-
-
- Informant’s text messages shed new light on NYPD spy program … 0
- Why did ‘NYT’ serve as platform for ‘military propaganda’? 1
- Reluctantly taking down monstrous orientalist video, college union in Israel … 6
- George Orwell would hate Israel 27
- First photographs of ‘Arabs with Altitude’ and Palestinian flag … 0
- Exile and the Prophetic: Freeing the president 0
- Why Palestine is different 7
- PLO: Israel has built 16,000 settlement units over the past … 1
-
- Two friends meet for 5 minutes in Jerusalem 1712
- Palestinian-American Raed Zidan plants flag on top of Everest, dedicates … 1368
- Christians denounce Israel’s manhandling of worshipers at Holy Sepulcher on … 954
- Barbara Boxer’s visa bill for Israel comes under concerted attack 810
- Washington Post’s racism map omits Israel 438
- Israeli report on al-Dura case is vengeful and ‘surreal,’ says … 401
- There’s been a sea change in US opinion on the … 314
- Video: Soldiers aim guns at fallen boy’s head outside West … 302
-
- Kennedy’s insistence on right of return prompted Ben-Gurion to rewrite … 106
- Abulhawa declines to ‘balance out’ several Israelis in ‘Al Jazeera’ … 94
- Barbara Boxer’s visa bill for Israel comes under concerted attack 93
- Washington Post’s racism map omits Israel 73
- Biden says Jewish ‘influence’ behind American cultural politics is ‘immense… … 57
- Two friends meet for 5 minutes in Jerusalem 54
- Israel cracks down on American travel to West Bank by … 50
- Both Massad, and ‘Open Zion’, ignore the experience of Middle … 49
-
- Informant’s text messages shed new light on NYPD spy program targeting Muslims http://t.co/J7dbBLZZXl, 12 hours ago
- Exile and the Prophetic: Freeing the president http://t.co/FXU8YRToQS, 12 hours ago
- First photographs of ‘Arabs with Altitude’ and Palestinian flag atop Everest http://t.co/jQQ6xcFAWw, 12 hours ago
- George Orwell would hate Israel http://t.co/pXjc9SBxNL, 12 hours ago
- Reluctantly taking down orientalist video, college union in Israel protests that it got '1000s of positive reactions' http://t.co/uCZ0r5CDey, 12 hours ago
-
Recent Comments
click link to see last 100 comments- Kerry faults Israelis for complacency — peace isn’t ‘on the tip of everybody’s tongue’ (25)
- Ramzi Jaber: Citizen, yet again, I’m afraid you’re right but I hope you’re wrong ;-)
- SF officials describe ‘apartheid’ label as ‘intolerance alienating the Jewish community’ (34)
- Ramzi Jaber: Yes bintbiba, that’s right… “darabni wa baka, saba’ni wa shtaka”. The rhyme is...
- Annie Robbins: I wonder if there will be an internal jewish coup in the US led by the younger generation or it will...
- Glenn Greenwald on the Woolwich attack and blowback from the ‘war on terror’ (49)
- Annie Robbins: ckg, that’s very interesting.
- George Orwell would hate Israel (27)
- eljay: >> Every country has the right to control its borders. But no country has a right to be an oppressive,...
- Sumud: Jeepers Norman, you’re still peddling entry-level hasbara? At least entertain us with some more...
- Stephen Shenfield: I just read the article you refer to (originally from Ha-Aretz) and “an admitted...
- Reluctantly taking down monstrous orientalist video, college union in Israel protests that it got ’1000s of positive reactions’ (6)
- DICKERSON3870: RE: “They ["The Union" - J.L.D.] honestly don’t know what they did wrong. They’re genuinely...
- DICKERSON3870: RE: “The clip is meant for comedic purposes only . . . In less than one day, the video received...
- Kerry goes for the Hail Mary, but Obama is punting (48)
- Hostage: P.S. Netanyahu has advocated an economic peace rather than an end to the occupation for years. I have no...
- Kerry faults Israelis for complacency — peace isn’t ‘on the tip of everybody’s tongue’ (25)
Our Writers
More WritersBlogroll
The War of Ideas in the Middle East
I find it extremely irritating and obnoxious when I hear someone say because I am Jewish I must:
A. Support Israel
B. Rebuke Israel
C. accept Jesus
D. Not eat ham
...or anything else, when the truth is as a Jew, all I must do is walk around without a foreskin. However, as a human being, just like any other human being, I should think for myself and speak up when I disagree. As it happens, I disagree with Zionism, but my opinion does not have more weight because I'm Jewish.
This must be a surprise to neocons cum feminists-that there can be an indiginous feminist protest in a Moslem country without the assistance of an invasion, drone attacks, occupation, blockade, etc. from Western super powers.
"Interestingly", the author forgot to consider the fact that other religious denominations have entire tv networks and large blocks of times on many cable stations. This is the answer to your mystery: NPR is a ghetto network for shows on subjects that hardly anyone is interested in, so people have to make donations to support the shows they like. But I wouldn't worry about it because hardly anyone listens.
Beinhart's is such a non-sequitor, in terms of the Israel-Palestine conflict. First of all, all the closures, curfews. incursions, etc. effect women as well as men. So these newly minted feminists will be hurting the people they are so concerned about. Also, it is more difficult to solve these societal problems when a society is under assault. In addition, in response to imperialism, returning to traditional ways is a political statement against the occupier. Thus, continuing the occupation and discrimination will strengthen the traditionalists.
