concerns about multiculturalism (and, typically, American liberals act very cavalier/carefree about the subject), then how can one possibly support an expansionist Israel which even treats the Palestinians within its own borders (to say nothing of those in the Occupied Territories) in a way which many commentators have likened to Jim Crow?

      You write, "If there are American liberals who hold Israel to a different or special standard . . . ."

      If?

      Almost everyone in the mainstream liberal establishment does that. Why do politicians from both sides of the aisle seek to outbid each other with offers to ship truckloads of our money (80 percent of our foreign aid budget) over to Israel? I mean, I think we're too broke at this point to offer aid to anyone at all at, but if we could offer aid, it seems to me that people living in countries experiencing famine, for example (think of children starving to death, their bellies hanging out), deserve the aid much more than Israel--an expansionist state (which provokes payback by those states around it) and whose people have a first-class standard of living.

    • HRK December 25, 2011 at 10:27 am with 1 replies

      She is a renowned moral philosopher who’s written about multiculturalism and democracy – corrosive ideas if you’re a modern-day Zionist.

      Of course, the get-around for many American liberals is to be pro-multiculturalism here on our shores, but then view the "Jewish state" as some kind of exception. And then not talk about the two subjects at the same time. . . .

  • Two critiques of Norman Finkelstein
    • HRK December 23, 2011 at 12:30 pm with 4 replies

      I just have to say: I just spent 45 minutes writing something, but then I erased it because I gave it to a friend to read and she said it had a "mean spirit" about it. "And you're not a mean-spirited type of person."

      Damn!

      And I'm so nice I won't even hint about whether it was mean-spirited toward the one-state or the two-state solution!

  • Obama's rabbi sidekick is opposed to 'too many Arabs' in Israel
  • Lobbyist privately calls on journalists to hector Schumer & Pelosi about 'anti-Semites' at Democratic thinktank
    • HRK December 8, 2011 at 5:48 pm

      Quote from above: . . . those who accuse pro-Israel Americans of having ‘dual loyalties’ or being ‘Israel-Firsters’ – to shape the minds of future generations of Democrats,” Block writes. “These are the words of anti-Semites, not Democratic political players.”

      I think people should have some evidence before they accuse people of having ulterior motives. It would be horrible if our country descended to a state in which people were accused of holding certain positions simply because they were Jewish.

      At the same time, it is a reality that some people in our society will make decisions on the basis of illegitimate, ulterior motives. We can't simply ignore this.

      For me, when it's okay to call someone on ulterior motivations all depends on the degree of evidence available. Recently, on the basis of what I feel is some fairly strong evidence, I accused the SPLC of having a pro-Jewish bias. Mark Potok wrote back that "your claim does give off a certain political odor." Of course, he was referring to me being an anti-Semite.

      Some people are trying to convolute this issue: Is it impossible for a Jew to act on tribal loyalty? Or is it just the case that in a particular instance he or she is not? I get the feeling that people such as Block and Potok tend to kneejerk-side with the former position--which is a very, very conservative reaction (relative to their own interests) when you think about it.

  • Letters to The New York Times and letters to The Rhodesia Herald
    • HRK December 4, 2011 at 4:07 pm

      Of course, there's the hypocrisy factor, as well. Because hasn't it been the NYT which fastidiously reports on every whiff of non-PC compliance here in the U.S.?

      But with Israel, suddenly even very straightforward, outright offenses against the ethical become "complicated."

  • The earlier me
    • HRK December 1, 2011 at 4:54 pm with 2 replies

      I know now, that all the anti-racist pedagogy and curricula I have written, the speaking I have done on issues of systemic oppression, white privilege, leading diversity groups, joining groups to hone my own leadership skills, developing my career as a teacher activist, and ultimately, thinking and talking about what it means to stand in solidarity with Palestinians, will never take away my Zionist years.

      I think you're being too hard on yourself. You didn't know any better. You can't blame yourself for that!

  • Who's on top in VF piece-- 'Tom Buchanan' Winkelvosses or 'lifelong elite' Zuckerberg?
    • HRK November 23, 2011 at 10:39 am

      By the way, just to clarify, I was generalizing about Phil's article above. In other words, generalizing from that specific example to the entire set of examples of people not criticizing in an equal-opportunity way. I don't believe that the left-liberals who play games (the people I mentioned above in paragraph three) are led by any particular group--I'm talking about ALL of them, regardless of their ethnicity/religion/background, etc.

      And, yes, it pretty much goes without saying that a lot of people on the right aren't the type to sacrifice personally, either. Didn't bring that up because it's pretty obvious!

    • HRK November 23, 2011 at 10:25 am with 1 replies

      A lot of people aren't willing to call bias when they see it. People structure their criticism so that they themselves come out looking good, as opposed to being a fair, equal-opportunity critic.

      For example, I recently read about how horribly Koreans suffered under Japanese occupation during the first half of the twentieth century. Yet South Korea (bracketing the north here--most of its problems stem from communism) is doing fantastic. Of course, whenever any countries or people groups who experienced western colonialism happen to do poorly (socioeconomically) despite lengthy periods of self rule, it's still all Europeans' fault. Western crimes committed in the past mean that from here on out all of their problems are all our fault.

      I'd love to check the tax returns of left-liberals who play this game. I'd bet a lot they're personally complete misers. But when it comes to collective giving (or blaming their own society), you won't find a more "generous" group of people anywhere.

      How many poor scholars have become tenured for just this reason? How many of them have padded 401-Ks all the while proclaiming their allegiance with the poverty-stricken people of the world?

      Sacrifice.

  • Welcome to the new Mondoweiss
  • ESPN and NYT should be ashamed for tiptoeing around rape at heart of Penn State outrage
    • HRK November 11, 2011 at 10:29 am

      Thanks, Phil, for this article. I'm not very in to football, but I admit I felt a little uncomfortable over the firing of the iconic Paterno (probably more because he was 84 than because he was an icon, truth be told). His only possible excuse would be if he didn't somehow get all the information and the assistant coach conveyed it to him as less than what it was--which was rape. But that seems unlikely.

      You really put the facts out in the right manner. Someone witnessed a rape, did nothing at the time, and then nothing happened later. Shameful.

    • Page: 1
  • Saul Bellow didn't like WASPs
    • HRK November 11, 2011 at 12:57 pm

      Sorry for the misunderstanding!

    • HRK November 11, 2011 at 12:56 pm

      That's funny you say that. I almost mentioned in the first comment that when I first start to read I get the overwhelming sensation to look up from my book and just LOOK out somewhere!

    • HRK November 11, 2011 at 11:40 am with 4 replies

      Okay, I'll admit my comment here will only tangentially be related to this interesting article by Phil.

      I have "reading envy." I don't like to read literature (or even longer works of non-fiction), but I wish I did. I'm jealous of all you folks who casually drop names of all the novels you've read. I can't remember the last time I read a novel (probably in freshman English class in college).

      I've always wondered: Is this just a natural part of me? (My not liking to read, that is.) The other alternative: All writers suck and if I could just find one I liked, then I would like to read.

      I know it sounds crazy, but I'm going with the second option! :)

      But seriously, I think if the haute literary crowd weren't so political then perhaps I would like them. Even politics I agree with I find annoying in literature. Even, say, the Palestinian struggle for a fair state. It's so worldly compared to the deeper, more timeless themes of life.

      I understand literature will touch on politics (and probably should touch on politics), but to me it seems that it should do so tangentially and very obliquely. Because the political issues du jour won't be important (probably) in three hundred years.

      What is important? What our priorities should be: God, life itself, family, friends, neighbors, and all people (even strangers or the "Other") we might connect with in some way.

    • HRK November 11, 2011 at 10:41 am

      But the point of the "bread and throw it to the dogs" part was just the opposite of what you're trying to say. Jesus did heal the woman.

  • 'Adbusters' seeks right of reply to 'NYT''s smear of anti-Semitism and fails to get it
    • HRK November 5, 2011 at 11:46 am

      I should have added to my previous comment:

      Many news organizations do not follow precedent in the following way: they report on evangelical power and give facts and figures but not Jewish pro-Israeli power. This is a double standard. We all deserve equal treatment. We all deserve to know that 60 - 80 percent of the Democratic Party's funding comes from Jewish sources, many of whom are very pro-Israel. We have to hold journalists' feet to the fire: If they write in detail (including essential statistics) about the conservative political power of evangelical Christians, for example, then they have to talk about other ethnic/religious groups' political power. This is not anti-Semitic. This is following the principle of equal treatment and no favoritism. This is a basic minimum and is completely non-negotiable.

      Lasn is absolutely correct to publish statistics on Jewish involvement in the neocons and the neocon/neolib involvement in getting us into war. And if some conservative, pro-Israeli Jewish groups or individuals don't like that, then their options are limited: they can't insist indignantly that we talk selectively about the powerful--a lot about other groups, nothing about the conservative pro-Israeli Jews. They can, however (assuming they don't want to be talked about), decide not to give money to the system so that they're over-represented by a factor of 30, or they can decide not to push us into war (after concealing their true motives for the war).

    • HRK November 5, 2011 at 11:26 am

      If their policy is really that unbendable (interesting to find out what the precedent is here), why don't they print part of the Lasn's reply and provide a printed web address (or link for the online user) to the rest of Lasn's comments--which he can post on his own website?

      Note to editors: A little creativity can go a long way toward solving a conflict. Of course, one first has to want to find a creative solution. . . .

  • Where occupy and tea overlap
    • HRK October 29, 2011 at 11:24 am

      Thanks annie!

      I think both movements have some important things to say. I was walking past a Tea Party rally several years ago, and I found myself agreeing with some of the posters carried by participants--such as the one critical of TARP.

      Now if only we could get the middle of America to come together!

  • The pro-Israel lobby courts influential African-Americans
    • HRK October 27, 2011 at 1:32 pm with 2 replies

      It's difficult for fundamentalists--either those among African Americans or among European Americans--to interpret the events going on in I/P in a neutral, non-biased fashion because of their take on the Bible. They tend to focus on countervailing information to the exclusion of the more obvious--because to not do so is to pull the plug on their beliefs (and many of them regard non-literal Christianity as a sham). So, from their perspective, asking them to not favor Israel is asking them not to believe in God.

      I've wracked my brain over a way to change this, to explain to fundamentalists that there are better ways to interpret the Bible, but all to no effect.

      Let me add that I feel that fundamentalists at least have more of an excuse for their incorrect conclusions than the craven, opportunistic mainstream more-liberal-than-thou journalists in the U.S. who continuously fail to report what's really going on in I/P. (And also fail to note the extent of pro-Israel Jewish power in our Congress--while never missing an opportunity to point out the behind-the-scenes, subverting influence of the dastardly literalist Christians--a la Jeff Sharlet's "The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism At The Heart of American Power.")

  • Breakthrough: 'Ynet' honestly seeks answer to question, How did American Jews get so rich?
    • HRK October 27, 2011 at 2:25 pm

      It seems as if Weiss is endorsing the idea that Jewish cultural values at least in part have led to Jewish financial success. I would agree with him on this.

