Total number of comments: 116 (since 2010-04-30 03:24:34)
Showing comments 116 - 101Page: 2 1
I must admit that it's not clear how much of this is real or simply a scare tactic to dissuade others from doing similar things. Given that so few celebrities have come forward in strong support of Israel's action, I just wonder if much of this is hype by Zionists to slow down the eroding support. While I don't underestimate the power of Zionist lobby and some Zionist Hollywood executives, it really doesn't require an organized conspiracy to shun a star or two. I personally get the impression that much of this is posturing.
Excellent summary. What President Rouhani said here is extremely sensible. While the extremists on both sides can quibble about what it means, the rest of the world can move on and make Holocaust less of an issue in dealing with Iran. I think it will quickly pass over as the overall narrative has dramatically changed in the last month or so. I'm cautiously hopeful.
Strong economic sanctions of Iran requires coordination and cooperation from other countries. With increasingly cooperative Iran, I doubt that no matter what Congress stipulates, other countries like Russia, China, India, and even parts of Europe will be "kow-towing" to the AIPAC-driven US Congressional agenda. US no longer has that kind of clout. Furthermore, as the popular sentiment regarding military actions against Syria clearly exemplified, the US populace is less and less tolerant of using military intervention or even talking about military involvement. The ground has shifted tectonically and these AIPAC driven agendas are nothing other than propping up houses after a major earthquake.
Anyone seeking Two-State Solution as Israel envisions is a racist and a Zionist in this context. Thus, I don't buy any of the J Street narrative either.
I agree. Most religious zealots will leave or be made uncomfortable so that they will leave.
This was an amazing piece of journalism considering where it is published: NYT Sunday Review. I don't know what it takes to get this to be published but it is pretty clear that at least the Sunday Times is changing (remember the Ben Ehrenreich article couple months ago?).
Bezos is a businessman. Very low on his list of priorities.
Stanley Fish is clearly remarking based on his own emotional stress of witnessing so many young Jews marrying non-Jews. All of his comments about deeply religiously feelings and ensuing "conflicts" are simply reflective of anguish if he himself were to marry a non-Jew now. It's OK as a personal testament but certainly not deserving of a NYT print space. The only justification I can imagine will be that perhaps there are many others of his generation who empathize with his predicament.
Great article!! Shared on my FB.
@Adam: Excellent investigative journalism. Congratulations!!!
Bonner is back in the US doing work that is generally not related to the Middle East. He flew to Israel to start coverage while Judi Rudoren (current Jerusalem Bureau chief) is in Gaza City.
Phil, I tend to agree with your assessment. However, I think some of these outlets are backpedaling a bit. While the WaPo had the photo of the Palestinian BBC journalist holding his dead child the first day on the front page, that sort of coverage has disappeared. The horrendous murder of ten members of one family while mentioned is still buried among the reports of Hamas rockets.
I listened in on Oren Marmostein's (of Israeli Embassy in Washington) conference call on Friday. He was bemoaning the "biased" coverage of American media vociferously. I am sure that the Israeli Embassy is pushing very hard at the publishers and editors as we speak and hence the slightly changed tone of coverage despite worsening situation in Gaza.
With or without Obama's support, Israel will try to maximize damage and try to minimize negative public media reaction. But when all is said and done in the next few days, few weeks, or few months, the reaction to Israeli attack will turn uniformly negative worldwide except for the Western governments.
What does Israel gain? Domestic political benefits and a sense of "pride and honor". Otherwise as far as world opinion is concerned, I think it's still another negative for Israel. The tragedy, of course, are the Gazan sufferings (with minimal Israeli suffering). But that too unfortunately will help in building further negative image of Israel outside of US and a few Western governments.
After this incident, there will be continuous slew of foreign dignitaries visiting and inspecting Gaza's damage. Hamas' position will be strengthened and Fatah ever weaker. While in the short run, Obama's support is necessary but in the long run, his support is irrelevant. Perhaps in the long run, it's a preferred result.
One of the best articles written at Mondoweiss blog!!!
Krugman chooses the battles he fights. For or against Zionism in US is NOT one of his central themes. On the other hand, if Obama wins without much of this Jewish money, it will be better in the long run as the non-supporters will have less access to Obama in the future.
Here is a wonderful poster about G4S.
link to facebook.com
Phil: Looks like NYT deleted the article they published (AP article) last night quoting Mondoweiss. I wonder if they did it under Israeli pressure. While I haven't verified with anyone else, I tried very hard to view the article today under "World-Middle East" and it's gone. The "cached" version which I used to repost on FB is still there. Please follow up.
You can watch The Daily Show via the Web. Here is the link for this particular show. link to thedailyshow.com
It is definitely pushing the ante. I can't think of any other mainstream show that even comes close to The Daily Show. It's very intriguing to consider how Jon Stewart has gotten away with this in America. I guess one reason is that the show itself if quite popular. The other is that if some Zionist organization try to criticize the show, it will be rebutted and skewered. Of course such "defense" mechanisms aren't effective if some corporate takeover strategy were to take place to remove the show from The Comedy Channel.