Your analysis that the Jewish community is "extremely conservative" is contradicted by the poll results you posted the other day that said about half of American Jews have no opinion on the solution of the Palestine-Israel conflict, and the remaining half are about evenly divided on the Two State Solution, which is the quasi-liberal solution of choice. I think that would point to an attitude of disengagement or non-interest. And speaking as someone who has had the misfortune of having conducted polls like these, I can say with some confidence that of those who do express an opinion, the views are not very deeply felt, are based on the last news story seen on TV, and certainly are not well thought out. I say this because the poll takers are instructed to probe and pester until they get some sort of answer.
Although this site is a great source of news, there is a tendency to treat every factoid about the Mideast on the interntet as a great turning point in American attitudes on this issue, or as another example of the limitless power of "The Lobby". I find this approach to be reactive and not very helpful. Before the Palestinian side can successfully engage Zionism in America, you have to have a better understanding of the lay of the land.
What some people can't see or won't admit is that in terms of fear of a racial threat or issue, our values are very much in line with Israel. First of all, look at our prison system and who is housed in it. Even in times of financial crisis, the one government program that keeps growing is the prison system(including privately run prisons). Most American cities I know of have huge ghettoes, not to mention cities like Gary, Indiana or Camden, New Jersey that are pretty much all ghetto. And there is always pressure to go backwards, as the case that's coming to the Supreme Court to reverse the Voting Rights Act-not to mention all the voting suppresion issues in general that are happening lately. So they built a statue to Rosa Parks, la de da. And we have a mixed race president-that is not so much that we have improved so much as a society, as it is because of the "demographic threat" that Israel is so worried about.
Now I am not saying we have the curfews, massive military attacks on civilians, etc. that Israel has, but so many issues are drawn, almost magnetically, back to solutions like more prisons, border fences, tougher laws, etc. Today, even wanting to talk about solving the root causes of so many of our problems is actually laughable.
My view is that many Americans find same Israeli practices we find repulsive, very attractive indeed to the point that they live vicasiously through Israel's swift tough actions. I am old enough to remember when Israel had a hippie-ish reputation with the kibbutzes and folk dancing, and it was not nearly so popular as now that they have their Terminator image. If you want to change our relationship with Israel and Palestine(and really the rest of the world-we have a military force in 150 c0untries around the world, not to mention military aid to others, such as our special ally), we are going to have to change ourselves. And more deeply than unveiling a statue during Black History Month.
(there is no such right in history, just ask the Jews)
Excuse me, wasn't the whole rationale behind Zionism, The Balfour Declaration and everything else? And also, many of the countries Jews were expelled from, they were later invited back into.
And I alway find phrases like "ask the Jews" irksome. It perpetuates the myth that all Jews think alike and work in consort.
Annie-One way to get an idea of what people are entertained by is to see what the most popular videos are on youtube:
link to youtube.com
This is a very destructive post. With friends like this, the Palestinians don't need enemies. First of all, implicit in the essay is that Jews in the entertainment industry are a problem. And that leads to the question: Exactly what do you have in mind to solve this problem? And the conversation is no longer about Palestine.
In addition, the issue is equality versus racism, military rule versus democracy, etc. which many groups have found themselves on one side and then another in the course of their history. When it is looked at primarily as Jew versus Arab, we are drawn back into the tired old fiction of them fighting for centuries so you should pick a side that is most like you.
And this really irks me: that if there are 18 studio owners who are Jewish, then "the Jews" control Hollywood. Those executives have nothing to do with me. I get nothing from their power, which is the case for most Jews, except for some podiatrist somewhere to feel some vicarious pride.
This is the point that a lot of people miss who don't like what the media puts out: They are giving the public exactly what they want. No one is forcing people to watch stupid movies. The public(or the overwhelming majority) wants tits and ass, exciting car chases and shoot outs, easy to understand plots where you know who the good guys and bad guys are, and they do not want to think too hard or have their beliefs challenged. If you want to change the way society is entertained, you really have to change society, not just pick one segment out and blame everything on them.
Then there is the...irony...of a Jew who makes his living in the media partially from complaining about Jews in the media. The obvious retort to that would be Phil could solve help solve this problem by shutting down his blog and becoming a stevedore.
The bit was just a naughty joke-not really funny in my opinion-like the ones about Indians who run 7-11s or Pakastani cab drivers.
So they take everything away from a man, and then say he should be grateful since he managed to document the crime in action.
About BDS, I think it should be married to a goal or else it will be open to the charge that its motivation is an irrational hatred of Israel. And without claiming to speak for Palestinians, I believe that cause should be: The right of return with equal rights. Only mentioning the occupation has gotten somewhat lame over time.
How's this for a slogan: BDS for Equal Rights. A lot of people will be for it before they even realize it has anything to do with Israel.
Unfortunately, what is probably going to be more harmful to Israel's image is not that an innocent boy is in danger of being murdered, but that IDF discipline is so shabby that a soldier took the photraph and shared it. The same dynamic was at work in the Abu Gharib story-the bigger scandal was that American soldiers photographed themselves torturing prisoners.
I wanted to share this video here, and this is the thread closest in subject I could find. Forgive me for being slightly off topic, but I thought this Gangam Gaza style is actually pretty important. It has gone viral with over 48,000 hits, and it tells what's going on in Gaza in a witty way, without compromising on the message. I actually think videos like this have more potential to change a lot more people's attitudes than a dozen op eds in the New York Times.
link to youtube.com
That reads like a scene in a Woody Allen movie: "I'm sorry Doctor, I can't have a psychiatrist who isn't up on the Mideast. How can you understand my feelings if you don't know about the latest Israeli home demolitions?"
He did have a typical response, so if you want a psychiatrist who understands the history of Israel and Palestine, you are limiting yourself to about 1% of the available psychiatrists. Shrinks always turn the questions back of the patient-that's what they're trained to do. And even if you are drawn to the issue of Palestine because of some unconscious Freudian type trauma-like seeing your rabbi's penis in the men's room when you were three, it doesn't mean that this isn't an important issue and you aren't doing important work.