      But I'd like to point out that I once made the following comment (below in italics) on a Blumenthal post here at Mondoweiss and got some very nasty responses from Mooser:

      If one assumes that all cultures are exactly alike in important (success-producing) ways then if there are any differences in outcomes the differences must be due to the lower-outcome group experiencing prejudice–obvious or (if there is no obvious prejudice) of the diffuse/everywhere/the-air-around-us variety. Hence, the government should step in and transfer money to the lower-outcome group until things are equal. But since equality of outcome is a long way off, there’ll be a lot of transfer payments between now and then. Marxism. And if you fight the transfer payments, you must be a hater because you don’t believe that ultimately all cultures are essentially all equally good at success production. (Note the incredibly optimistic underpinnings of such assumptions–perfection and equality can be achieved if only societal barriers are removed.)

      Is Jewish disproportionate representation in higher, elite educational institutions a sign that there is prejudice in favor of Jews? But the outcomes are different, right? You can see that this isn’t going to a good place.

      Okay, now, who's ready to admit that the success of gentile white Americans vis-a-vis some other cultures (not Jews, who do better than gentile whites socioeconomically--that's for you, Mooser) might be because European-American (or white) culture--even subtracting out Jewish contributions--actually does some things well? And that, consequently, we can't necessarily blame the lower socioeconomic status of non-white groups entirely on whites themselves?

      If Jews get the "our culture explains our success" exemption (implicit in which is the idea that others' cultures serve as an explanation for those same peoples' lack of success in comparison to the Jews), other groups get it as well. That's simply how things have to work in a multicultural society. No favoritism. We all jump into the pool together, holding hands.

      Or, if you prefer things the other way, we can spend a lot of time talking about how all Jewish success--as exemplified not just by the Wall Street or Hollywood exec but also by the Jewish kids in the neighborhood who did well on their SATs--is based on cronyism, networking, bias, tribal ethnocentrism, or just plain ol' iniquity. Everyone feel comfortable with that? (And, Tim Wise, where are you on this one, by the way?)

      I didn't think so. But that's exactly how I was made to feel about European Americans when I went to an elite college my freshman and sophomore years. (I'm thankful I had the sense to drop out and spend my (parents') money more wisely at a state school--which still had a degree of P.C. bullcrap, though mounds less.)

  • Bill Kristol: 'We need to hear' that Obama has gone to war on Iran
  • The new 'internalized conflict': Israeli settlers targeting Israeli activists w/ impunity
    • HRK October 4, 2011 at 2:51 am

      I doff my hat in response to the bravery on the part of the activists I just witnessed in this video. That was truly amazing. Talk about restoring one's faith in humanity.

  • 'Time' features generational divide over Israel-- when will 92d St Y stage this family affair?
    • HRK September 30, 2011 at 10:32 am

      He's talking about hypocrisy, Mooser--not about liberalism. You've done this before--manage to put words in people's mouths as opposed to respond to what they've actually said.

  • Gabe Schivone and the new hyphenated-Jewish identity
  • Terry Gross gives a fearful earful on a Christian movement seeking 'dominion of politics, business and culture'
    • HRK August 29, 2011 at 11:20 am

      If Gross wants to cover Christian end-times people--fine. It may be an interesting story. But she can't claim she's unbiased and then not broadcast criticism of pro-Israel Jews' exceedingly conservative position on their passionate attachment (a position which is causing misery for the Palestinians). As if she can't comprehend this.

      No, it's not about incomprehension. It's not about ignorance. I don't believe that. I don't believe Gross can't put two and two together and realize she's not broadcasting criticism of somebody, some important group. . . .

      A sin of omission is still a sin--and sometimes worse because omission can indicate that the sinner knows what consistency requires but nevertheless chooses to be biased, anyways.

      This is about Gross favoring her own people group, the ethnicity/people group with which she strongly identifies.

      It's about favoritism and racism's first cousin, ethnocentrism.

  • How would you redesign our comment section?
    • HRK August 26, 2011 at 2:09 pm with 1 replies

      There have been a couple of times when I posted something and then felt bad because I felt I said something in too harsh of a way (or said something I shouldn't have said at all!). I wanted to apologize, but thought it'd look a little weird doing so in the comments section. How about giving the regular posters their own site (or sub-site--it would be a part of your site) on which we can elaborate on our views and comments? I know technically that might be very difficult, though. . . .

  • Why the Palestinians can’t recognize the Jewish State
    • HRK August 24, 2011 at 9:13 am

      Very cogently written.

      This makes a lot of sense to me. Israel can be a state and should be recognized as such--but it should be a state for all the people living in it.

      Thanks for the insight!

  • The empty pieties of David Grossman
    • HRK August 24, 2011 at 9:52 am with 2 replies

      What’s interesting to me is the unabashed strength of identification with judaism that modern western jews have maintained.

      I'll second that. I find it fascinating. Especially because modern Western gentile intellectuals seem so eager to bash their own European heritage.

      Take the familiar character of the university anthropologist who downright hates all things Christian and spews bile at those students or others who would dare hold such "irrational" beliefs (or put their Christian ethics into politics--voting pro-life, for example) but then goes overseas and becomes an advocate for some tiny tribe's animism or superstitions or whatnot.

      But very few Jewish intellectuals have turned this way against their fellow Jews or Judaism. Think of the Peto example in Canada--look how she was treated and look how few Petos there are.

      My own opinion is that the modern Western gentile academician (I'm thinking liberal arts here) is a lonely soul in search of a tribe. Doing research work which few ordinary people know about (or care about), he or she necessarily becomes isolated. And from there it's a quick step to elitism.

      He or she doesn't want to be Christian--certainly every individual's prerogative--but, besides, Christianity doesn't provide a tribal framework for a society to live under. (For example, Christians often make the point that "God has only children, not grandchildren." This stresses the individualistic nature of Christianity. It's what you as an individual believe and do that matters--not your family, extended family, ethnic group, etc.)

      And so these academicians desperately want a tribe--something to connect with "out there" (but not God, of course). The existential angst of meaninglessness forces them into this corner. So they join the left's anti-tribe tribe--which is composed mostly of intellectuals like themselves (and hardly ever common people, truth be told). Think Bill Ayers: After being on the lam, he made a beeline for academia, and, of course, a lot of people have said he's spent a large portion of his life wanting to be a black man.

      My point isn't that one (white or black) is better. Academicians should talk about the sins of Europeans, colonialism, etc. But the gleeful bashing is weird--at least in light of what I know now--that elites from other people groups (which are typically much more collective in orientation) don't take part in the same kind of bashing of their people.

      Also, there's opportunism: When a society becomes individualistic beyond a certain point it benefits people to "jump groups." White bashing doesn't hurt their professional advancement because whites don't group up against anyone--even those who bash them--it would be a huge racial sin for whites to do this. But by bashing they become favorites of the minority groups who feel aggrieved by what whites have (either genuinely or supposedly) done to them. As favorites, they have connections and allies. This helps tremendously in academia.

      But otherwise you are not supposed to make any *important* decisions or value judgments or etc. so as to “keep faith” with your fellow-ethnics. Right. And I agree with the ethics behind this--you should make decisions for the sake of what's good for the country and not take into account one's ethnicity. I'd be curious to know how many strongly identifying Jews would agree with this moral premise--and then actually walk the walk.

    • HRK August 23, 2011 at 8:22 pm

      Do you think that if we complain to our Rabbis we can get a message to Tel Aviv? Or maybe present a petition at next year’s all-Jewish Conference?

      Are you trying to let the diaspora Jewish community off the hook? It does bear some of the blame for the plight of the Palestinians, you know.

  • Israel's only hope is that theocracies emerge...
    • HRK August 22, 2011 at 10:55 am with 5 replies

      I don't consider myself blindly pro-Israel, and my comments on this site have reflected that, but the idea that Israel is responsible for Muslim theocratical leadership in all areas around the Middle East (as opposed to the Occupied Territories, etc.)--hmmm . . . I dunno. It seems to be a way to transfer blame onto someone else's shoulders.

      Maybe a significant chunk of the people there want a Muslim theocracy simply because they like the idea of Muslim theocracy and they want their religion to be in control.

      Can we put the obvious on the table in this forum?

  • Who's paying for Congress to summer in Israel? Liberal foundations that give halls to Princeton and Yale and fund Human Rights Watch
    • HRK August 11, 2011 at 11:39 am

      Just for some clarification, here are my three conservative definitions (which have a degree of discreteness to them):

      1. Favoring the old-fashioned way. Sticking with the “tried and true.” Not seeking the novel.
      2. Believing that society can only be improved so much before we reach the point of diminishing returns. The raw material we have to work with—human nature—is not perfectable, and our innate imperfections have to be taken into account when formulating government policy.
      So, for example, distribution of power (as opposed to centralization of authority) is one way of keeping a check on the dark side of human nature—as it effectively pits different people (each of which has a warped nature) against one another. The hope is that somehow in the battle justice can somehow be approximated. The alternative—absolute power—is viewed as absolutely corrupting.
      3. Tending to favor one’s own group in conflicts over resources.

  • Jewish publication says Jews give half of Democratic money and a third of Republican money
    • HRK August 4, 2011 at 11:46 am

      What about this?: "Guttman also says that Jews don't vote on Israel, but states that it's a 'threshhold' issue, and so long as a politician supports aid to Israel and is against an imposed solution on Israel, he's fine."

      So how can he maintain Jews don't vote on Israel?

      So long as politicians do whatever we want, we won't make Israel an issue . . . ?

    • HRK August 4, 2011 at 11:10 am with 1 replies

      Funny thing is, you hear a lot more about the effect of evangelical Christians on the political process despite their not being as influential as Jews. This is a double standard. The media should be ashamed, but they're not. They're bowing to the most powerful* while at the same time pretending to criticize the powers that be by taking on evangelicals (who do have quite a bit power, of course, and shouldn't be shielded from criticism, either.)

      It's always easy to criticize others when they're not a part of one's social set. Or when such criticism can't affect one's career prospects. But then what about journalists' reputation for being hard-hitting gumshoe-muckraker types willing to take risks--to personally sacrifice--to save our democracy from special interests or factions? For most, just a myth, that's what.

      *I think the other part of it is that they don't want to arouse anti-Semitism. That's a good thing, but what if the truth is ugly/disturbing? (Think about the Walt/Mearsheimer thesis--now that is ugly.) Then some good thing (not arousing anti-Semitism or truth) has to be lost in the selection process.

      I do have some understanding here, and I'm not saying I'd always call it one way or the other. But I have issues with having wool pulled over my eyes. As Fowke wrote in the Guardian regarding the I/P issue: ". . . I feel I have been lied to, and I feel that people are still trying to lie to me and I don't like it." That, itself, could cause anti-Semitism.

  • Anders Behring Breivik, a perfect product of the Axis of Islamophobia
    • HRK July 25, 2011 at 7:45 pm

      "How much he admires Brievek"?

      Pathetic. And slanderous.

      And the radical agnosticism about "culture"? Define "liberty," "rights," "ethical behavior." Then I'll precisely define culture for you.

    • HRK July 25, 2011 at 7:22 pm

      And so what would you have in store for people like me, Mooser? How, exactly, would you "get rid of anybody else who talks like that"? Can you spare any of the juicy details?

      Wait, let me guess: Re-education camps? Gulags? Or perhaps this is where your beloved hate speech laws pick up the slack?

    • HRK July 25, 2011 at 6:43 pm

      Re. the Catholic/Protestant comment (why is it my comments are put all over the place as opposed to where I want them?!): Hey Mooser, did you realize that some Japanese people like to eat sushi three times a week, but other Japanese like to eat sushi four times a week. So I guess that proves there's no such thing as Japanese culture, right?