Apparently, mayor Bloomberg is in such a hurry to clinch the deal (probably before people start questioning the wisdom of the deal) that he will be announcing the winner (Cornell/Technion) next Monday instead of mid-January. It gets more and more suspicious how this whole thing is playing out.
Al Jazeera English is an indispensable alternative to the highly censored or self-censored Western TV and cable channels. It's actually not that politically slanted as one might expect. It's power comes from having access to coverage that is not available anywhere else. Like any news source, one has to be able to digest and assimilate the coverage in the overall context. I am glad that things are becoming more open even in the US so that non-Arabic speaking audience can see and hear the "other" side. Now with CCTV and RT also becoming more available and providing increasingly better coverage, even Americans will be exposed to a more diverse sources of news (which much of the rest of the world has had for over a decade). Virtually no hysterical response (except for the usual culprits like Pamela Geller) is also a good sign that it is simply a matter of time that non-Western news sources will become increasingly accepted in the US.
We are here talking about Al Jazeera English (TV). Have you even watched its shows or are you simply parroting some right-wing, Zionist blog site?
Edwin Montague, the only Jewish member of the Lloyd-George War Cabinet that approved The Balfour Declaration, stated clearly why this phenomenon of the fate of Jews in other countries, was the reason he was against the Declaration. I don't think there is anyway that a person who identifies himself/herself as a Jew to escape the "general" anger and antipathy towards Israel. The only way to avoid being included in the increasing anger towards Israel is to identify oneself as NOT supporting Jewish Israel. As the Turkish Jew who was interviewed here states: she supports Israel although she really is not a Zionist, per se. Attitudes like this will not be sufficient to escape the general ill-feeling towards Israel now and increasingly so in the future. Any person of Jewish heritage of any sort, as long as he/she identifies as a Jew and shows any sympathy for Israel will be identified as a Zionist or a proto-Zionist. The solution is very simple: Just state that he/she does NOT support Israel or Israel as a Jewish State. That's enough to clarify the position.
The Zionists are desperate!!! We just have to keep on pushing. (Desmond Tutu is very frail. I tried to invite him to the Harvard Club to give a talk recently but was warned that he was too frail to travel by my colleagues there.). We need to use this occasion to make it an opportunity.
Far more than Mubarak departure in itself, the changing narrative is the essence of this revolution. One of these narratives is referred here by Dan. The second change in the narratives is the inability of the neocon experts, Zionist financed think tank experts and newspaper journalists to give coherent analysis. Events moved too quickly and in unexpected direction. Very few, if any , know Arabic so they couldn't decipher what was said by the protesters and the Arab media fast enough. As Juan Cole and Rashid Khalidi poignantly pointed out at the discussion last night at Columbia, simply understanding what the protesters were chanting should have given enough clues as to the nature of the protesters' demands. American-Jewish establishment dominated commentators had no way of spinning the story other than derogatory comments about Muslim Brotherhood etc.
The increased need to understand Arabic firsthand is mandatory as we proceed. The Israel-dominated narrative that is fed into the Western media outlets no longer suffice. This more than anything else will tip the balance of the narrative. Al Jazeera had the Arabic-fluency advantage. Fox probably has no one who knows Arabic and certainly had no one on the ground. This is just the beginning of the change in the dominant medium.
When the US State Department is headed by Hillary Clinton with her strong ties to the American Jewish community and with people like Dennis Ross in the White House, it's totally expected that they are uncomfortable with what is going on. None of these people understand Arabic or Arab culture. Think tank experts from Brookings, Council for Foreign Relations are now infested with neocons and Zionists and have fed administration with staff expertise. Take a look at the recent House Foreign Affairs hearing: Ross-Lehtinen ad Howard Berman questioning Elliot Abrams and representatives from WINEP. This is like Zionists quizzing fellow Zionists to understand Arab street.
Unfortunately, America has been duped with the Israel/Zionist-filtered narrative for too long and has lost the ability to look at primary data as it emerges. Democratic and independent Egypt can only be good for America. It's bad only if we consider our "friend" Israel in the context. When did bad things for Israel automatically become bad for America? That is a very dubious notion.
Let's agree to disagree. As a Chinese who has moved to US a long time ago and who has followed China for a long time my assessment differs from yours. We clearly have access to different database. Time will tell if China acts according to its own will or not. Let the future speak for itself.
Perhaps, the differences come from "white people's" perspective versus "colored" people like me. I've witnessed the decline of US dollar going from 360 yen/dollar to 80 yen/dollar. Though hardly on surface, the inferiority complex of "colored" people have correspondingly diminished. The West with its generally declining population base and increasing loss of manufacturing base will follow its own course. China just has to move step at a time, avoiding war and excessive consumerism. The rest will take its natural course. Is it relevant to I-P conflict? Absolutely, Jewish Israel's existence is completely dependent on US influence and world Jewry. I seriously doubt that Hu Jin Tao cares much about Jewish people any more than over Gabonese.