Also, do you also ask house painters and plumbers if they are Zionists before you hire them? Probably they're the ones who referred you to a psychiatrist.
I actually suspect that this poster is purposely creating confusion about which wall Palestinians want to come down. It's not the ancient remnant of the Temple, which Arabs let stand for thousands of years in their midst-The wall that is causing all the controversy is, as we all know here, is the monstrosity that slices through undisputed Palestinian land. But that doesn't really matter: The people who this ad is directed to will think that Arabs want to tear down the Western Wall-no matter how much they are corrected.
Whenever there is a lively comment section of a blog like this, there is always a push by thin skin types to censor or control comments. It's extremely short sighted to limit comments except in rare circumstances(unadulterated spam, personal threats, things like that). True, you get to sanitize the reading experience, but it is sooooooo much more boring-plus we never get down to the real issues that drive this conflict-which is fear, racism, anger, superstition...and if you censor all that stuff out, not only is it boring, but it gives the false impression that opinions on the Mideast are developed by carefully reading New York Times op eds. The more honesty and true interaction on here, the more people with open minds will come and participate. The more speech is controlled, the less people will feel comfortable to join in.
...Oh, and that business about being nice to avoid insulting liberal Zionists-well, that well is pretty much dried up as far as converts are concerned.
I think a better idea is for everyone to say what they think, not what Donald thinks. Personally, I think the internet is way to moderated, censored, and controlled-and I don't mean by the government. I'm talking about the way most of these blogs are run. Everything has to be water downed or over intellectualized-there is no drama, or spontaneity, or honest emotion-all because a few cloistered souls may be shocked.
....personally, i would have demanded an apology to Palestine before I dropped charges.
What a nice story. Everybody go to have their say, the rabbi apologized, they all learned something. Everyone's happy...except for the Palestinian who is going to be forced out his home to make room for the rabbi.
No
The only struggle in the Democratic party concerning Israel is whether they will back Likud or Labor.
piotr:
I'd be surprised if many Americans could point to Hormuz on a map or understand why it is so important. And probably most of those who can think that its importance is all the more reason to crush Iran. And for all their purported sophistication, liberals are being just as ignorant if they feel that starvation as a weapon will do any more than galvanize the Iranian people. And it doesn't matter to either side that we are coming off as the worst kind of hypocrites, with our huge nuclear arsenal...Personally, I think most of what we are seeing is theatre and there won't be a war for the following reasons, unless we blunder into one-and that does happen:
1. The oil companies' profits won't suffer if Hormuz is closed. They'll just raise their prices.
2. the country is war weary-the whole thing would have to be over by next election or politicians would risk losing re-election.
3. It's just bad policy...we can't afford it financially or diplomatically, plus it could unleash a lot of anti-American sentiment. This is the least important of the reasons. Just because a policy is bad has never stopped politicians from implementing it if it would help with re-election.
You guys are reading waaaaaaaaaaaay too much into Ron Paul's surge in the polls. Hard core conservatives are looking for an alternative to Romney, who seems like a phony. They went from Bachman to Cain to Gingrich(I'm sure I left a few out)and as each one's flaws became apparent under scrutiny, the throng moved on. Now they are looking at Paul. And stuff is coming out-whoever the front runner is, the press and political rivals will dig out dirt on. It's not a conspiracy, they do it to everyone who is ahead. I still remember from 2008 when Mike Huckabee was temporally in the lead that there was a story that when his family drove across country once, they put their dog in a kennel and tied it to the roof of the car and traumatized the poor animal. Most Americans don't like or trust Iran. It has more to do with the 1979 hostage crisis and them burning American flags than Aipac. I doubt any of the pick up truck driving, shot gun toting, ultra-conservatives suddenly feel a deep sympathy to Iran. In fact, this is the issue that will probably sink Paul. The real debate in this country is if we should bomb Iran into submission or use sanctions to starve the Iranian people into somehow overthrowing their government(that's what liberals propose).
This is almost as good as the "Leave Britney alone!" video.
A few years ago, I was walking my dog in my neighborhood and I happened to see the God Hates Fags church people protesting in front of a synagogue carrying signs that said "God hates Israel". I guess if Phil did a post on that incident, there would have been a chorus of comments here saying it's great news that evangelical churches are taking up the Palestinian cause and that maybe the church isn't that crazy anyway and maybe God does hate fags. Personally, I would think that attitude, like these sudden accolades for Ron Paul on this site are examples of extreme myopia and knee jerk politics.
One thing I notice missing from discussions about Newt's "invented people" remark is that the United States is an invented nation-I mean, it's constantly rammed down our throat what geniuses the founding fathers were when they invented our nation. Does that mean we have no rights-or less rights-than other nations? And we aren't the only invented nation-an obvious example is Israel. And to some extent Bismark invented the German nation and William the Conqueror invented the English nation as we know it today.
I don't know how much of a game changer this is-or really if this type of thing is anything new. These types of issues-particularly dealing with Jewish religious fanatics or what size the smallest sliver of land should be that Palestine gets-allow Zionist supporters to keep a liberal persona while maintaining loyalty to the idea of Israel being a "Jewish state". I've been dealing with this type of thing for years-where discussions about the root causes of the Israel/Palestine conflict are somehow directed into a "vibrant debate" about what direction Israel should take.
Phil seems to think that because he has had a certain life experience that every Jew in America has had the same experience. I don't share his point of view on that. Personally, I'm tired of Jewish soul searching being the center of every issue. I think it's a distraction-and even though I'm Jewish, I don't approach every event in the context of Jewish history. In the context of the theme of the protest-that the rich and powerful get all the breaks-we could point out that Israel is the wealthiest, most powerful nation in the region, yet we give them billions of dollars to them every year. Palestine is possibly the weakest, poorest nation in the region and we are helping Israel push them around every chance we get. It mirrors what the protests are about(I think)-the rich are rewarded in this country and the poor are punished.