      Re. vamoose/hammock/cigar comment: "Sushi" made it into the American vocabulary--so I guess that shows American culture is no different from Japanese culture (which, of course, we all know doesn't exist to begin with, by dint of Mooser's outstanding logic).

    • HRK July 25, 2011 at 5:28 pm

      There's a difference between accepting the multiculturalism you already have--and treating all people equally--and attempting to make your culture super diverse--as multicultural as humanly possible--which is what the left seems hell bent on doing. I'm pro the former, anti the latter. People end up in a country for many different reasons--some legal, some not. Once they're citizens of the country (even if I disagreed with how they became citizens), I accept them as my fellow citizens--my "group" (to the extent I'm part of a group or groups) within society should in no way be privileged over their group.

      We don't need any more immigration in the U.S. We're full enough. Resources are being stretched. We need to protect our nature and our wild lands. And even if that weren't the case, a super diverse society could very well be a society with lots of tension within it. That'd be great: resource problems combined with ethnic tension.

    • HRK July 25, 2011 at 4:16 pm

      Never said this, never would.

    • HRK July 25, 2011 at 4:16 pm with 4 replies

      Sure, Ellen. None of the conflict came about from the bottom up--it was all top down.

      Also, would you care to tell me your plan for ridding the world of demagogues? I'm all ears.

    • HRK July 25, 2011 at 4:14 pm

      Okay Mr. Deep, so then why am I reading your post thinking to myself, "What on earth is this person talking about?"

      Most of your response is just ad hominem. Why don't you try to explain yourself in a clear and concise manner? Perhaps it's because you can't?

    • HRK July 25, 2011 at 10:32 am with 26 replies

      Okay, the idea of cultural marxism--I don't know about the Frankfurt School--probably it was originated in a lot of places.

      If one assumes that all cultures are exactly alike in important (success-producing) ways then if there are any differences in outcomes the differences must be due to the lower-outcome group experiencing prejudice--obvious or (if there is no obvious prejudice) of the diffuse/everywhere/the-air-around-us variety. Hence, the government should step in and transfer money to the lower-outcome group until things are equal. But since equality of outcome is a long way off, there'll be a lot of transfer payments between now and then. Marxism. And if you fight the transfer payments, you must be a hater because you don't believe that ultimately all cultures are essentially all equally good at success production. (Note the incredibly optimistic underpinnings of such assumptions--perfection and equality can be achieved if only societal barriers are removed.)

      Is Jewish disproportionate representation in higher, elite educational institutions a sign that there is prejudice in favor of Jews? But the outcomes are different, right? You can see that this isn't going to a good place.

      (Let me add that I'm no fan of elite educational institutions--state schools are just fine for everyone, if you ask me.)

      If there are differences in crime between two cultures, how do you account for it? Is it always the richer culture (or sub-culture if the two groups are in the same country) which is oppressing the poorer culture which accounts for the crime? Are the reasons always economic? Surely, the economic card is the easiest, least ugly one to play. Consequently, it will get a lot of play. And if we all focus on economics, then we'd better start redistributing to make things better. Again, Marxism.

      (By the way, I'm not against some redistribution toward those with low incomes, but the tough question is how much? Where's the stopping point? And when race/ethnicity is involved. . . . This tug of war over resources--with those who want to stop earlier than others invariably being questioned over their "hate motives"--is one reason conservatives aren't fond of multiculturalism.)

      What Breivik did was grotesquely sick and appalling. But I think some of what he said in his video--his attempting to call attention to the ills of cultural marxism should be trumpeted by all conservatives. White multiculturalists have attempted to pawn off their behavior as that belonging to a virtuous elite. But cultural marxism brings up ulterior motives for such "generous" attitudes. This upsets liberals, as up until this point their behavior could only be explained on altruistic grounds. (And who better to rule over all of us than the altruistic?)

      Because of this forum, let me add: I don't see how the subject of cultural marxism influences the I/P debate. You don't have to be a Marxist to be against Israeli expansion and for equality (although not defined in Marxist terms) for minorities already within Israel.

      (One last thing: I'm not under the impression that my side will win here. Our society will become increasingly multicultural, I believe. NOTE: I'll be treating all citizens of whatever ethnicity/culture as my fellow brothers and sisters--those are my ethics, and I'm sticking with them. But I see problems--just as any historian can tell you of problems in areas with lots of people groups in close proximity (the Balkans, for example). So, in the future we get to see how much fun we have in a society where we must be reminded constantly by those with paste-on smiles that "Multiculturalism is our greatest strength!" I hope you won't hate me, brothers and sisters on the left, when the going gets rough and you hear me say, "I told you so.")

  • American Zionist org supports new limits on free speech in the 'human rights loving democracy'
  • Liberal American Jews negotiate away the right of return
    • HRK July 15, 2011 at 6:13 pm with 14 replies

      RW,

      I still don't understand. Even if we posit that Palestinians and other Arabs and Muslims want everything--inside AND outside of the green line--for themselves (and this situation would not be conducive to peace, we both agree), wouldn't it still be in Israel's best interests to give up the West Bank? If most Israelis think they should/could give it up, why not give it up now?

      And, of course, not knowing what the future will hold yet knowing that in reality we can't be sure that the Arab world won't get accustomed to Israel, at least giving up what should be given up anyways moves the situation more within striking range of a deal, doesn't it?

      At a minimum, why can't Jews here in America vocalize their desire to see a stop to the expansion? --Because clearly the expanding settlements aren't conducive to a deal or to peace!

      This is why I'm baffled: It just seems to make no sense.

    • HRK July 15, 2011 at 5:44 pm with 2 replies

      I was hoping that my post could be edited, but if it can't, I just wanted to explain something.

      I wrote: "(If one chooses values over the people of one's tribe, where does it stop next?)": I meant this in a very, very limited sense--that on the few questions central to what Jewishness means there could be a tension between values and togetherness/unity with those of one's same group/ethnicity. I didn't mean to insinuate that being Jewish means not having values!!!!

    • HRK July 15, 2011 at 5:31 pm with 3 replies

      Can you take out the part in parentheses at the end of my last post --this part: "(If one choses values over the people of one's tribe, where does it stop next?)"

      Please just trash this part. This came out all wrong. It seems to suggest that Jews don't have values, and I didn't mean this at all. If anything I meant that there is a tension between values and togetherness--on only those relatively few questions which are very central to Jews' conception of their own relationship to one other. I didn't mean for it to apply to other issues (which represent 99.99 percent of all issues/ethical topics, etc.).

    • HRK July 15, 2011 at 5:03 pm with 26 replies

      Phil,

      It's very admirable how much you've struggled with this.

      Here's my take: The right of return essentially makes the state binational. The problem with this is that there inevitably will be tremendous amounts of conflict within that state. Even if one weren't partial to the Jews (I don't think I am; I'm not Jewish), one could conclude that on the basis of preventing serious future conflicts one should be opposed to the right of return.

      Yes, this is bad for the Palestinians. We want to set wrongs right, yet we can't always do that. Realizing that the right of return won't work means one realizes that the Palestinians were really, really wronged--that they got hurt badly in this entire exchange--period. Other forms of compensation are possible, but nothing would be like returning home--but, again, that can't happen. Life just sucks sometimes, and sometimes there are really no good solutions to past injustices.

      The two-state solution is the only solution that has any possibility of working. At risk of sounding too much like Princess Leia, it's our "last and only hope." If it doesn't work (and I admit it's not looking good), the consequences for the world will be dire indeed.

      The question I'm turning over in my mind these days is why aren't non-fundamentalist Jews doing their darndest to make it work? Jews don't need the West Bank--they could have a fine state without it, perhaps with somewhat different, more securable borders. And the Palestinians were made homeless--700,000 of them.

      It's an interesting question because it's definitely in Jews' best interests. And if they don't have religious reasons to want all the land between the Jordan and the sea, why not make a deal?

      The only answer I've come up with is that doing so would create a schism within the Jewish community on a matter very central to its conception of self. (If one choses values over the people of one's tribe, where does it stop next?) This is anathema for a group that historically has stressed together-ness and unity as a cure for many of its problems.

  • Prominent Protestant journalist who learned everything from secular Jews warns them about their blindness to a messianic 'debacle'
    • HRK July 13, 2011 at 2:16 pm

      To qualify: for me, since I'm not the kind to sweat every detail, whether the tension is acceptable or reaches the point of a blatant contradiction depends on how minorities are treated within the country. I don't have a problem with the Queen of England being the defender of the (Christian) faith so long as if in significant matters minorities are treated the same as the majority.

      But I think Israel as a Jewish state will (at least in the long run) raise some difficult questions. Since Jews don't seek converts, what happens if there's a slow, entropic trickle away from Judaism within Israel? How will those converts (and their descendants) be treated if they ever start to become numerically significant? (And what about the Queen of England if England becomes predominately Muslim? I have no idea what would/should happen.)

      It would seem that if Israel were really set on maintaining a perpetual Jewish dominance in the country it might have to resort to some kind of illiberal method no matter how liberal it would seek to be.

      But I'm no expert in this matter, so perhaps I'm way off.

    • HRK July 13, 2011 at 2:06 pm

      I feel uncomfortable with BDS applied to all of Israel. (Yes, I know I'm in the minority on this blog.) If BDS were limited to goods made in the Occupied Territories, it might have a much greater educational reach--and this would include a reach into the camps of both American Jews and Christian Zionists.

    • HRK July 13, 2011 at 11:45 am with 3 replies

      Obviously, there's a tension--if not more than a tension--between the liberal notion that a state should have one set of rules for all within it and a nation such as Israel which feels it must maintain one ethnicity as dominant when more than one ethnicity exists inside the state.

  • Eric Alterman on his dual loyalty and the U.S. pressuring Palestinians to accept 'their historic position'
  • Rightwing militias steal land in occupied territories, with support of Israeli gov't
  • Does Jello Biafra's possible Tel Aviv show mark bedtime for punk rock relevancy?
  • What is the living ethos in Jewish communal politics other than Zionism? (More dialogue about David Simon)
    • HRK June 13, 2011 at 2:10 am with 9 replies

      I think all groups (ethnic groups, religious groups, etc.) should allow the "other guy" to have a benign pride in his own identity. (I've fallen short of this goal on this very website, I'll admit, by the way.)

      Sometimes the various religions, for example, get a little fiesty with one another, and each one tries ot up-play its own accomplishments or downplay the other's accomplishments. Hophmi's passionate response reminds me of just how important it is that all of us (Christians, Jews, Muslims, atheists, etc.) not make suggestions about how the other person's group isn't doing its share, etc. --And the truth is we really don't know which group wins the blue ribbon for generosity/fulfilling moral obligations. How would we possibly determine this? I wouldn't want to hazard a guess--it's unknowable. Plus, it cuts against religious values--bragging about our group's accomplishments!

      Probably, criticism (if we must criticize) should be very specific and tailored.

      Am I making any sense?

  • A young American Jew describes being arrested for standing in opposition to the Jerusalem Day parade
  • Another video from that terrifying White-shirt rally on June 1 in occupied Jerusalem
    • HRK June 4, 2011 at 1:22 pm

      Well, you may be right. Connotatively, it is a harsh term. But "PEP" doesn't quite get at it.