Let me assure that the Chinese are independent of US and EU. Of course, China goes out securing its natural resources pipeline and oil supplies. That's what every country does. However, China has virtually NO overseas bases (I think US has presence in over 100 countries), no military (self-defense) treaties, do not demand regime-change for trade treaties.
I have been following my own family's history over the last 140 years since branches of them have left China. Chinese people on the average are far better off than they have ever been including my distant relatives who still live in quasi-villages. As for the few elites, of course, they exist but nothing like US. That is the key difference between the affluent Russians and Chinese. Perhaps, if you did some field research in addition to reading English-language magazines and newspapers, you will see a better picture.
Yahweh never existed, in my opinion except in the minds of some illiterate tribesmen.
I agree with your overall analysis. However, every country does this sort of thing to the extent possible. The principal obstacle to the US/EU/Israel strategy is that the world is becoming more multi-centric. In fact, if one simply did cash flow/balance sheet analysis, most of US ventures are actually funded by borrowed money from China and Japan. China realizes that this colonial/imperial strategy is doomed to fail and thus is willing to "allow" it to happen while US/EU bleeds from far-flung war zones and making indigenous enemies. Brazil can't wait on the outside because they know US can't manipulate them. India wants to participate but doesn't have the reach. Russia wants to participate but realistically doesn't have the reach anymore.
History tells us that Europe imploded because of the First World War, allowing the rise of US as a global power. Second World War completely destroyed its colonial/imperial enterprises. Neither US nor EU is a position to "fund" any of these ventures anymore. I think that's why China, Brazil, and a few others are relatively mum about this. When one's competitor/enemy is involved in self-destructive folly, its the wise who simply let them implode while increasing foreign reserve.
I would go one step further. For many Zionist Americans, Israel is first, second, and third. I think they are far more loyal to Israel even when it hurts US interests. To me they are traitors to American citizens' interests. Why do you think so many Americans died in Iraq and Afghanistan? The overwhelming reason is Israel (but I admit it's not 100 Israel).
Richard Witty: There is no peace and there is no process. Therefore peace process doesn't (or didn't) exist. When things don't exist, the final condition is similar to "dead" although not everything that don't exist are necessarily dead, like Yahweh for example.
I will leave it up to your interpretation. In any reasonable society, they are traitors and should get maximum penalty consistent with the justice system. Personally, I prefer sending them to some prison on the Lena or the Yenisey Rivers in Siberia.
This is the beginning of the end of Jewish Israel. Palestinian Authority has no reason to exist except as "tools" for Zionist Israel and its backers (worldwide Zionist Jewry and others who support Jewish Israel). Palestinians don't need PA, world peace doesn't need PA. Get rid of them, once and for all. We certainly don't need Jewish Israel either. Democratic Jewish Israel is an oxymoron.
Palestinian Authority is treasonous to the Palestinian people's interests. They should all be fired and removed, once and for all. First thing first.
It takes time for things to change. Nothing is totally black or white all the time. As a student of history however, the underlying currents move inexorably. World is getting digitized. US power and influence as percentage of global output is dwindling very quickly. Demographics are rapidly changing all over the world. Remember China just ended its civil war only 60 years ago. Israel didn't exist 63 years ago. A lifespan of nation is now usually shorter than a person's. Have some faith, hope, and love. (I think I've been reading too much Albert Schweitzer books recently).
Marc b. Meritocracy is alive in US in that talented individuals can rise independent of money, power, and connection. The latter helps, particularly if one has talent. I still believe that a hard-working, talented individual who has nothing to offer other than his/her brains and hard work to rise in the US. This is not necessarily true in many other countries. I have witnessed this all the way from the halls of Caltech, Harvard Med School, MIT, and even to the trading floors of Wall Street hedge funds. If one is "hungry" enough and have the ability, work ethic and to some extent luck, one can still make it "big" in the US. Does connection and money help. Of course but the ultimate level of "success" whatever that means is dependent on talent. The best examples of this is George Soros, Steve Chu, and Barak Obama, and Bill Clinton. Though US has its own problems, there are very few countries, if any, that offer better opportunities to these people.
I think meritocracy is alive. Of course, money and connections help in opening doors.
The best example of this is the US university system. It is one of the few things that based on my experience, we have the best university system. It's not perfect but it's better than anything else I have seen in Asia and Europe. Look at who make up the faculty at the "better" schools, particularly in fields like science and engineering. You will find that it is a virtual hodge-podge of people from all over the world. Yes, of course, some of them got there through connections, or good looks or whatever. But on the whole, it's best on merit (in contrast to party membership etc. etc.).
Here is my personal, unofficial ranking of meritocracy indicator for admission to undergraduate college (and to some extent faculty):
Caltech (39% Asian-American, 11 % foreign students)
Harvard- a little different because Harvard looks for "diverse" meritocracy not necessarily purely academic. See "Harvard beats Yale: 29-29", a wonderful film about a football game that really shows the difference between Harvard and Yale. Of course, Phil and I being both Harvard grad, we are both biased!!
These last two are pretty bad although Yale is trying to change because they realize now that they can't compete in the natural sciences/engineering without admitting more Asian students. These impressions are totally unscientific based on interviews with faculty, alumni, students, prospective students, conversations with university administrators etc. etc. Take it with a grain of salt.