I looked all over both links-and some links to those links=and I couldn't find who was behind these demonstrations. I wish I knew-whoever it is, I'd like to shake her hand-to get all these people to go out and march and not know what they're marching for.
...also, any list of demands must keep in mind Mayor Daley's maxim. "All politics is local", and stress local concerns like better schools, jobs, and infrastructure. They also have to have a coherent stand on immigration, which will be pretty tricky, because if anyone tells the truth about it-that it is pretty much impossible to stop, and we have to deal with it that way-they will immediately be pilloried-just like if anyone says the truth about Israel.
They have to come up with a list of demands or there are two things that could happen:
1. The whole thing will turn into a disorganized nuisance, there will be violence when the police break up the tent cities and the Republicans will get the White House next year.
2. The movement will be taken over by the mainstream Democrats just like the Tea Party has been taken over by mainstream Republicans. Their energy will be dissipated and their message diluted. The main beneficiaries in this scenario would be a few new celebrity pundits.
Some possible causes to demand:
1. It's not okay to kill Arabs anymore. We got revenge for 9/11 already.
2. End all military involvement-including support for Israel-in the Mideast.
3. We should be able to get help from the government in an emergency, including medical and financial emergencies.
...I can't come up with a whole manifesto now, but it should be easy to understand and make sense.
...Also, I don't know who organized all these demonstrations-that would be nice to know. If I knew that and what I was demonstrating for would make it easier for me to get out there. Historically, a lot of people get tricked into fighting causes they don't believe in.
Not everything is the US's fault, but especially after the US supporting Mubarek for 30 years, it's not hard to imagine that a good portion of Egyptians are not particularly eager for American help and advice, no matter how well intentioned. ..In this particular case, it's sad that the three old Jews Phil met last year can't pray in their favorite synagogue. But I really believe they'd be back in their usual pews sooner without interference. Once Americans start putting their two cents in, it becomes a point of national pride. And I'm not making a claim about "the Arab mind" here-Some mosques around the country are having trouble getting building permits. Do you really think it would help their case if some Iranian or Saudi showed up and started lecturing everyone on what kind of society they should have?
"I’m not sure what “mind your own business” means "
Not many Americans do...that's why we are in two wars , and financing I don't many how many others around the world.
"If you believe that (and apparently you do) you give confirmation to the arguments above that the Religion of Judaism is tragically being perverted into nationalist ideologies."
well, actually I do believe that...but that's not what I was saying in my comment. I'm saying that the Egyptian community would probably be more likely to let a few old Jews carry on a benign ritual without the subtext of outsiders coming in and telling them how to run their societies. Also, Phil was working during Kol Nidre, so the wail of not being able to practice his religion in Egypt is a tiny bit disingenuous.
What I mean is if Kol Nidre is so important to him, he had the option to stay home and pray-since he's travelling half way around the world to pray in Egypt, especially in the midst of a revolution, his attempt to pray seems to have primarily a political agenda. But if he's so religious that he must pray, it seems odd that he is working on Kol Nidre-writing about his trip to the synagogue.
That's a very principled position. Other principles are not to create unnecessary problems and to mind your own business. If Phil felt he had to pray in synagogue on Kol Nidre he should have postponed his trip. That's what I would have done. It's a shame that the three Jews he met there last time can't spend Kol Nidre in a fancy synagogue, but I think they have a better chance of going there next year if there aren't Americans coming into their communities and trying to tell them to act.
Jews get two free days off a year that no one else gets-Rosh Hashona and Yom Kippur. You really have to be out of your mind to waste that time in synagogue. And you have the perfect excuse to avoid that tedious exercise-you should be celebrating. And why must you try to get into a synagogue in Egypt? That's sort of rubbing salt in wounds-like going to Northern Ireland to celebrate the queen's silver jubilee.
I meant that Palestine never invaded any other countries or was aggressive toward other countries. Anyway, small, hastily organized groups of men desperately trying to defend their homes and neighborhoods tend to highlight the fact that Palestine had no national defense.
Virtually every Palestinian family had a scene like this-being forced out of their home. It's not very easy to watch-but it cannot be denied forever. The Palestinians did not miraculously all get up and leave even though the Jews begged them to stay-I haven't heard that particular version of the founding of Israel lately, although it was popular when I was growing up. The Palestinians were a peaceful people who weren't bothering anyone-there was no Palestinian Empire or even a Palestinian army to defend them from this type of thing.
No offense, but some times this site can be like a Woody Allen movie the way everyone is so obsessed what people in New York are thinking. Manhattan is not the center of the universe. I am sure they were able to gather together a bunch of anarchists, libertarians, pacifists, and other sundry groups for one day of benign protest. What would be a sea change if there was that size of protest made up of "real people" in Kansas City or Omaha.
And who re-elects those politicians over and over? You may say that it is because all across the country people avidly read the New York Times Op ed page. I actually think that most people are well aware of Israel's reputation for being "tough with the Arabs" and they accept all the excuses with a wink and a nod because they approve, in fact they wish we could be the same way. And I don't see a controversy about what children's art hangs in the Brandies library as any evidence of a rising tide of anti-Zionist sentiment. When there is a real change of attitude in this country, it's going to be impossible to miss.
"How many Iraq War ringleaders in the pages of the Washington Post, the New York Times or Wall Street Journal belonged to networks of Irish, German, French or Swedish nationalists?"
There seems to be a consensus on this site that the op ed pages of the pages you mention influence great swaths of the electorate. I don't share that opinion.