      The SPLC is not officially a Jewish organization, and the unaware, casual observer (I was this person less than four years ago) would never imagine that Jewish interests were in any way informing the SPLC's attack pattern. Very few people take the time to study an organization in depth to see who it is the organization isn't attacking and to see whether that amounts to ethnocentrism. But the folks at the SPLC must be aware of who they're not attacking.

      So it does seem that in some sense they're trying (or perhaps it's more of an unconscious striving) to get away with something secretly by relying on crypsis.

    • HRK June 4, 2011 at 12:06 pm with 4 replies

      I admit, I'm on a tangent here, and I don't want to hijack this post (so I'm almost hoping I don't get too many responses to my comment), but I just couldn't resist bringing up this indirectly-related point.

      When I see something like this video--Israeli Jews behaving like Nazis--I have to wonder why the SPLC (Southern Poverty Law Center) doesn't ever report on American Jewish groups who financially and through other means support expansion (sometimes through the likes of settlers as radical as those people we see here) into the Israeli-occupied territories.

      Yes, I know it sounds harsh, but I believe a dispassionate inspection of the SPLC does lead one to suspect that it's in fact operating as a "crypto-Jewish" organization designed to keep white, gentile America in line.

      I wouldn't want white America to get out of line! That's the truth. But can people see the reason I'm disinclined to trust an organization like the SPLC when ostensibly it was created to combat ethnocentrism but yet which itself exhibits a pattern of attack which favors the dominant ethnicity within the upper-ranks of the organization?

      All they have to do to gain my trust that they're not a crypto-Jewish organization is to criticize (preferably harshly--as they do mainstream conservative commentators like Glen Beck) American Jewish groups who support expansion (or look the other way while expansion is going on) in the Israeli-occupied territories.

      Not that I would agree with everything they say after that. Being somewhat conservative (against immigration at this point), I'd still have issues with some of the writings on their site. But, nevertheless, at that point I would lump them in with other left-leaning organizations I disagree with as opposed to subsuming them under the categories of ethnocentric and crypto-Jewish.

      And, allow me to add an important point: No, it's in fact not good enough for the SPLC to simply criticize those who have problems with Muslim immigration here in America. I want you folks to give us the goods, the real deal (make it hurt, Mark and Heidi)--criticism centered around that "passionate attachment." And, frankly, I don't care if you do lose all of your PEP, Janus-faced donors--even if that may be the bulk of your funding.

      I've written more about this here: link to cognitiveparfait.wordpress.com

  • Agnon and Joyce on the cruelty of community
    • HRK May 26, 2011 at 11:33 am

      Never read either story. But I'm confused: When Joyce mentions his community, is he thinking in terms of its (supposedly) sectarian Irish Catholic mindset? (I'm neither Catholic nor Irish, by the way, so I'm not angered by my allegiance to those communities by Joyce's comments, if indeed I've pegged them correctly.) And so one is supposed to get from the story that people should just have adulterous affairs--to show how open-minded they are? I could be totally off on this--I literally just do not understand. Also, how would one know that if he had the affair this wouldn't have caused the woman's husband to commit suicide? Isn't fiction supposed to deal with complexity? And this passes as complex?

  • If Israel is the multicultural democracy it claims to be, why is it so afraid of the right of return?
    • HRK May 18, 2011 at 4:34 pm

      Avi,

      First off, thanks for challenging me; among other things it makes me straighten out some of my tangled thoughts.

      Okay, the destructive part might have been an exaggeration in many cases, although in some cases different cultures do tend to fight and not live together well. I wasn't referring merely to a diverse country like the U.S. destroying itself, but rather to any country which is hell-bent on increasing its diversity without considering the need for some degree of assimilation. So I don't think the U.S. is headed toward destruction. We've done really well as a diverse country. (But I also do see some growing tension lines as we head into the next century.)

      Hophmi brought up the example of Belgium some time ago on a related post. I recently spoke to someone from Belgium. She told me that the French part and the Dutch part are communicating with each other so little that they might as well be two different countries. Apparently there's also a small German part, and they're off by themselves, too. Of course there are ugly struggles over resources.

      Multicultural societies can create a milieu in which blame is prevalent because (it might be the case that) not all cultures will do as well as others; also the fact that there are different cultures can create contest atmosphere for status/position among the different groups. And it only takes a spark from a demagogue on either side to set off the fire. Some proponents of multiculturalism gloss over this and act above it all--that's why I suggested they're being showy. But I can believe that you and many other proponents are truly sincere, however--and in such cases "showy" isn't an appropriate description. I admire people who sincerely believe in multiculturalism, just as I admire people who sincerely believe in pacifism. But in both cases I can't subscribe to their beliefs.

    • HRK May 18, 2011 at 9:40 am with 2 replies

      Proclaiming oneself or one's group to be pro-multiculturalism today is the equivalent to wearing a hairshirt 700 years ago or sitting on a pillar for forty years in the pre-Constantine era. Some Jewish groups want to keep up their bona fides with liberals, and so this is how they do it.

      Sidebar question: Can anyone tell me why being pro-multiculturalism should be considered such an act of holiness? Treating others well and showing no favoritism--now that is holy. Compelling one's nation to be as diverse as possible? That's showy, shallow, and ultimately destructive.

      I don't think it makes sense for Israelis to allow themselves to be swamped demographically by a people who are hostile toward them (and, yes, I know the hostility flows both ways). I'm a white gentile with no dog in this fight, but even I wouldn't advise Israel (not that they'd ask me) to do such a thing. The chances that Israel will do this: I put it at a snowball's chance in hell.

      Getting a state for Palestinians that's as big as the pre-1967 area (and of equal quality) and some other type of compensation for the refugees--that's what I insist the Palestinians in the very least deserve to get. It still won't set matters right, but if you accept that Israel now should exist one has to allow it the chance to exist in a state not fraught with turmoil--which is what would happen if they were demographically swamped.

  • What rough beast slouches toward Jerusalem?
    • HRK May 16, 2011 at 8:21 pm

      I don't think he's an anti-Semite, either. People who hate Jews are going to use all kinds of arguments against them--both valid (that is, valid for a segment of those who identify as Jewish) and specious criticism. There are some valid arguments that can be made about the mainstream Jewish leadership with regard to Israel (and in this case, motivation for making the arguments is key), so why would Beck hold back if underneath it all he hated the Jews? One could argue that he keeps quiet because he wants to keep his job, but in reality he doesn't just keep quiet--he raises the pro-Israeli perspective to the rooftops. He's certainly under no obligation to host so many staunchly pro-Israeli spokespeople as he has.

  • The bastards
    • HRK April 28, 2011 at 10:40 am

      "Lots of Jews were killed by Gentiles." Jews were numerically quite small in most places in Europe. Hence, even if some in their group had wanted to harm gentiles in a too obvious way (such as physically), such actions doubtlessly would have redounded to their detriment. So, even if they were only looking out for themselves such actions wouldn't have made sense. Do we judge the Irish masses as morally better than the English for not being pro-colonialism? Were the Irish ever in a position to be colonialists?

      Now that Jews have their own country and have power over the Occupied Territories we can see that their governments, too, have caused harm to the Other living among them. 700,000 Palestinians expelled! Yet some Jewish historians and leaders bring up Jewish expulsions in Europe as if what's happened in the Middle East is entirely unrelated--Jewish exceptionalism, of course. ("But that's different!")

      Internal beliefs about others motivates external action, whether one has the ability to carry out those actions or not. So there is a place for looking at the beliefs which gentiles cultivated of Jews and Jews cultivated of gentiles.

      If you decide that cultivation of hatred toward the Other is only relevant when it's followed by violence ("the fact remains that Jews did not kill lots of Gentiles"), then you're right hophmi, Maimonides is morally superior to Luther. If you look at the root--the hatred and competition and striving to stand over the Other--that causes killing in the first place, then both sides behaved blameworthy.

      No, I don't know that Maimonides advocated throwing gentiles in a fire, but I do know that Shahak indicates that somewhere in one of the Talmuds there is a discussion of how one need not (or is it should not? I can't recall) rescue a gentile from a well he's fallen into. Both prescriptions suck, if you ask me.

    • HRK April 27, 2011 at 7:10 pm with 14 replies

      To hophmi: That's offensive. Specifically, what did I say that was anti-Semitic? I'm dumbfounded that someone who says there are two sides to every conflict could be considered an anti-Semite. If that's not what you're disputing, then what? The Shahak part about Maimonides mandating Jewish doctors having the proper motivations to heal gentiles? Noah Feldman wrote about being taught this in his modern orthodox high school. The Lindemann part? He's a respected historian. So, what is it that's got your goat?

      Why is it kosher for Dershowitz to bring up Luther's mistakes but not kosher for me to bring up Maimondes mistakes? (Why doesn't Dershowitz bring up both sets of mistakes?

    • HRK April 27, 2011 at 4:00 pm with 1 replies

      Typically, conflicts involve two sides. Yet far too much history of the conflicts between Jews and gentiles is written in a way in which the blame for the tensions and friction and hatred that existed (at some points) between (some members of) the two groups is almost entirely the fault of gentiles. I think this needs to be corrected. If I were younger and inclined toward seeking a history Ph.D. . . . .

      Esau's Tears by Albert Lindemann is a beginning of the reconsideration of the conflicts between the two groups. But if more historians ever start down this road of exploration (particularly gentile historians), Abe Foxman and Co. will not be smiling. Expect a fuss.

      Here's what Lindemann has to say about a book review of Esau's Tears written by Judith Laikin Elkin:

      "Judith Laikin Elkin's review of my book, Esau's Tears: Modern Anti-Semitism and the Rise of the Jews, was published in the same issue of the AHR [104 (October 1999): 1370–71] as a rancorous exchange of letters (1448–49) relating to that book. I will not repeat here the points I made in the exchange, except to reemphasize that Esau's Tears has been widely and favorably reviewed by respected scholars, as has my previous book, The Jew Accused.

      Elkin begins by terming my book a '545-page polemic . . . [challenging] Jewish historiography from biblical times to the Holocaust.' Many other reviewers have offered special praise for the volume's balance, its effort to look at issues openly and dispassionately. Elkin seems especially upset by what she perceives as my failure to recognize 'a unique Jewish genius,' by remarks of mine that she considers 'antagonistic to the Jewish experience,' and by my criticism of those historians who present anti-Semitism as exclusively the product of Gentile fantasies about Jews, unrelated to Jewish action in the real world. My main sin obviously is in not writing history 'correctly.'"

      Found here: link to historycooperative.org

      And, yes, please read everything--including Elkin's response. I'd be remiss if I didn't add that she does take issue with many of his counter remarks. I'm inclined to think she's the tendentious one, however. I'm no expert in this area (I did read Linemann's book, though), but just think about it: Are conflicts typically two-sided, or not?

      One more thing (let me preface this by saying that I'm going by memory, and I could be making some mistakes here): In Chutzpah, Dershowitz slams Martin Luther for his anti-Semitism--I think he says that Christians should forever curse Luther's name or something--but then mentions Maimonides in glowing terms many pages later--not so much as a peep regarding Maimonides anti-gentilism. (I believe Shahak indicated that Maimonides was the one who instructed Jewish doctors not to heal gentiles out of good will but only because if they didn't heal it would give Jews bad P.R.) What's up with Dersh pulling this crap? hophmi and eee--I've got to hear your explanation for this one.