Please read real science for scientists and not some popular science that handpicks headlines. Your comments indicate (to me) that you don't quite understand basic physics and basic engineering concepts. I think you've overdosed on popular science without understanding where facts end and wishful thinking starts. I'm sure we both have better things to do to help humanity in the mean time.
Let's just agree to disagree and move on. We are both wasting our time.
Amen. Yang and Lee has nothing to do with energy sources. I am sorry that I wasted my time arguing with someone who doesn't understand basic, basic physics.
MRW: Have you studied physics at higher levels or are you simply quoting "layman's" programs. Although I don't have a PhD in physics, I have studied physics at Caltech in Feynman's presence. The work for which Feynman, Tomonaga, and Schwinger received their Nobel Prize was primarily done around 1948. Here is a quote from Feynman himself in his book "Quantum Electrodynamics--The Strange Theory of light and matter":
"Well, this problem of how to calculate things in quantum electrodynamics was straightened out by Julian Schwinger, Shin-Itiro Tomonaga, and myself in about 1948. Schwinger was the first to calculate this correction using a new "shellgame"; his theoretical value was around 1.00116, which was close enough to the experimental number to show that we were on the right track. At last, we had a quantum theory of electricity and magnetism with which we could calculate!"
Their contribution solved the problems posed earlier in 1929 that dealt with electron's interaction with light. When Dirac later introduced the relativistic theory, the magnetic moment of the electron gave the physicists some headache. This is where the new QED came in for which Feynman' Nobel Prize was given. I haven't done physics in several decades but this is my understanding of their contribution. It has virtually nothing to do with Yang and Lee's contribution to violation of asymmetry which of course is a monumental work. In fact, the Nobel Prizes given 2 or 3 years ago to Nambu and others also has to do with the violation of symmetry laws. Having said all this, this has nothing to do with Palestine-Israel or even Amy Chua's book. What I suggest is read about QED and its origins even if you don't understand the math (I have a hard time with some of the matrix analyses and tensor analyses and I had four years of Caltech math beyond calculus). I don't know how good you are in math but most of the books by Feynman including his famous three volume physics text is readable if you had some differential equations courses (the only reason that I can do them is because two of my sons are now majoring in physics and I try to keep up with them).
While I am Richard Feynman, here is my favorite quote of his on the same subject:
--There is no such thing as a Jewish baby or a Muslim baby. A child is born into a Jewish family or a Muslim family and subsequently becomes Jewish or Muslim (Richard P. Feynman).
Feynman's work for which he received the Nobel Prize, shared with Shinichiro Tomonaga and Julian Schwinger is for his contribution to quantum electrodynamics which he did in the 1940's and early 1950's. Chen-Ning Yang and Tsun Dao Lee's work on the violation of the symmetry laws though important is not directly related to his work any more than many other work. As for the thesis more relevant to Amy Chua's book and about racial disparity in productivity: Feynman says in a letter written on Feb. 7, 1967: "It is the combination of characteristics of the culture of any father and his father plus the learning and ideas and influences of people of all races and backgrounds which make me what I am, good or bad. I appreciate the valuable (and the negative) elements of my background but I feel it to be bad taste and an insult to other peoples to call attention in any direct way to that one element in my composition." "Therefore you see at thirteen I was not only converted to other religious views but I also stopped believing that the Jewish people are in any way "the chosen people".
Amy Chua is a hard-working, not brilliant academic. Graduating from Harvard cum laude is no guarantee for brilliance. Being an Asian women pursuing legal profession, it's possible that she was a member of the under-represented minority getting into Harvard Law. She didn't make it to the Law Review. She didn't make it to being a partner at Cleary, Gottlieb (at least not obvious, left after 5 years). She goes to Duke, meets her future husband who is bright. Gets a job at Yale through family connection. There is nothing in her biography that suggests brilliance. Her husband on the other hand was a summa at Princeton and a start at Law School and an academic superstar. He is definitely smarter than she is, intellectually-speaking. Amy Chua's approach can be summarized as mediocre mother's recipe for creating mediocre, successful people. Some profs at Yale are bright, most are not so bright, and some don't belong there.
As for Jewish brilliance, I always chuckle. Read comments by Richard Feynman on this topic in "Perfectly normal deviations". In short, if they are so brilliant, where were they before the last 150 years other than possibly Spinoza? Anyone ascribing superior intelligence to any race is walking towards a very slippery slope--be careful--reiterated by Feynman himself.
Here is my "gut" reaction:
1. I respect those people on the ship for their commitment.
2. On the other hand, I can't help but feel that after all the "hoopla" of "not all Jews support Israeli policy" and the presumed oversubscription to this effort, there are basically 4 passengers (three crewmen and two journalists excluded).
3. Something doesn't make sense if this is supposed to send a message that of the millions of Jews in the world there are those who disagree with the current Israeli policy. I would have concluded the opposite: That most Jews support Israel or at least don't care about the plight of the Palestinians (I'm being somewhat facetious but the numbers don't communicate a more optimistic narrative).