"Most Americans opposed the Iraq War. I opposed the Iraq War. Everyone I know opposed the Iraq War. "
That wasn't my experience. That soon after 9/11 I sensed a sentiment that it was better not to take chances that Iraq had some nefarious plot in motion and give Bush the benefit of the doubt. I don't remember any major popular opposition to the war-maybe a few dozen Quakers protesting at Independence Mall or a few Ron Paul types making some noise. But that just seemed to make the consensus to go to war stronger. Seeming soft of terrorism was a political liability.
With a little bit of work, I could come up with another 23 Jews who wanted to invade Iraq-but be honest, when we went in, just about everyone supported war, either by beating war drums or by keeping quiet. I don't contest your point that the Israel connection was a big factor for going to war-but Americans have to take at least a teensy weensy bit of responsibility for what our leaders do.
....or Americans won't want to be joined at the hip with Israel if they suffer a decisive military defeat. First and foremost Americans love a winner and are unforgiving to losers....And by the way, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the severing of hips because of Israel's treatment of Palestinians. Face it, we have been robbing and killing dark skin people here and around the world since the beginning, and no politician has really suffered for it...quite the contrary-they lose elections if they appear weak.
Actually, the business about the US and Israel being joined at the hip could cut both ways, especially if Israel drags us into another war or we get attacked again.
Whatever you think of Mckinney or the letter, the whole event does point to a problem that voters who sympathize with Palestinians have-namely, there aren't a whole lot of non-Zionist candidates to choose from-and the ones who do question US pro-Israel policy, also stand alone on other issues as well-and it's kind of hard to support the whole package a lot of times. Ron Paul advocates a sensible policy in the Mideast, but he's a free market ideologue. I like Kucinich in general, but I can understand how a lot of voters find him a little flaky and extreme. My political outlook tends to be leftish, but taking an even handed approach between Palestine and Israel is not an extreme position, left or right-but the only debate about this issue is on the fringes. I feel sorry for those who feel passionate about the Palestinians, but is not a left or right wing radical-it's a lonely place to be.
Are these soldiers getting in touch with their Jewish selves, or are they just being bullies? I can never get used to images like this. I've heard satisfied reactions to incidents like these by Israel's admirers who say they want to show that Jews can be tough. Well, dressing up in body armor and beating up women is not being tough. If they want to prove they're tough, they should go out and fight somebody fair. And if they end up in prison, like they should, they can prove Jews are tough every day in prison.
Am I the only one hear who wasn't absolutely bored out of his skull in synagogue? I guess I really am a bad Jew. Oh well, I'll just have to live with that fact. Reform, Conservative, or Orthodox service-as soon as the Hebrew starts, it's like I get hit with a boring stick right in the face. Actually, it is true Orthodox services are marginally more interesting just because they are so weird-so it's fifteen minutes instead of five minutes before I start counting the tiles on the floor.
"Anyway, the Jewish celestial angels today sound like Christian rock."
Ewwww!!! They came up with something worse than the old men's phlegm chorus. ....But that's why the whole thing doesn't make sense to me. They say they want to get in touch with their "Jewish selves", so they transform themselves from who they are to some metrosexual Nazi singing Christian rock in a synagogue then, if they feel they realllllllllllly need to get more in touch with their Jewish selves they will dress in body armor and go spray sewage on some villagers trying to save their water supply.
“old men clearing the phlegm out of their throats”
One more thing-I bet if you ask any Jew, Zionist or Non-Zionist, athiest or believer, what sound they associate with the back row of a synagogue, it ain't gonna be the celestial sounds of angels singing-unless the angels have a bronchial condition.
“rabbi showering the first row with droplets of spittle”
“old men clearing the phlegm out of their throats”
Are you telling me you never noticed that even as a child when you could see the spittle glistening in the morning sun as they emitted from the rabbi's mouth? It's just a fact: that's what synagogues are like. And I didn't mention the smell-I'm not sure what it is, maybe mothballs mixed with stale talises. Whatever it is, I associate it with boredom. And I can't understand how some youngster experiencing this could think, "This is great, I want to center my whole life around this." Apparently you did. Were you always drawn to Jewish stuff, or did you have some kind of epiphany when you were older and didn't know what to do with yourself?
“When they spoke Hebrew, it sounded like they were gargling marbles.”
I have noticed modern Hebrew sounds kind of clumsy. It may be because it is more of a contrived, invented language rather than one that developed naturally.
When I read stories like this, what I don't understand is how a child can be attracted to the whole Jewish thing in the first place. First of all, the most excruciatingly boring experience-especially for a kid-is sitting in synagogue for four hours on a Saturday morning. Then there's the rabbi showering the first row with droplets of spittle as he chants endlessly in Hebrew. And the old men clearing the phlegm out of their throats in the back row. A lot of phlegm and spittle-maybe those settlers weren't spitting on the Palestinian villagers-that just may be the way they talk.
And I couldn't understand why anyone would want to move to Israel. When they spoke Hebrew, it sounded like they were gargling marbles. The idea of stripping down to my waist and laying irrigation pipes in the desert with a bunch of strangers on a kibbutz was not my idea of fun. And the ideology made no sense to me: They don't want us there, so we should go there to show you can't push Jews around.
Don't get me wrong-I like a lot of Jewish stuff...In fact, I'm pretty ethnocentric at times-but this whole getting in touch with your Jewish self thing-I just don't get.
The lesson of this fraud is as old as the internet-any nut with an internet connection and some free time can put anything he wants out there. If you are not careful, you will be taken in. Before you cite a fraud-or even invest any emotion, check your source and verify. We must resist the temptation to believe something just because we want to believe it.