  • She was a Christian Zionist, right up to her first checkpoint
    • HRK April 24, 2011 at 12:40 pm with 7 replies

      Why the gratuitous white bashing? Are comments like these leading us to a beautiful new world free of racism? Really?

      IMHO, I would say her inability to consider another point of view probably came from her Christian fundamentalist/literalist perspective. And, I should mention, having grown up with Zionist Christians (we didn't call ourselves that) it's more typically about ignorance, not hate. Literalists subscribed to their method of interpreting the Bible before a modern Jewish state existed. They're simply coming to logical conclusions which flow from literalist premises and the Old Testament.

      I recently spoke to a (pure-blooded) Native American man (a fundamentalist--and a very nice, moral person, by the way) who made a pilgrimage to Israel with a (fundamentalist-oriented) Christian travel/tour company. I asked him about his time there and mentioned the difficulties that the Palestinians have to cope with, what with the wall, etc. (I can't remember my exact words.) He turned the topic right around on me: "I think they have the wall because otherwise there would be terrorism."

      Of course, there has been terrorism, so in my mind bringing up the terrorism angle is part of understanding the wall, but it's clearly only part of the story. My (non-white) acquaintance was unwilling to think outside of the Israel-is-for-the-Jews paradigm which literalism instilled in him; hence, viewing the Palestinians as victims in any way and the Israeli government as expansionistic in any way was completely foreign to him.

      What I would have been curious about is seeing his reaction if he saw what this journalist saw. There's a point where I do believe ignorance is no longer an excuse--and that's when people have seen for themselves in a way which removes the excuse of "being spun." (Even so, particularly those not inclined to rely even partway on their own reasoning abilities, blind loyalty/obedience to some "authorized" way of thinking about sacred texts or an ideology (e.g., Marxism) can powerfully disrupt an otherwise well-developed sense of right and wrong. In other words, when a person stops having an excuse--whether a Christian, Jew, atheist, etc.--is a question one would have to take on a case by case basis.)

      Unfortunately, too many religious Americans just haven't seen what's going on, and they haven't taken the time to think closely about this situation.

      I think the American mainstream media bears a large portion of the blame. Despite virtually the whole world's condemnation of the settlements, they still maintain this inappropriate even-handedness which elevates the pro-settlement viewpoint to moral respectability (which further compromises literalists' ability to come to the right conclusions). They should be our tour guides into areas my acquaintance's tour leader doubtlessly failed to take him.

  • Joan Walsh discloses her religious investment in a political issue
    • HRK April 21, 2011 at 5:01 pm

      I should have mentioned that I do agree with you regarding reporters disclosing their religion/ethnicity--I don't think they need to do this, and from a practical point of view it just wouldn't work--many people are only loosely affiliated with a faith and others might be strongly influenced by one yet not fully be aware of it. Of course, it'd be nice if editors and newsroom staff kept more of an eye on bias (of all kinds), but I won't hold my breath on that!

      You indicated you prefer the Clinton Parameters. Are the Clinton Parameters similar to Barak's offer which Clinton supported and ballyhooed? I've heard the big problem with this plan is that the Palestinian state would be subdivided into four parts with Israeli-owned/run roads running between them. Also, not all of the settlement territory would be turned over to the Palestinians. Why not just offer it all up? What's the hold up? 750,000 Palestinians were expelled--you don't think after that they'd still be getting the short end of the stick even with a complete withdrawal?

      I suppose you could talk about security, but aren't condos in the Territories not a very secure way to go?

    • HRK April 21, 2011 at 12:20 pm with 3 replies

      hophmi,

      I'm just curious: What's your position on settlements in the Occupied Territories--for or against?

      If you're against, doesn't what AIPAC and the Israeli government are doing bother you?

  • I ran into Lieberman today
    • HRK April 10, 2011 at 9:47 am

      "Bibi Netanyahu is a great man . . . "?!!

      I would think even out of political strategical considerations he might downplay how much he likes Netanyahu. The fact that he said this says a great deal about the direction in which he's dead-set on moving our country.

      Being cynical is so much more common--expressing disdain for politicians--"they're all a messed up lot," etc. (although his being a politician perhaps mitigates against that type of talk).

      "Bibi Netanyahu is a great man . . ."?

  • More on the debate over Zionism and the Jewish state
    • HRK April 1, 2011 at 10:44 am with 1 replies

      "Well, yeah, it is."

      I couldn't detect any self-reflective irony in your comment, but I have to say I'm astonished that you would think the conflicts (not even limiting ourselves to the minor, petty conflicts) in "old Europe" between Jews and gentiles were exclusively the fault of gentiles. Your opinion of your own ethnicity (relative to mine, at least) must be sky high.

      Also, you must subscribe to the Alan Dershowitz thesis: understanding anti-Semitism (in Europe, anyway) has nothing to do with understanding the actions and behaviors of some fragments of the Jewish community and everything to do with the abnormal psychology of the gentiles.

      What this has to do with the I/P issue? Do I really need to answer this one? Slater used it to justify the creation of Israel.

      "If there was a 'conflict,' why didn't it show up in America . . . ?"

      I alluded to the conflict in my post--"neocons/neolibs of generations if not centuries ago."

      The past is a predictor of the future, but the present can shed light on the past, right?

      In the clear light of the present, in America, we see some American-Jewish Israeli advocacy groups sending our taxes and other resources in mass overseas to help their fellow ethnics--seemingly oblivious to the dual loyalty implications.

      Also, we have the (largely Jewish) neocon faction starting a war for their fellow ethnics. Imagine you're the father of a gentile son who's been killed in Iraq. You later study up and conclude that the reason your son was in Iraq to begin with had to do with neocons and their passionate attachment. How do you feel about the neocons? And, would there be any spillover effect in terms of how you began to feel about Jews in general? (Answer to the latter question: There shouldn't, but in actuality, given the imperfections of human psychology, there very well could be.)

      Obviously, none of this justifies hate. But it does lay the foundations for distrust, suspicion, and anger of the Other. And that is conflict--conflict which could have been avoided if Jewish fragments had behaved differently--which, hence, could have led to better relations between Jews and gentiles (again, because inevitably there is a spillover effect--the actions of a few will be applied with a broad brush by those outside the group--think of Palestinians having negative feelings toward Jews in general as opposed to the specific Jews perpetuating hostility toward them). And feelings between groups are foundational to any injustice which subsequently takes place.

      To switch gears abruptly: Think about the Catholic pedophilia scandal. One could argue, as some conservative Catholics have, that the problem of pedophilia in the Catholic Church began recently. I read one conservative indicate that it started in the '60s--it was the '60s fault! Most people, however, suspect that the Catholic Church has had problems in this area for centuries. In other words, the problems pre-date the modern, evident manifestations of today.

      I wonder if some folks on this site take a stance toward Jewish history the same, mutatis mutandis, as the one the conservative Catholic commentator took. In other words, problems inside the Jewish community which caused conflicts with others outside of the Jewish community began no earlier than 1948. It's 1948's fault!

      And I've got a bridge to sell you . . . .

    • HRK March 31, 2011 at 8:22 pm with 5 replies

      Anti-Semitism and persecution of Jews culminating in the Holocaust as a reason for the creation of Israel and the dispossession of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians --

      What I'm interested in are the reasons behind Jewish persecution. How do we assign blame? If we go down a road suggesting that the behavior of some fragments within the Jewish community (perhaps the neocons/neolibs of generations if not centuries ago) were partly responsible for angering some fragments of the gentile communities who lived among them, is this blaming the victim?

      I feel uncomfortable bringing this up in part because the conflict between Jews and gentiles in Europe did end in the Holocaust. Obviously, no matter what part Jews played in the conflicts between Jews and gentiles in Europe, the Holocaust could never be justified. (But that brings up the question: Did European gentiles cause the conflict or is blame more aptly placed at the feet of Hitler, a deranged if charismatic sociopath?) But even though this terrible event happened, I don't think it's right to ignore the realities of two-sided conflicts between fragments of the Jewish and gentile communities in Europe.

      Slater seems to be saying: It's all (European) gentiles' fault.

      I can't go along with this.

  • This website is 5 years old
    • HRK March 28, 2011 at 12:31 pm

      Thanks to both Phil and Adam. I feel as if you've given me front row seats to a conflict which has profound significance and repercussions in every corner of our world. When I started reading this site it made me feel as if I were a junior high schooler again--as if I were starting over, learning all about the big, wide world "out there" that I had never known of before. Now I feel that I'm maybe around fifteen--so there's been some learning and education on this issue, and much of that has come because of you both (as well as all the site regulars). Again, thanks and congratulations on such fine work!

  • Realist site says Israel lobby has cooked the Israeli goose, and American Jews will step away
    • HRK March 25, 2011 at 2:44 pm

      Okay, I'm being a bit defensive here.

      I can understand why you might be curious. I really don't fit into any of the typical molds.

      I have an evangelical background, but I no longer consider myself an evangelical. But I also don't fit in among mainline Christians--maybe it's my lowly evangelical background that makes me think I've stepped in among the Stepford People when I go to one of their churches. (Do mainline Christians have any problems? They seem so perfect to me.)

      I'm conservative in some ways. For example, I'm not a big fan of multiculturalism--I think it often leads to a lot of societal friction. I don't think a one-state solution will be good for Jews or, ultimately, for Palestinians. But I've been dismayed that the leaders of the Jewish community can't see their nose in front of their face. I can't understand why this very capable, adept group of people can't seem to wake up to the fact that they're not doing anyone any favors (including themselves!) by trying to settle the Occupied Territories. I think they need to give it all up and then hang tight and hope for the best.

      I'm from a state without many Jews, by the way. I've probably known fewer than fifteen Jewish people in my entire life. They were all extremely nice, refined people, by the way: How's that for a stereotype!

    • HRK March 25, 2011 at 2:37 pm

      Mooser,

      So am I wrong that a people group which has managed to do what none other in the history of world has done--to not assimilate despite being swamped demographically in the Diaspora--has had such success (if one wants to call it this) in this endeavor because they were loyal to each other?

      I guess you could remind me of the "two Jews, three opinions" motif.

      Or is any talk of group generalizations seriously infra dig for you?

      I didn't mean it as an insult, by the way. And I didn't mean to endorse the Jewish conservative stance on the settlements.

      I think Phil and others have a tendency to really want to see the Jewish community changing in a liberal direction on the settlements, and so what they want is how they imagine things shortly will be. (But, hey, maybe he's right--I hope so.)

    • HRK March 25, 2011 at 2:27 pm with 1 replies

      housedoc,

      First, pleases tell me why it matters to you. And, who do you surmise that I am?

    • HRK March 25, 2011 at 11:42 am with 6 replies

      ". . . American Jews will step away"

      This is a realist position? Jews tend to be very loyal to one another--one of the benefits of being of the same ethnicity and sharing the same ethnically-based religion, as well as being a minority group (outside of Israel) in most places.

      I'm not Jewish and I can't say that studying the Jews has been my issue for decades or anything, but from what I know this analysis is very naive.

  • NPR exec rose to bait on Tea Party, Republicans and Wyomingites, but not Jews
    • HRK March 12, 2011 at 3:17 pm

      In my post above I wasn't arguing that the left should show hate toward Muslims. (So, not: "You hate evangelicals, now hate Muslims!") Far from it. I was simply asking that they try to be consistent and show no favoritism.