4. Very disappointing despite the efforts of the principals involved.
It wasn't a criticism. Bottom line--I give very little, if any, credence to J Street as being helpful to Palestinian causes. As for Michael Oren, I don't even pay attention to him (his boss is Lieberman). As such, whatever these two entities do is of no consequence to the general trend regarding Israel.
It is absolutely mind-boggling to me that the disparity of assessment of J Street and Michael Oren is so wide. Truthfully, it is hard for me to believe that the people who are making the above comments are actually reading Mondoweiss. I realize more than ever than the gulf between supporters of Zionist Israel (the entire spectrum, not just AIPAC) and the rest of us are. It is, after all, quite scary.
It amazes me how different your assessment is from mine.
Michael Oren's immediate boss is Avigdor Lieberman. As such, his job depends on Lieberman and Lieberman alone.
I think J Street is doomed. Anyone who has studied their pronouncements and read their position papers would realize that it is Zionist in nature. Perhaps, slightly more adpated than AIPAC but that doesn't say much. The fundamental flaw in its approach is that it cherry picks which international laws and human rights laws it wants to respect. It's basic approach is "Let Israel keep what it wants for peace whether they are legitimate or not, perhaps with a token 'sacrifice' to look good." It may appeal to supporters of Israel who feel uncomfortable or ashamed of supporting AIPAC outright. J Street leads to nowhere as far as Palestinians are concerned.
This article reminded me of a nagging question that I have not been able to answer for a while, especially since the Cordova Center hoopla. Perhaps, some people on this site can shed some light.
What is being preached by the rabbis at synagogues in America? I'm aware that there is a wide spectrum but what does a typical orthodox, conservative, reformed synagogue-attending Jewish person here from the rabbis? I don't have the slightest idea since the two times I have been to synagogues were both for Bar Mitzfah.
Great article on the underlying theme of what is going on. What I have the hardest time understanding is where are the religious leaders--Catholic bishops, Protestant ministers, and rabbis, in addition to imams? Where are the leaders of various minority/ethnic organizations? It is rather pathetic that we all cling on to the words of Michael Bloomberg, Jon Stuwart and Barak Obama. This is a classic case of the "squeaky wheel" getting the largest attention syndrome. Facts, common sense, and legality make no difference. Constitution and laws don't mean anything unless they are enforced. Courage is becoming an increasingly rare commodity in America. Courage is becoming the "limiting" factor in making any progress.
Read the book.
I strongly suggest you read Shlomo Sand's "Invention of the Jewish People". In fact, it should be a mandatory reading, given your comments above.
Given the fact that Israel functionally occupies and controls all the land from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean and virtual parity of population between Jews and Arabs, future is bleak for a Jewish (democratic) state. Furthermore, Israel is very unusual in that Jews from all over the world has automatic right of return while Palestinians don't. It is simply my opinion that it is simply a question of time that the demographics will overwhelm the Jews in Israel/Palestine. Ethnic cleansing that Israel has been attempting since the 1940's hasn't worked well enough. There is very little chance of success in the future. This is simply common sense looking at data. Like it or not, the two state solution is dead and there is no way of "kicking" out the Israeli Arabs in any significant number. THAT cannot be done.
What is acceptable appears to change with time. When I went to college, woman were not even allowed to apply till the following year at Caltech. No one seemed to complain much. 150 years ago, we had legalized slavery in the US. As I wrote earlier, the Potsdam Conference in July, 1945 specifically endorsed all ethnic Germans to be deported back to Germany proper. Some of these deported people were descendants of immigrants to Russia from 4-500 years ago. The world didn't seem to mind much then. Times have changed (thankfully). No large-scale ethnic cleansing is possible and certainly will not be condoned by the world. This is no longer an acceptable solution (I'm not discussing morality here, just what is practiable).
I think the more acceptable conclusion and way to move forward is that ethnically homogeneous nation-states is increasingly anachronistic. EU is moving towards the model of limited sovereignty while most "advanced" countries are increasingly multi-ethnic. One only needs to walk down the streets of New York, London, Paris, or even Tokyo. Yes, there will always be friction between the majority and minority populations but ethnicity-based states can no longer be maintained due to advances in global transportation and communication systems. This is irreversible.
The pressure will come from EU. Even for China, there was enormous pressure from increasing trade ties between Europe and China, long before US involvement. Nixon had to contain Soviet Union and to end the Vietnam War quickly and that is why there was urgency. American policy will be the last to wake up as far as Israel is concerned.
US has military presence in 120 countries although none of them would consider themselves as being occupied, other than Iraq and Afghanistan. As America becomes financially broke, we will have to shrink this massive global presence. In reality, it is currently being funded by loans from China anyway.
Romania is a member of NATO since 2004. Attacking Iran from Romania will mean NATO attacking Iran. I don't think that is likely although anything is possible.
This has been worked on by a group of very organized and smart people for many years (mainly students at Harvard). They told me earlier in the year that it would probably take 2-3 years but I guess they were more successful than they thought. Also, note that the Chief Investment Officer has changed over the last year. The previous one was an Egyptian-American so he would have been accused of bias. Also, Lawrence Summers, who had publicly denied doing any divestment has been gone for 3 years now. See if this holds, though.