Mooser:
It's not so much that I couldn't find it in myself to use the term, "evacuation" in the context of the Warsaw ghetto, it's just that it sounds funny to say: "The evacuation of the Warsaw ghetto is referred to as the evacuation of the Warsaw ghetto."...Actually, euphemisms can often attain a feel that is as sinister-or more sinister than the word they are trying to hide. For instance, does anyone feel "taking out a contract" on someone is warmer and fuzzier than murdering someone. Or is calling someone "retarded" more sensitive than calling them stupid, as it was originally intended? Actually, ever since I read about evacuation being used in the context of the Warsaw ghetto, it has had a sinister feel to me-so I wasn't really outraged by the use of the term in the context of Palestine.
....but one term used by the Palestine Solidarity people always bugs me. That is when they refer to Israeli activity in Palestine as an "occupation". In my view, what is happening is the "destruction" of Palestine...and it has been an ongoing event for a hundred years. "Occupation" implies that Israel has plans to leave eventually, and then Palestinians will be able to go on with their lives. I doubt that is in Israel's plans. "Stop the Occupation" does not go far enough, plus it divides the needs and aspirations of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank from the rest of Palestinians. Plus, it implies all the troubles began in 1967, when, in fact, there has been a continuum of destruction of Palestine, where the 6 day war was just one milestone. We should really start talking about ending the destruction of Palestine, rather than merely ending the occupation..
...I also don't like the term "settlers" because the West Bank and Gaza had been settled thousands of years earlier....see why I don't like to get caught up in debates about terminology and euphemisms? They can go on forever.
The destruction of the Warsaw Ghetto is usually referred to as an evacuation-so there is some consistency-even if it is the consistent use of a euphemism.
I guess we just approach this issue two different ways. My feeling is the more the I/P conflict is seen as ethnic politics-a crisis in Jewish ethics, and as a provincial Jewish/Arab conflict, the fewer people at large will pay attention. In my opinion, U.S. policy toward Israel cannot and should not be separated from our overall Mideast policy and foreign policy, which depends a lot on dividing and conquering, pouring billions of dollars worth of arms into regional hot spots, supporting oppressive regimes that submit to us, etc. And maintaining this military/imperial colossus cannot be separated from the fact that our cities, communities and infrastructure are falling apart.
For thousands of years, Gays have been open to any sort of abuse and punishment because they were disparaged in the Old Testament as Sodomites. For 70 years, Palestinians have been open to any kind of abuse or punishment the Israelis can throw at them because they are associated with the Old Testament Philistines. Both have suffered because of the same religious ideology. The question is, will each group be able to set aside the aspects of the ideology they have internalized to help each other.
What the Palestine Solidarity people should do is issue a statement to the effect that while they deplore Weiner's stand on the Mideast, they condemn this intrusion into his private life and it's just a distraction from important issues. That would be a classy approach, plus it would get Palestine in the news through the side door.
Weiner is an easy target now, and I know he has few sympathizers here-but this trial by pantie raid that public figures have to go through is sure going to eliminate a lot of people from public service...and with all the social networking nowadays making a permanent record of everything, things are just going to get worse and worse. I know I have written things on line in the context of some weird discussion that I would have a hard time explaining in front of a press conference. On this very site, I've seen normally reasonable people erupt into vitriol or discuss some ridiculous theory. Should they be disqualified if they want to run for political office?
This whole thing would be newsworthy if Weiner was in the forefront of promoting internet censorship/decency or invasion of privacy. In terms of the Palestine/Israel conflict, I wouldn't expect a pro-Palestinian congressman from Weiner's district if he's forced out of office.
I don't see why everybody is concerned about what this guy Goldstone thinks. At this point, it's about one man's opinion-and I know he's supposed to be such an important jurist, but I never heard of him before this report, and after his opinions are dissected on line for a few months, I'll probably never hear of him again. His moral qualification is that he was quietly disturbed by apartheid while earning his living off of it. In that case, there are probably ten million South Africans qualified to issue a report on Gaza.
This debate about Goldstone is really a sideshow of a sideshow of a sideshow. The main "show" is in Gaza. The sideshow is UN diplomats bantering about it. The sideshow of that is the Goldstone report. The sideshow of THAT is this debate about Goldstone's character. He might be a good guy or he might be a bad guy. but it is so far afield from the actual conflict. Has Israeli policy been affected on bit by this report? If your answer is no, then why are we treating like any other diplomatic waste of time?
Once an interviewer asked why he never went to Palestine and he replied, "I'm not finished exploring Central Park yet."
Mooser,
While we are quoting poetry, here is a poem by the great poet Charles Reznikoff, who was obviously ethnocentric, but not a Zionist:
Palestine was a halting place,
One of many. Our kin, the Arabs,
Wander over their desert. Our desert
Is the Earth. Our strength
Is that we have no land.
Nineveh and Babylon, our familiar cities,
Become dust; but we Jews have left
for Alexandria and Rome.
When the land is impoverished, as lands become,
The tree dies. Israel is not planted,
Israel is in the wind.
(I knew him from his work like Testimony, which by reading, you wouldn't know he had this heavy Jewish background. Then I saw he had volumes of Jewish stuff also. He had never been to Israel, never mentioned the modern state in his poetry, his only comment on the issue being, "I can be Jewish anywhere."
Maybe it's not about imperialism and it's all about liberating Libya, but as an American I have the feeling like we are sinking deeper into quicksand in the Mideast...and it can't end well. We're fighting two wars, I lost track of the countries we're occupying and regimes we are propping up...plus all the covert activity. Two faux states we support are occupying Mecca and Jerusalem. Sarkozy has very graciously offered tko liberate Libya. I think we should start thinking about having ceremonies at airports marking the end of our intrusion in some countries so we will avoid scenes of Americans scrambling onto helicopters on the roofs of embassies in the future. Let the French have those scenes. I guess they forgot Diem Ben Phu.