      I don't think that Muslims are unique when they vote for the left even though on social issues they're typically conservative. I should have made that clear. Hispanics tend to do that, too. Possibly every new group does this. Every new group votes its group interests as a block before voting on non group-related issues (like abortion, for example). And the left makes political hay from it.

      Many people tend to be somewhat concerned with newcomers, and I don't think that's necessarily irrational or done out of hatred. The new spice in the melting pot can change the taste.

      The left doesn't get this. To the left, everyone new is great in every respect. "It's all wonderful." Any attempts to suggest that newcomers (and here I'm talking in general--definitely not just about Muslims) might change things in some respects for the worse is slapped down as racist or bigoted. The irony is that the left shows very little of this "love treatment" to those groups who are already citizens of their own country.

      The left was plenty concerned when evangelicals moved into politics after having been largely apolitical for most of the 1900s. In a sense, evangelicals were newcomers. But what kind of greeting did evangelicals get? I'm picturing Munch's The Scream.

      So in some (subliminal?) sense the left must be aware that the new spice can change the pot. Again, I'm just asking for consistency.

      You'll be keeping an eye on me???? Thanks.

    • HRK March 12, 2011 at 12:36 pm with 4 replies

      I wonder how many people on the left have attitudes like Schiller's regarding evangelicals.

      Oddly, the things which the left is upset at evangelicals for -- being pro-life and against acceptance of homosexuality -- are things which most Muslims also support.

      So in principle the left should be equally upset at Muslims.

      But since Muslims are newcomers here and aren't yet ensconced, they'll vote for the left because the left will throw roses at their feet. Concomitantly, the left will say nasty things about Christian conservatives. In principle it makes no sense. But whoever said that winning at politics was about principle?

  • When will the ADL stand up to oppose Peter King's witchhunt against Muslims?
    • HRK March 9, 2011 at 11:17 am

      IN FACT, allow me to admit that my first post was in poor taste and just plain dumb. Pull foot out of mouth!!!

    • HRK March 9, 2011 at 10:55 am with 3 replies

      Avi,

      Thanks for the thoughtful reply. First, I should have stated that my post really wasn't about the King hearings. I haven't read up on them at all. Given the context, I can see how many if not everyone would have assumed that I was in support of them. I wasn't. Again, I don't know much about them. (Truly.)

      Also, I'll confess, I've only read selected excerpts of the Koran in college--and I can't even remember what I read (over twenty years ago).

      When you see an Amish person driving a horse and buggy and wearing black clothes, it's a good bet that that person's religious beliefs have led him to behave in such a way. (Perhaps literalism was the wrong word for me to use in my previous post.) You don't need to know much about what the Amish believe to know that somehow their beliefs do greatly influence them. No one else in the world is doing what they're doing, after all.

      My concern with some adherents of Islam (a segment of the Islamic world) is that when they feel wronged they're more likely than the general population to take up arms and bombs in an attempt to rectify the situation as they see fit. (And of course numbers, quantities are important. Yes, I'll admit that a few Christians have taken up arms against, say, abortion clinics.)

      I agree that the distinction between church and state is problematic for adherents of any religion, by the way. Good point.

      You write: "So long as everyone in the US follows the law, there should be no problem." But people also make the laws (and when elevated to the position of judge, interpret the laws). So the kinds of laws people would like to see established are important--because wishes one day could become a reality.

      I do believe in being respectful of all religions. I fully understand that there are a great many wonderful, generous people in the world who--gasp!--aren't of my religion--and may even be Muslim! --People who are much better, much more generous, much more giving than I am or could ever see myself being.

      I realize that for most of the world's Muslims their religion inspires inside of them beauty and good works and many other good things, and I can understand how they feel alarmed and deeply offended when people suggest that those good things deep in their hearts are, in fact, not there.

      My concern is with a subset of Muslims--a small subset, to be sure, but from the standpoint of inducing significant destabilizing changes and societal-wide problem-causing, still important. That's all. But that's important.

    • HRK March 8, 2011 at 7:11 pm with 23 replies

      Where's the line between Islamophobia and a justified concern over immigrants' cultural and religious ideas which clash with our own? I grew up in a more or less literalist Christian environment, although actually a fairly moderate one compared to other literalists. (I went to public school; most of my friends were public school students who weren't necessarily churchgoers, etc.) Because of my background, though, I'm aware of the degree to which literalism has a hold on many believers, and I suspect it would be the same in the case of the Islamic world.

      In the case of Christian literalists, many refuse to see that the settlements are a problem--because the Bible tells them that it's all the Jews land. The same goes for Jewish fundamentalists, and I see a lot of people railing against them on this site.

      I can admit Christian literalism and Jewish fundamentalism is a problem. You, dear reader, can admit this is a problem.

      But how about Muslim literalists? Can we not admit that America could have a problem with these literalists? Can we not admit that most Muslims (like most Christians) really don't take to a non-literalist view of their sacred text?

      Will I get to say this without Mondoweiss censoring me?: What about some of the "difficult teachings" in the Koran which, if taken literally, spell trouble for non-Muslims? What about burkas? What about no separation between church and state?

      I don't think there's an equivalency here: Christian literalism just isn't as extreme as Muslim literalism. Why should we put our heads in the sand with regard to it?

  • Harvard gives stage to Steve Walt and Porter Speakman to talk about Christian Zionism
    • HRK March 5, 2011 at 6:50 pm with 1 replies

      From my (limited) perspective, I think you're making this out to be more complex than it is. Not taking the Bible literally, I suppose, can mean many things. For me, it means that there are parts of the Bible that just aren't true--they were put in by man and not by God. For example, I don't know what the point of trying to come up with a symbolic interpretation of God commanding the ancient Israelites to kill every gentile (including children) in the land which the Israelites wanted for themselves. We don't have to say: Well, this isn't literally true, but it has another meaning. We can just say: This isn't literally true, and it's not really true in any sense. It's just wrong. It was just the ancient Israelis talking to themselves--in the same way that many ancient people talked themselves into the necessity of killing the Other.

      One can come up with other explanations for Biblical prophesies or one can just say that some just aren't right (though perhaps others are).

    • HRK March 5, 2011 at 3:43 pm

      Unfortunately, the literalist Christian community doesn't look outward for answers, they tend only to look inward--at other American evangelicals for answers. It's a very insular subculture in many respects.

    • HRK March 5, 2011 at 3:13 pm with 3 replies

      I'm glad this issue is being addressed, but having firsthand knowledge of evangelical thinking on this issue, I'm not sure how much effect it will have on the rank and file. I've said this before: it's really all a matter of literalism. Until you change that, I'm not sure how much else will/can change, unfortunately.

      What's needed are evangelical/conservative Christians who aren't literalists to stand up and start a dialogue--because evangelical literalists don't trust Christian liberals.

      My own faith journey led me away from literalism, and I'm happy with my beliefs, but I've met literalists who can't fathom actually believing and not being a literalist. They wonder if my belief is genuine or whether I'm just believing in what deep down I know are fairy tales.

  • Israel preparing to deport star of Oscar-winning doc ‘Strangers No More’
    • HRK February 28, 2011 at 7:58 pm

      hophmi,

      Though I don't agree with all of what you said, I'll concede that you make some valid points. Also, I did a poor job at articulating myself.

      I disagree with liberals who think multiculturalism is "our greatest strength," but I don't think their advocacy of multiculturalism is based on hypocrisy--and I would say that about anyone (Jews, Christians, Hindus, atheists, etc.). So you're absolutely right. Jews don't have to explain themselves anymore than anyone else. And I'd never want them to nor ask them to.

      And, yes, I should have included the fact that a great many American Jews (your "Jew in the street," especially--perhaps the vast majority of Jews) probably don't think multiculturalism in its current inclination is so fantastic. (I think I even read a survey which backed this up.)

      What I was upset at was the person who simultaneously promotes multiculturalism over here and in Europe and then remains quiet about really intense political moves to maintain monoculturalism (or mono-religiosity, if you prefer) in Israel. Liberal here, conservative there. I don't think that there are that many Jews who do that, just to put it in perspective.

      (I should add that I, myself, am "multicultural" in the sense that I think we should treat everyone who is an American citizen, from any originating culture, equally. But I'm not multicultural in the sense that I think bringing in many more cultures and deliberately making our country highly heterogeneous is a good goal--namely because I think this can create a lot of conflicts and political-ethnic alliance forming, etc.)

      You write: "Most ethnic, religious and racial minorities, particularly those who have faced discrimination in the past, worry about whether or not policies will be good for them or not. And there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that; most people make decisions based on how those decisions will affect them."

      Well, there's a lot of truth in what you wrote, but we should be making decisions based on what's good for everyone. One way a person might know that he's making a decision not based on what's good for everyone is if in another place (e.g., Israel) he completely switches his mind on the value of multiculturalism!

      Also: "No one plays groups off of one another. That’s yet another disgusting antisemitic suggestion here."

      When I wrote about playing one group off of another, I meant playing one group off of another for safety's sake--not for the purpose of just flat-out wanting to harm another group because of sheer sadism or inhumanity. I really do apologize for doing such a poor job at describing what I meant, and I can understand how you took offense (though, please believe me, it wasn't what I meant).

      I'm definitely going to have to articulate myself better. I can see that in this last post I didn't move the discourse in an upward direction. It was a regrettable blurt!

    • HRK February 28, 2011 at 12:33 pm with 15 replies

      What I'm frustrated by is the hypocrisy of some members of the Jewish community. If multiculturalism is so bad that Jews in Israel will have none of it, why have Jews everywhere else applauded it and downright pushed for it?

      I think Kevin MacDonald has a hateful attitude toward Jews, and I feel that such an attitude (toward any group) is wrong. As a Christian, I believe quite strongly that it is, in fact, a sin. But I do think he makes a point when he argues that what's really going on isn't the manifestation of a political philosophy so much as the manifestation of crude tribal ethics: Is it good for the Jews?

      It's good for the Jews that Israel remain pure, so you won't hear a lot of U.S. Jews complain about this. But it's good for the Jews for other countries to become multicultural (because Jews don't have to worry about one dominant ethnicity ganging up on them and they can play one group off another), so over here (and throughout Europe) you find the large Jewish organizations being outspoken in favor of multiculturalism.

      Rabbis would be SCREAMING over here if this were to happen. The ADL would be incensed. (In both cases, doubtlessly, making a huge, public showing of their concern for minorities.) But over in Israel . . . .

      And please no one explain this away by referencing the unique "tensions" that exist between liberalism and Zionism. There is no tension here--it's Zionism all the way.

  • 'Israeli Apartheid Week' organizers respond to LGBT center's decision to cancel event under pressure
    • HRK February 27, 2011 at 11:53 am with 2 replies

      I read many of the comments on this issue the last time (a day or two ago) this issue was brought up on Mondoweiss. It seemed to me that many commentators were falling into the trap of believing that they had to prove that Palestinian society treats gays in as just of a manner as Israeli society--and if the commentators didn't prove this then somehow the Palestinians weren't deserving of rights to their land.

      Please let's all remember that the Palestinians are deserving of their land regardless of their stance on homosexuality. These two issue are not linked together.

      In all likelihood, Israel does treat gays better than in most Arab societies. With regard to Palestinian land claims, so what? It's a classic non sequitur. Even if we posit that the Palestinians are absolute ogres--truly the worst people in the world (something, of course, I don't believe), it still wouldn't make a difference regarding their land claims. There is no morality test for land claims.