Off-topic but important:
Today, August 15, is the end of WWII. On this day, the Japanese emperor announced over the radio that Japan has agreed to unconditional surrender. The War killed about 100 million people worldwide. Colonies became independent, the Cold War started, and the seeds of the Palestinian and Kashmir problems were sewn. We have made very little progress, in some way.
Kashmiris were promised plebiscite, back in 1947 to determine their future. The voting never took place. Stone-throwing grabs attention and in that sense it's worthwhile.
White Ribbon is an outstanding movie. One of the best modern movies to be made. Most of the children depicted in the movie are of the same age (within 10 years) of my wife's paternal grandparents' era, in the similar region. One really sees how it must have been like for some of her ancestors' world.
Ugetsu, Sansho the Bailiff, Life of Oharu, and Red Light District (all Mizoguchi)
Flowing, Floating Clouds, "Daughter, Wife, Mother" (all Naruse)
Personally, one of my favorite all-time favorite Japanese movie is "Kinkakuji or Conflagration" by Kon Ichikawa. Absolutely, the most incisive movie I have seen about "beauty" and "the human condition".
It wasn't by choice that Kurosawa primarily made movies centering on men. He himself said that movies about women were already so dominated by Kenji Mizoguchi and Mikio Naruse that there was no room for a third movie director. Mizoguchi and Naruse movies are, in many ways, even better than Kurosawa. Jean-Luc Goddard said about films: It's Mizoguchi, Mizoguchi, and Mizoguchi". Kurosawa has a great "woman" movie called "No Regrets for Our Youth", 1946.
I have most of Mizoguchi, Naruse, and Kurosawa DVD's though not subtitled if you want to borrow from me. Many however are also available from the Criterion Collection.
First the Goldstone Report, now the details of the Mavi Marmara. Next the Viva Palestina 5 Convoy with participation from IHH and others to start September 18 and enter Gaza via Rafah crossing on or about October 10. This convoy will travel by boat from Latakia (Syria) to Al Arish (Egypt then to Gaza. Note: I am predicting that Judge Richard Goldstone will receive this year's Nobel Peace Prize which will be announced on October 8--Perfect Timing!!!
Israel can't hide anymore.
My gut feeling is that Israel will not attack Iran anytime soon. Israel usually starts a war while universities are on vacation. That only leaves only 3-4 weeks max. UN General Assembly starts in mid-September and goes for a week. So, the earliest is end of September to November election.
The most likely if it happens would be BEFORE November election to hit when Obama is most vulnerable. However, the IDF barely has a chief. Ehud Barak has little support. Together with US military completely saddled with two wars--the US military would be dead against any Israeli or US attack. An attack on Iran would be minimally successful to stop enrichment and Israel will virtually have the entire world against it. In the long run, such a move will hasten the demise of Israel.
Your note doesn't make sense.
I appreciate your comments. Of course, there are good and bad historians. Like most other things, one can pick and choose "facts" and synthesize them into whatever that fits his/her thesis. I usually throw down a book as useless propaganda at a bookstore if it is endorsed on the backcover by William Kristol, Martin Indyk, Henry Kissinger, Dennis Ross, Martin Kramer, Daniel Pipes, and the like. Those history books are worse than useless, unless one wants to study the successors to Dr. Joseph Goebbels.
It is actually quite interesting to reflect on how Tony Judt influenced people. He didn't write that books on Israel-Palestine like Said or Chomsky. He didn't go around lecturing all that much about Israel-Palestine either. In fact, I personally can only think of two books he wrote that really were for general readership---Postwar and Reappraisals. So, while I was profoundly influenced by his courage and intellectual leadership, I wonder how wide his reach was beyond the community of "intellectuals" who read NYRB or TNR? This is not a criticism as I am a great fan of Tony Judt. I wonder how many people knew of Tony Judt beyond the NY, Boston, Berkeley, Oxbridge circles? Just curious.
Well put. I have often quoted these famous words from Arthur Koestler myself.
You don't seem to get it. Universal values trumps "tribal" values. Haven't you heard of such things as all people are equal and have equal human rights? You are still in the realms of "All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others". Won't fly anymore.
You know physics!!! Great. curl E = -(1/c)(dB/dt)
Judt may have been Jewish by birth and early life and some of his writings. However, the message he communicated was universalist and he was most humanist of us all. Like Edward Said before him, he was the center of the universalist humanist world independent of religious or ethnic identity. (I doubt he hung around talking to Jewish groups much). To me, this is very important-just like Richard Feynman, my physics teacher was, amongst the giants of the previous generation. When are we going to have our primary identity as a universalist humanist first and ethnicity second (or third, or last?)
If anyone is interested in working with me to organize a get-together centered on Tony Judt to discuss his life, work, and influence, please let me know via email: [email protected].
It will probably have to be in October or November but I am very interested in continuing his legacy, even in a small way. It will take place in NYC.