I never thought I would see the day: Juan Cole, Obama, and Donald Rumsfeld all agree on something. Why don't I feel like joining hands with them and singing Kumbaya? Maybe it's because the campaign will be run from the Pentagon and not from the University of Michigan, and the longer the conflict goes on, the more it will become a straight out war and less of a humanitarian mission.
This format seems very "democratic", but it is very poor way to press him for real answers because there are no follow up questions or coordinated line of inquiry. It is just a bunch or random single questions which he can give quick canned, "focus grouped" responses to. The winners: Netenyahu for an easy publicity stunt, and the social networking corporations for extending the perception that they are more important than they really are for another few months. The losers: anyone who really expects for this to change anything, and the Palestinians who have to live another day under occupation.
I hope some submissions take advantage of the video format. For instance, a Hebron resident showing the conditions they have to live under or a video exposing Israeli violence that had been covered up. Netenyahu would likely respond with empty slogans...but still a lot of new people would be exposed to the truth.
Will we have to be strip searched if we want to post a question?
I'm a psychic. I know how he will answer those questions: "Israel is dedicated to peace in the region, but will not compromise HER security."
Liz did her part to destroy Palestine, and that will be included in the sum total of her life, but she was on types of dope most of her life, so it's actually amazing that she was able to show up to work most of those years. So the Zionist narrative could have seemed attractive through the fog of medication and alcohol. All I'm saying she shouldn't be judged as harshly as someone puts himself out there as an expert-like Dershowitz for instance.
As for her acting, I thought she was great in Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf, maybe because she and Richard Burton were playing themselves to some extent.
We can debate all day, but the fact is we are in Libya. I hope it's as good for Libya as it is for us, because we will likely be there a long time. And as usual, the whole thing happened without a discussion or clear aim. Are we going to step in every time it looks like Khadaffi is going to win with just enough help to the opposition(who I don't even know who it is)to keep from losing? That sounds like we will be abetting and causing an endless civil war. On the other hand, if we invade-which is on the continuum of our current policy-we will really be in a sad situation-fighting three endless wars in the Mideast. Maybe this will be quick and painless like everyone hopes and the good guys will march into Tripoli. The decision has been made and I hope it's the right one. But I'm curious about how far supporters of intervention on this site are willing to go if air strikes don't drive khadaffi out of power.
Maybe, but it always seems that Israel does what it wants and there are never any consequences...oh wait, I forgot: the kids at Princeton talked about not eating Sabra hummus for a few days and some diplomats clucked their tongues after the Gaza flotilla was attacked. If it will help some Israeli politician get reelected, Israel will turn off the lights on Gaza and start bombing. Unfortunately, the only thing that will stop further all out assaults on Gaza is if Israel suffers high casualties and an election is lost.
In all likelihood, Israel has had plans drawn up for an attack on Gaza(and other neighbors)for some time, and is only looking for the right time to act. There could be any sort of reason for an attack on Gaza. My own belief is that preserving the value of present and future nearby real estate developments would be a factor in the decision to attack. I'm sure that some in the Israeli leadership feel that since the Mideast is in turmoil, it would be a good time to attack since everyone is distracted and it isn't clear who would have the right to speak for some nations in the area. On the other hand, if Israel attacks now, it might find itself grouped together with other oppressors in the region, such as Khadaffi. But I'm sure there is some effort to try to position Israel on the side of the pro-democracy movement, and Palestinians as anti-democracy forces(Israel=the only democracy in the Mideast. Palestinians=anti-semitic fanatics).
I'm glad someone besides me realizes that this debate is not going on in a vacuum. We really have to think about the consequences of expanding our involvement in the Mideast-especially since once we're in, there's no getting out-unless it's like we left Lebanon after the Marine barracks was attacked. To me it is sheer insanity to get involved in Libya. I felt this way about Iraq, but I was unsure of myself. Now I'm sure of myself.
...and this is only the first day and those villagers were welcoming our guys. What's going to happen when our guys get directed into an ambush? That's when things will really get ugly. And don't forget: we don't know how to get disentangled from conflicts in the Mideast...and also don't forget, our soldiers don't have any business being there.
Let's remember we are in two wars that seemed like cake walks when we got into them ALMOST TEN YEARS AGO. It's a lot easier to get into wars than it is to get out of them. I know everyone loves us because we have proved to be such honest brokers in the Israel/Palestine conflict, but maybe we should start pulling back from the Mideast a little. Getting rid of Khadaffi is the easy part. But I don't want our guys patrolling Tripoli while they're getting a new government set up and/or fighting a civil war.
The culprit behind the Pan Am bombing, just like the way Khadaffi treats his people are really just props in the drama that is being presented to us. This is a grand opera and the fat lady singing is intended to be Libya embracing democracy(and in the context of the Mideast, embracing democracy means embracing Israel because everyone know Israel is the only democracy in the Mideast-a beacon of a freedom.). If Libya does not embrace "democracy", then we may have years of our guys patrolling the "Shores of Tripoli", as the Battle Hymn of the Republic boasts. Speaking purely as an American, and not a citizen of the world, I was kind of hoping that we would be pulling out of a few countries(Afghanistan or Iraq for instance) by this time, not expanding our involvement. I just don't get a good feeling about this.
...also, let;s remember the subtext here: Khadafi committed the unpardonable sin for a member of the darker people-he killed white people(over Lokherbee). No matter how long ago it was, or how much he has pandered to the US lately, first chance possible he would be taken out. It was just an example that had to be set. To some extent what we are seeing is a good old fashioned lynching. Maybe you say that we attacked Libya because he is undemocratic and oppresses people. If that is the case, how come his compound is in ruins, and not the Knesset?