      Think about it. It's completely crazy for a second party to reason along these lines: "Those other guys are horrible people, so WE get their land!" But that seems to be what some pro-Israeli groups are doing. (A writer not too long ago mentioned how she heard a rabbi stand up in a crowd after a pro-gay initiative wasn't passed in the U.S. and announce that since Israel law already enshrined such initiatives "this is why we must support Israel!")

      Now that takes chutzpah!

      Another example of how crazy such thinking is: Do we have morality tests that go along with private property land rights? ("He cheated on his girlfriend--so I get his inheritance!") Of course not. It's irrelevant. And: A truly moral person wouldn't want to take the land of someone else because this someone else behaved immorally--because a truly moral person wouldn't want to steal--even from an immoral person.

      I think what I noticed in the comments section from the last article was an instance of people on the left being incredibly uncomfortable acknowledging that the group which is socioeconomically (or militarily or politically or whatever) more advanced might do some things better than the less advanced group. But by denying the obvious (and it is obvious--Israel is a better place for gays than most places in the Arab world), they're ironically weakening their own argument because they're coming across as being extremist and unreasonable. And the Israel-advocacy lobbies will spread this around with a bullhorn, mark my words. And people who don't know much about this topic (which is most of America) will fall for it, because while they don't understand the I/P issue they do know that many Arab societies have some very draconian laws on homosexuality.

      Again, these two issues are not linked. It's that simple.

  • Colonialism and violence
    • HRK February 26, 2011 at 6:35 pm

      But important American Jewish groups fought against American immigration laws which favored European immigrants. Can I ask how you would feel if a group of American European Christians tried to bring them back? Favor or disfavor?

    • HRK February 26, 2011 at 5:13 pm with 20 replies

      "Consider one of the most rabidly racist segments of Israeli society, the one million Russians, Jews and non-Jews who arrived to Israel, in effect colonizing Palestine."

      For those such as myself who are out of the loop, what's the low down on Israelis who emigrated from Russia, anyways? I've heard the same types of comments intimated about this group in previous essays/posts. I just ask for curiosity's sake. Does anyone have an explanation or a theory about why they tend to be more racist, if that is in fact the case?

      Is it because Russian Jews are products of Russian society and that society (comprised of both gentiles and Jews) tends to be somewhat backwards in terms of how they think of non-Europeans, or is it because relationships between gentiles and Jews in Russia is tense and so each side tends to harbor "anti-" feelings about the other (anti-Semitism on the part of ethnic Russians and anti-gentilism on the part of Jews)? Or both? Or neither?

      I honestly don't know. (So what's the word on the street?)

  • NYT tale of congressional mohair bromance leaves out Middle East motive
    • HRK February 25, 2011 at 1:48 pm

      eee,

      Would you mind telling me what your position is on the expansion of the settlements in the occupied territories?

      Just curious.

  • Why the U.S. will not 'do something' about Palestine
    • HRK February 20, 2011 at 11:35 am with 5 replies

      Why is the author linking unconditional support for Israel and being opposed to any more immigration (in the authors opinion, "nativist xenophobia")? I'm opposed to immigration (both illegal and at this point even legal) and I don't support U.S. policies (especially our de facto policies) w/regard to Israel.

      You've heard of the thesis statement?

      If you want to debate immigration, then let's debate immigration. (How dense do you want our country to be? What is the value of nature? Are unskilled workers flooding northward going to help or hurt the working people already here? Is multiculturalism a strength or does it most often lead to ethnic factionalism and friction?) If you want to write about the U.S. and our out-of-control love affair with Israel, then let's stick to that.

  • '92d St Y' cancels appearance by Palestinian doctor whose 3 daughters were killed after Jewish co-panelist drops out
    • HRK February 18, 2011 at 1:43 am with 7 replies

      I think some people (not all) who criticize Witty are behaving in a very uncharitable, disrespectful fashion. Quit jumping down his throat!

      I'm not Jewish, but one of the things I sense about Witty is that he is concerned about Jews continuing on indefinitely as a people group. That's a fairly mainstream Jewish concern from what I know (granted, it may not be much compared to some on this site), and I think one could argue that if one is ethnically Jewish and yet decides that there's something (in whatever sense) wrong about this concern then in a de facto sense one has essentially chosen to become a gentile. (I know a lot of strongly-identified Jews would object here--I suspect they would agree deep down in a limited sense but would take issue on the grounds that as long as an ethnically Jewish person is still living he or she has the chance of making an about-face and coming back into the tribe.) Whatever else Jewishness is, it's irreducibly about the group.

      As a gentile, I'm not concerned with Jewish-identity continuity anymore than I would expect Jews to be concerned about Christian identity continuity. It sounds sort of uncaring to say so, but this is just how it is (on both sides of the aisles--and for every other religion, too). Don't expect me to weep buckets of tears if every Jew converted to Christianity. Also, I wouldn't expect Jews to shed any tears if every Jewish convert to Christianity converted back to Judaism. Again, no disrespect intended.

      I think any group that sets itself apart does run the risk of veering toward being too conservative (conservative in the sense of being too good to itself--of wanting too many resources to flow toward the group as opposed to being liberal or "free" with how the resources flow).

      Yet ultimately even conservatives should be able to see that it's in the best interests of Jews and everyone else to give the Palestinians a deal they can accept. There's a logic here: If you don't give the party you're negotiating with a decent deal, don't expect to close the deal and move on.

      It seems like a while ago Witty made a post in support of a grandfather not giving his inheritance to a granddaughter if she married a gentile. (I hope my memory is serving me right.) I do think this is wrong because it's coercive. That's being too conservative. Religious decisions should involve choice.

      But on the I/P conflict, I believe Witty is against Israeli expansionism (it seems like I read that he felt this way), so he's pushing things in the right direction.

      (Gosh, I'm out of my comfort zone on this post. I hope I don't regret this after I push "submit.")

  • Mike Huckabee’s ill informed and dangerous views on Israel/Palestine may end up in the White House
    • HRK February 8, 2011 at 10:47 am

      I'm making a distinction between those who are predisposed toward loving others and yet who make mistakes because they're holding on to incorrect theological beliefs and those who have completely cut free from any type of love for other people and have decided only to think of themselves/their group.

      You're right, in one sense--the Other suffers the same at the hands of the former and the latter. But in another sense it does matter--when we assign guilt and responsibility we typically do look at motivation.

      I'm not saying I know that Huckabee, deep down, is a person who genuinely attempts to love other people, however messed up that love gets in its execution. But I don't feel that we should conclude he's a racist simply because of what seems to be his unconditional support for Israel. (And I believe the same thing about Jews who unconditionally support Israel--that we can't really know what's motivating them on the basis of the information we've been given.)

      Also, one can think that people groups ("races," if you will) differ on various traits and still not use such information as grounds for hate or even haughtiness. For example, if an African-American felt that in all likelihood his fellow (West) African-Americans were indeed better sprinters than European-Americans, such a person won't necessarily, inevitably begin hating/despising the Other. Hate is still a choice.

      Implicitly, your arguments suggest that if the facts came down the pike in a certain way then hatred of one's fellow men in fact would be justified. Yes, I'll admit, this gets complicated, and I can't parse all my thoughts on this matter. I guess it might be true that some "factual" beliefs about others probably aren't congruous with loving them. So I guess it all depends on what facts (or "facts") we're talking about. (And, no, I don't believe that Arabs are naturally more violent than other groups, by the way.)

    • HRK February 7, 2011 at 8:14 pm with 3 replies

      Les, in a word, No.
      No, no, no, no, no.
      You don't know what you're talking about.
      I think Huckabee's beliefs regarding Israel are horrible, but that doesn't make him a racist. He's a fundamentalist/literalist, and that's why he thinks as he does. There are many African-Americans who think the same way. Recently, ironically enough, I spoke to an American Indian who supported Israel all the way--and I happen to know that he's also a fundamentalist. A very nice guy, by the way. His theology on this matter is askew and it leads him to bad results.

      I'm frustrated by it, too, believe me!

  • This revolution 'undoubtedly means the end of Israel as a Jewish state'
    • HRK January 31, 2011 at 2:37 am with 1 replies

      Okay, I'm baffled. I'm a newbie, relatively, on these issues compared to many others who post here, I suspect, so please excuse this question if it seems hopelessly naive: What do you mean by saying that the neocons don't care about Israel--that for them it's only a means to an end? What end? Are you talking about personal enrichment? I really don't have a clue about what you might mean.

      I've always thought of the neocons as being people who cared about very little other than Israel!

  • Al Jazeera funeral for two-state-solution stirs fear and denial
    • HRK January 26, 2011 at 11:13 am with 1 replies

      How can anyone be positive about the two-state solution when it's become clear that for it to happen the Israelis would have to win big time and the Palestinians have to lose big time?

  • An afternoon in the Jerusalem studio of GOD TV, the Christian Zionist ethnic cleansing network
    • HRK January 24, 2011 at 2:46 pm with 1 replies

      Sad. I've mentioned before that I have an evangelical background, and I still feel a connection to evangelicals because of it.

      I really don't know what to say. I could make excuses for them; I could say that it's all because of their interpretation of the Bible and that they're really nice people. Unfortunately, nice people who refuse to look at reality and who cram the facts into a pre-made mold can be a party to some really bad acts.

      The only luck I've ever had discussing the I/P conflict with an evangelical was when I presented one with an interview of Benny Morris -- an interview in which Morris likens what happened to the Palestinians to some of the worst ethnic crimes in U.S. history and then says that, despite the pain, it was really all worth it.

      But we are in a situation now to show people video of what is actually going on--so they can see for their own eyes. Maybe someday evangelicals will uproot themselves from their attachment to the pro-Zionist narrative (but I'm not holding my breath).

  • MSM self-censorship on the Israel issue
    • HRK January 21, 2011 at 12:04 am with 1 replies

      I didn't think the article accurately reflected who (I sense) you (and Adam) are or what Mondoweiss is about. If I weren't a daily reader of Mondoweiss, after reading Goldberg's article I never would have guessed this site is as good as it is.

      I don't think Mondoweiss is radical. Far from it. I'd describe it as thoughtful much of the time, as well as thought-provoking. (And I actually consider myself a conservative Christian--though not a zionist Christian. For example, I don't think Israel should be deluged by Palestinians--I'm thinking here of the Palestinian right of return (other forms of compensation are preferable, in my opinion)--not because I care that Israel should be a Jewish state but because of my concern that two ethnic groups that have become hostile to one another can generate a lot of heat in a confined space. But I do think that the settlements are appalling and that the borders need to be pre-1967. --That's not radical--except in America in the MSM. This blog shines a lot of light on that problem. Thanks Phil and Adam!)

  • The first fight was, I'm sick of lecturing Arab women on how they dress
  • Palin gets an experienced attorney in the rapidly-growing field of blood-libel accusation
    • HRK January 13, 2011 at 8:24 pm with 1 replies

      Phil and Adam,

      Hey, I just wanted to let you know that when my comments appear "HRK" is in blue, and when I click on HRK I go to a company's site that I've never heard of before. (I knew this a while back and decided not to mention it--I just wanted to pretend for a few weeks that I was some VIP/captain of industry. Basking in the glow of unearned success was fun for a while, but I figured I'd better come clean!)

      Thanks!

    • HRK January 13, 2011 at 12:39 pm

      "one told me that what Palin probably meant was that people were libeling her by accusing her of causing the death (blood) of the victims in Arizona."