Tony Judt was wise AND courageous. I never got to know him personally but I read three of his books: Postwar, Reappraisals, and The Burden of Responsibility. All three books profoundly influenced me, especially the first two of these books. In fact, I'm reading Postwar(for the fourth time right now). To me, what distinguished Tony Judt from many others whom I respect is his courage, a remarkably rare attribute these days. He is in my personal pantheon of "greats" with Chomsky, Said, Carter, and Hass.
Phil, perhaps you are doing your job as a media person here. Giving speeches is not necessarily leading. What I perceive based on the various efforts I have been involved in (Viva Palestina 5 being the most current one), the biggest divide is secular versus religious. When I see an imam working with left-wing labor person and playing a leadership role (not just giving speeches), then time has truly come. Bridging this secular versus religious gap is the true challenge going forward, in my opinion.
I use the following indicator for self-assessment on some of the points you raise. To me, how much one's identity is tied to his/her ethnicity is to look a the circle of friends they hang around with. Not colleagues because that is not necessarily a voluntary group. The good thing about this is that it is objective.
As for "Jewishness" of East coast elites, the most illuminating reading I have had is the book by my physics professor, Richard Feynman. Read his "Perfectly Reasonable Deviations from the Beaten Track", particularly his letter to an editor, Tina Levitan, starting on page 235.
Hamas figures don't drink wine or alcohol. Is it possible that you have never experienced a Muslim hospitality--a la "chai" and sweets? Do you have any Muslim friends who can help you understand the basics of a daily Muslim life? Perhaps a little homework, really at a grade school level of understanding Islam would help you.
The ones who were active are generally secular left Jews. These are the equivalent to the many who were very left in Europe prior to 1940's. The number of Jewish people involved in these movements are very small compared to the vast, vast majority of others. Read some history of Asia, particularly that of the British Empire and the role whites played (including Jews). On the side of oppressed? (Perhaps you might want to read the history of the Sasoon family and their role in opium trade). Sorry, no better no worse than anyone else. Remember that the world is a very large place. America is not the whole world. American Jews are not all Jews of the world.
If as you say there is a strong Jewish heritage of siding with the oppressed, I find very little of this in reality. Yes, there are a few who can see the injustices done to the Palestinians. But, where are the vast, vast majority of these people with strong heritage to side with the oppressed--millions and millions of them just in US alone. Are you sure, you are not sticking to the "ideal" heritage just like the "good" Catholics, who in reality are hardly in existence? Sorry, the people who have been oppressed would disagree with you.
Well, as I pointed out in my original commentary, the putative advantage of Jewish participation in pro-Palestinian activities or anti-Israel activities is that they are relatively protected from the accusation of anti-Semitism. This argument is increasingly unimportant as the Zionists started labeling people like Jimmy Carter as anti-Semitic, which did not hold water. As Adam Shapiro commented back in February in Brooklyn, the anti-Israel being synonymous with anti-Semitic no longer sticks and is not taken seriously unless one is a politician or a celebrity.
My opinion is that the vast majority of people in the world who are critical about Israeli policy gives very little increased weight to Jewish participation. Perhaps the American media does because it makes a more photogenic cover. It's the syndrome that Roger Cohen pointed out in an op-ed about a week ago in NYT. As I have written elsewhere it's the same syndrome as one Gilad Shalit equals 7,900 Palestinian political prisoners. It's the same reason why I know Hedy Epstein and Emily Heneshowitz's names while I barely can remember anyone else's. Of course, it's a lot harder to remember an Arabic or a Turkish name but as Orwell wrote: All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others.
Maybe it's historic. To be frank, I am not knowledgeable enough on German Jews today to know. I do know however that non-Jewish Germans are terrified of being labeled anti-Semitic from first-hand (family) experience.
Let me tell you what I observed very recently to illustrate the point.
I recently attended a private reception for the brave executive director of B'Tselm. I respect their work greatly. However, when I realized that the largest contingent in the reception was J Street, it really annoyed me. I agree J Street is an improvement on AIPAC but that's about all I can say. They certainly are still Zionist and racist. I really wondered who really supports B'Tselm. Where are the non-Jewish supporters? Is there a divide? The event was not exclusively Jewish for the record. However, I felt weird just like I felt weird reading Lillian Rosengarten's note here. Perhaps it's very important for the enlightened "Jewish" supporter of Palestinian rights to identify themselves as such. I do not know. Reminds me of Tariq Ramadan's criticism of Bernard Henri-Levy: BHL and others of his ilk are all for universal truths except when it comes to Israel. To me, why even distinguish them. Perhaps their intentions are good but as an outsider ethnic distinction is a tricky slope to traverse. Perhaps it's good for better media coverage--that may count for something. I prefer to remain a universal humanist with no ethnic, racial, or religious identification.
I'm not implying whatsoever about Mondoweiss. I know Phil personally and my above comment had nothing to do with the nature of the site. In fact, Phil and Adam specifically state that Mondoweiss does have a "progressive Jewish" viewpoint, though not exclusively. There is no problem with that. My point was about the flotilla designation. Specifically, Lillian Rosengarten's note.