This situation is just begging for an intervention, but folks, please remember it is so much easier to get into a war than getting out of one. We could end up occupying Libya for ten, twenty, or more years. Do you want your kids or grandchildren standing between two militias in Tripoli in 2021 after we have been secretly arming both sides? America has been intervening in the Mideast for decades, mainly through military aid to dictators and you know who. Maybe some more of our help will straighten things right out in the Mideast. They always tell us, just one more war and then things will be peachy...but this time they're probably telling the truth.
Purim is about costume parties and prune cookies. If you think it is about anything more, you have a problem. Personally, I wish Haman had a hat shaped like a strawberry shortcake.
I'm not trying to be politically correct, but every war in history was started with a preemptive strike. You can't say it is just a Jewish thing. Some preemptive strikes may be necessary. The entire Book of Esther, like most of the Bible, never really happened, so I'll debate whether the preemptive strike described there was justified right after I'm through debating how many angels can dance on the head of a needle.
By definition, a preemptive strike attacks someone who hasn't done anything yet. At most, they may do something in the future. Using that criteria, it would be justifiable to preemptively strike anyone.
I never realized the significance of the massacre at the end of the Book of Esther until the Goldstein massacre. My mother would make humantash(sp?) in early spring as a tradition, and unless some relative into the Jewish thing had a costume party, that was about it for what Purim meant to me growing up. The settlers and die hard Zionists really take the meaning of Purim to heart-especially the part about committing preemptive massacres. And the sad thing about the massacre in the Book of Esther is it is actually a humanitarian improvement over the earlier massacre in Egypt when the first born Egyptians were slain.
but you have a great point! any baby bears mortal guilt for the deeds of the parents. yup, that’s how it begins.
You got it backwards-the parents are responsible for raising their children-and if they are irresponsible, as in this case, then tragedy can occur.
I have to admit I was amused at how you twisted my meaning. Just to be clear, the children are not responsible. The parents and the government of Israel share responsibility with the one who held the knife.
There is something Stalinist, Macarthyite, or even Spanish Inqusition-like about being pressured to denounce or condemn, especially in a case like this where we don't even know who killed this family or why. Yes it was a horrible act-and if horrible isn't a strong enough word, feel free to go to a thesaurus and put a stronger word in-but the act didn't begin with the stabbing-it began when the parents decided to live as outlaws on poached land, and continued when the Israeli government allowed them to do so-in fact encouraged and helped them do so.
Forget about the Mideast, the US could explode if we get in another stupid war. Things are a lot different than they were ten years ago. We are now paying the price for the two invasions, as well as letting corporations run the country. Wisconsin isn't the only place that ordinary workers are being attacked by the government. Providence Rhode Island sent pink slips out to all its teachers in attempt to break the union. Camden New Jersey, one of the most dangerous cities in America, laid off half its police force and fire department because the governor is being a hard ass. You may or may not agree intellectually with military intervention, but when you're being tossed out of work(and the middle class) or the schools become dangerous warehouses for kids-or are shut down altogether, the situation becomes a bit more urgent. It would really be interesting to see how the country reacts to another expensive bloodbath for democracy when they are being told they are spoiled and lazy for wanting a normal life.
There is a quote by Ben Gurion that says something to the effect that Israel will be a normal country when there are prostitutes on the street in Tel Aviv. So I guess this is one aspect of the Zionist dream coming into fruition.
But what's been making some noise in the Lara Logan incident are the comments Nir Rosen made on Twitter, cracking jokes about it. He pretty much threw his career away. It's a shame because he is a good independent journalist. It's kind of sad that the blogs who have used his work in the past aren't supporting him now. They're just ignoring the fact he exists, like he's a murderer in the family, while he's being destroyed. His entire life's work was reduced to a few stupid tweets.He's pretty much on his own...but I don't excuse what he wrote on twitter. But rather than proving Rosen is a terrible person, the tweets point to a trend in leftist circles that is causing a hopeless divide-the willingness to totally abandon women's issues for the sake of anti-imperialism. It showed up in the rape accusations against Assange, when Counterpunch, Naomi Klein, etc., pulled out every stereotype about rape victims.
What Obama should do is have a plane come and get Mubarak out of the country. Just tell the Egyptian military to get him to the airport. For God's sake, don't bring him here to America. That's where we went wrong with the Shah. Maybe they can ship him off to Micronesia-they're pretty co-operative with our Mideast policy-and it will be at least a few years before the island nation is submerged. And if that isn't an option, Saint Helena has been without an emperor since Napoleon died.
It actually looks like we might have to buy our oil from free people instead of a clique of thugs and crooks.
But just to give you all a heads up: I can predict that in the next few days, there will be an organized public relations offensive that will say that this proves that Israel is America's only dependable ally in the Mideast, and we must increase funding to Israel and severely limit aid to Arab countries. Unfortunately, this will resonate with large swaths of the American public because they aren't reading about this, all they are perceiving is mobs of angry Arabs who hate us. (Personally, I am elated that somewhere in the world people are standing up to the system-and a little jealous that it isn't happening here.)
Macy Gray didn't want to offend anybody, so she ended up pissing off everybody. I bet she will stay completely out of politics from now on. This may help create a de facto boycott of Israel-entertainers will quietly avoid bookings there, not out of principle, but to avoid controversy. I don't know the boycott going this way will do a lot of good for Palestinians.
There is kind of a nauseating aspect to the boycott movement, at least to me, and that is begging rich and famous people to show some some pity on the suffering of their common man-kissing their asses and trying to make it seem cool-then going psycho on them like a demented fan who didn't get an autograph. It's the groveling and obsession with fame that annoys me.