      Okay, okay, I guess that was probably pretty obvious to everyone except for me. I initially thought that she was simply referring to a really bad libel as opposed to referring to the violence/blood that was shed.

    • HRK January 13, 2011 at 12:22 pm with 5 replies

      I've asked three people this morning whether they've ever heard of the term "blood libel." None of them had. After I told them what it actually meant, one told me that what Palin probably meant was that people were libeling her by accusing her of causing the death (blood) of the victims in Arizona. I think his take on what she meant is probably correct.

      None of the people I asked had gone to college. I'll try to ask people who have gone to college whether they've ever heard the term before.

      Even prior to my starting to learn about Jewish history as well as the I/P conflict, I had heard of the term before on several occasions. Yeah! Where's my prize? But,seriously, while I do think that your "average American" (who doubtlessly hasn't heard of the term before) would do a better job as a politician than the elite running our country (into the ground), I do think that Palin's not knowing about this term does show that she lacks a broad knowledge in history and world affairs that we would like to see in a leader.

      If only we could find someone who was pro "the rest of us" as well as highly educated and savvy. Sigh.

  • Lerner points to anti-Semitic character of new hatred in America
    • HRK January 10, 2011 at 4:20 pm

      This is what I posted under comments on the Truthout site:

      Why is there so much blame placed on "white male Christian[s]"? Your [Lerner's] isolation of one ethnic and religious group is highly inappropriate. I think "pot-stirrer" is a more apt description of Lerner than "peace maker."

      This is an example of the kind of comment Lerner's writing encourages (3 comments above me):

      "The shooting is obviously the fault of liberals. For example: Without the pluralism of liberals, America would be a good Christian-fascist nation that would not tolerate Jews in positions of power. And then they wouldn't be killed."

      I shudder to think what kind of bizarre parallel universe such a person must inhabit.

  • WWJD
    • HRK January 9, 2011 at 11:58 am

      I just wanted to clarify something I wrote above:

      "The problem I had is that they’re really predisposed toward believing that Israel is in the right because of the way they interpret the Bible."

      This makes it sound as if I think Israel is always in the wrong and the Palestinians are always in the right. What I should have said was that in my experience many evangelical Christians are predisposed to believe that on the larger questions Israel is always in the right and the Palestinians have no case to be made whatsoever. (As opposed to: "Is it wrong when settlers chop down Palestinian olive trees"--most evangelicals if confronted with could state that such actions are wrong.)

      An example: I got into a discussion about I/P with an associate pastor of a Southern Baptist Church I was attending. (He had talked about Israel in a sermon he gave the week or two before.) We had a long and unwieldy conversation that's hard to summarize, but at one point he started to say, "You know, Greater Israel as it's defined in the Bible includes parts of Syria and Lebanon," etc. I said: "So, would you support Israel if they went to war to expand into Syria and Lebanon?" He didn't answer me, but I could sense he was thinking about his options: If he said no he would be anti-God since God said Eretz Israel was for the Jews, but if he said yes the "worldly" results could be catastrophic--which is also anti-God in a way since on some level he probably knew that believing about God should increase the peace in the world, not plunge everyone into a huge, cataclysmic war.

      These are the dilemmas that literalists face.

      Would you believe that he was also a very nice, friendly, warm person, as well? I felt that he was the oriented toward being a good person even though his knowledge of the situation (which developed in the context of his literalism) was seriously slanted.

      His wife heard us talking (I had called him on the phone), and she picked up another phone in their house and started talking to me about their beliefs, as well. We got into further arguments, but at the end of the conversation she (and he) thanked me for calling and tapered off the conversation by extending some sort of olive branch. (I can't remember exactly what. Something vague yet appropriate such as, "Well, we'll pray that the Lord leads us all to know more about this.")

    • HRK January 8, 2011 at 4:31 pm with 4 replies

      I come from an evangelical home, and I've argued with several evangelicals over this issue. The problem I had is that they're really predisposed toward believing that Israel is in the right because of the way they interpret the Bible. And asking them to think about interpreting the Bible in another, non-literal way is tantamount (from their perspective) to asking them to not believe in the Bible at all.

      I did have a little luck one time when I mentioned how Benny Morris was on the pro-Israel side yet admitted that the Palestinians went through a lot of suffering during the creation of Israel--how many were expelled (as opposed to the commonly held misperception that they retreated to assemble and then attack the Jews). I saw a spark--sort of like, "that doesn't sound like WJWD."

  • What is radicalism?
    • HRK January 7, 2011 at 3:49 pm with 2 replies

      Israel has a lot of faults with respect to what's gone on in the I/P conflict, I'm not denying that.

      But take the right of return for Palestinians. I'm against it, but I would guess that people who are called or who consider themselves radicals (as well as many, I suppose, who don't) would be for it. I'm against it because I don't think two groups of people who are hostile to one another should be put in close proximity (in the same country) and be demographically equal to each other. To me that seems like a recipe for disaster--catastrophe even. But the radical might say, "But it's not fair. We need to make things fair no matter what else. Change is preferable to the status quo." But change and destruction doesn't always lead to improvement--things can get worse.

      An analogy: I hate my job so I decide I must leave it. But I haven't thought about what new job I can get. So I end up in a job I hate more than the one I left.

      I do think compensation for those Palestinians is appropriate, I should mention. (Perhaps monetary or some other form.) And, yes, it is unfair. It's sad. It's a tragedy. It's a job I hate but can't leave because there are no better options.

    • HRK January 7, 2011 at 2:33 pm with 2 replies

      A lot of people drawn to this debate are unbalanced. The I/P conflict is complicated. It needs people who can take a look at it through the lens of nuance, not radicalism.

      Re. Lincoln: He said some nasty things about African Americans. It's doubtful he was a radical. Even if he was, who cares? His contemporaries didn't think of him that way, so his radicalism didn't migrate much beyond the confines of his skull. (I've never been in to: Let's spend our professional life learning EXACTLY what Lincoln, Martin Luther, Thomas Aquinas, etc. believed.)

  • In the 'Forward,' Pogrebin condemns the 'un-Jewish' smear campaign of Goldstone by Jews
    • HRK January 6, 2011 at 2:15 pm

      I don't think there's anything wrong with what Pogrebin did. I'm a Christian and you hear Christians all the time say, "This is Christian, after all," or "This isn't Christian." It doesn't mean we're denying that other people might have the same motivation even if not a member of our faith community. It doesn't even mean that you can't arrive at the conclusion through universally attainable reason.

      And, I believe, as someone noted she is writing specifically to members of her own community--so given the context what she's doing makes sense.

  • The Simon Wiesenthal Center’s perverted stance on 'tolerance'
    • HRK December 9, 2010 at 12:03 pm with 3 replies

      Reese writes: "Israel is lurching toward ever-more extreme expressions of religious-nationalism, electing leaders who publicly profess anti-Arab and anti-immigrant views—and legislate accordingly."

      Can we make a distinction between being anti-Arab and anti-immigrant? Being anti-Arab connotes (in my mind, at least) hating Arabs because of their ethnicity or religion. But it occurs to me that people can be anti-immigrant for a panoply of legitimate reasons. Speaking in terms of America (which I know much more about than Israel): Because our population is too dense already, because of other environmental concerns, because different cultures sometimes don't get along and have conflicts over values (yes, I realize the "clash of civilization" issues is sometimes used to shill our poor treatment of Palestinians, but still I think different civilizations do have different values and unsurprisingly these can collide), because some people groups have higher rates of crime than others (ugly, yes, but of course it's true) and those crime rates won't evaporate overnight the moment those immigrants set foot on our shores.

      My parents raised me to believe that God loves everyone equally. I believe this, yet such a perspective and the perspective that immigration can cause big problems in a country are not mutually exclusive. I, for one, refuse to go to the "back of the bus" status-wise (at least in terms of my self-evaluation) to those on the left who might look down their nose at me for saying 1) what is true and 2) what impacts my fellow American citizens -- particularly the middle and lower middle classes -- a lot.

      I am an individual, hear me ROAR!

  • Attention progressives for Palestine: Rep. Alan Grayson wants to hear from you
    • HRK December 7, 2010 at 9:46 am

      How the Jewish left responds to Israel is very interesting. There is clearly a lack of consistency. Of course, there are Jews who are consistent (both on the left--Jewish Voice for Peace, etc. and on the right side of the spectrum--where I'd disagree with them over the settlements). But my emotional reaction to learning about the inconsistency of a large portion of the Jewish "left" has been great surprise--a type of shock, even. --One would think that they'd be ashamed of exhibiting such tribal bias, particularly after calling everyone else on planet earth to account for their tribal biases.

      I've written Mondoweiss to ask them to write an article on the Southern Poverty Law Center. Many on the far (gentile) right claim that the SPLC is a de facto crypto Jewish organization. I myself have looked into this allegation and I have to say that it's quite possible this is true. A HUGE percentage of the leadership is Jewish, they routinely bash largely gentile and mainstream political organizations on the right (along with extremist organizations on the gentile right) but they ONLY tackle extremist Jewish organizations such as the JDL. To my knowledge they have never tackled the subject of American Jews who support the settlements.

      Why?

      Why?

      Why?

      Because this is arguably about the world's hottest topic.

      Does it have anything to do with the fact that in the '70s a mainstream reporter wrote that a staff member at the SPLC told him that SPLC donations are "anchored" by Jews on both coasts?

      Adam and Phil--go get 'em!!!

  • Helen Thomas says Congress, White House, Hollywood and Wall Street are owned by Zionists
    • HRK December 3, 2010 at 12:53 pm

      Hophmi: "It's nice to see honesty."

      What about your own honesty, A&P? I know it's not all about blurting out truth--other considerations have to be taken into account. But you're biased toward one ethnic/religious group--that's just wrong. Your censorship policy is wrong--unethical, actually.

  • Right of return: 10s of 1000s of Russian Israelis are working in Moscow, and immigration to Israel is 'dead,' says State Department cable
    • HRK December 2, 2010 at 10:54 am

      I don't have a lot of time (at work), so I'll just be blunt re. a very sensitive topic: What about the view that Jews became communists in such high numbers because it was good for their group--"Is it good for the Jews?" thinking. Communism has always been about taking away from the old order and giving to someone else.

      Also, didn't Elena Bronner (sp?--Sakharov's second wife) say that the anti-Semitism in the Soviet Union wasn't that bad or that at least it wasn't what was motivating Jews to want to leave for Israel--that this was a way for Jews to get out and lead a better life in a place w/o so many economic problems?

      If things were so bad in the Soviet Union/Russia, how could they possibly want to return so quickly?

      I'm just exploring other possibilities--that's all. Just want to put all options on the table before we decide that the one that is "Abe Foxman approved" is the one we pick. (Although perhaps the Abe Foxman view of history is correct here--I honestly don't know.)

  • 'Firedoglake' is progressive-- just don't talk about Palestine
    • HRK August 28, 2010 at 2:41 pm

      It all comes down to power and politics--and political alliances. And if some people groups have to get thrown under the bus, so be it. And then they'll attack (with vitriole) the messenger. What wonderful liberals we see at Fire Dog Lake. What wonderfully big-hearted, sensitive, artistic, above-it-all, larger-picture latitudinarians.

      LOL.

Showing comments 149 - 101
Page:

Comments are closed.