In Germany, it is true that it is more difficult to criticize Israel because there is a stigma of the past and the easy confusion with anti-Semitism. So, a German Jewish boat, in some ways, circumvents this potential criticism. However, there is absolutely no "a priori" reason why she couldn't have joined any of the other flotillas. I think such distinctions distract from the badly needed united front. Can you imagine me starting a group called Chinese-Japanese American physician boat for Gaza? A boat for Gaza would welcome a more diverse group of people, I think.
Sorry, I don't get the point of your reply. My note is primarily focused on Jewish versus non-Jewish efforts, and why the distinction.
It's a weird reaction I had to this article. It took the deaths of 9 Turkish citizens to get the worldwide attention to the plight of Gazans. Mavi Marmara had passengers from many, many countries. Why is there so much emphasis on a Jewish boat? Isn't this a humanitarian mission?
I'm glad that there are all kinds of people against Israel's cruel policy? Are we still being afraid of being labeled anti-Semitic by criticizing Israel? Those days are gone for all practical purposes.
I just don't get it. I don't particularly care what ethnic or religious groups are for justice. I thought the whole point of the Gaza missions was that the whole world is against this Israel cruelty regardless of race, religion, etc. etc.
ADL, AIPAC, Simon Wiesenthal Center, J Street, etc. etc.
To me, they all function under the functional principle of:
" All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others".
Fundamental philosophy behind them is racist, by definition.
Personally, as long as Jewish/Zionist Israel exists in Palestine, there will be no peace. I simply do not see the Jewish Israelis giving up much until they are forced to or taken away. Resettling of refugees somewhere else is not the issue. If that were the case, it could have been done decades ago.
I, for one, would not want, a penny of my US tax dollars to foot the bill for settling Jewish Israeli debts due to its atrocities. The people who should foot that bill is Israel and its Zionist supporters worldwide. I have not doubt that even 500 billion is not enough to cover the cost of damage Israel has done to US alone. Just think of war against terror, all the security measures we do because of US support of Israel, etc. etc. Sorry, Israel and its supporters will be expected to pay the price--otherwise, it will come back with vengeance.
Right of Return belongs to the individual and not to the State. In other words, Abbas can't simply declare how each refugee or his/her descendants be compensated. One has to start with the premise that real estate, personal property, etc. have to be returned in their entirety to the Arab owners. In the case of irreversible destruction, ie, land bacame part of a major highway, compensation in monetary terms adjusted for inflation and another land equivalent in Israel should be provided. Full reclamation is absolutely essential as a fundamental principle because that is what they deserve. If specific individuals wants to make a "deal", that is an individual matter. This would have to be administered by an agency that is not Jewish/Zionists.
Can it be done? Of course, it can be done. Even Communist China is currently in the process of returning titles to illegally confiscated property rights when it ousted millions of Nationalist Chinese in 1949. In some cases, a plot of farmland in Shanghai is fetching couple hundred thousand times more in nominal value and this is what is being returned to the rightful owners.
Putting into practice the Right of Return is an essential requirement to the future of Palestine that is Just and Peaceful.
Of course, there is the issue of "royalty/rent" compensation while the refugees were out in addition to the "emotional/traumatic" damage. I'm sure the legal profession will come up with some scheme but I don't think that is guaranteed by the UN Right of Return resolutions.
I'm just a friend of Phil and Adam.
Most patients with cretinism I have encountered are initially suspected by either the parents or through laboratory tests in developed countries. For examples of what the physical characteristics of cretinism looks like, just go to Google search. There are enough photos to suggest consistent physical features that I was alluding to.
As for international laws, conventions etc., a good place to start would be "The Israel-Arab Reader"--A Documentary History of the Middle East Conflict--edited by Walter Laqueur and Barry Rubin. Another excellent source is Victor Kattan's recent book called "From Coexistence to Conquest"--International Law and the Origins of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, 1891-1949. For more recent references, I suggest any of the excellent work by Richard Falk. Other references that are extremely useful in this context are The Goldstone Report, which is meticulously referenced. And finally, not as famous as an author but nonetheless, outstanding reading on International Laws in this context is "Obstacles to Peace" by Jeff Halper. And one more mini-book as far as land policy is concerned, I found Ben White's "Israeli Apartheid" to be one of the best, yet concise reference .
Read all these books, study them, and if you have specific issues--not the usual propaganda by the Lawfare Project, Wiesenthal Center, or the Reut Institute and the likes, I'd be glad to consider them.
Thanks for advice. I can't tell if Mr. Witty is a cretin or not. That diagnosis requires an assessment of physical appearance. As for whether the neurons in his brains are connected properly or not, that would require either a biopsy or autopsy, neither of which is practical (Mr. Witty, I'm just writing tongue in cheek, lighten up!!!)
By the way, your name "Shingo" sounds like a Japanese word--can mean "traffic lights" or just a male name-meaning "truth".
I don't know about you but Finkelstein is just one of hundreds of books I read and studied. I've spent more time with Colin Powell or Edward Said than Finkelstein. Some other authors I mention, I've spent probably couple hundred more times. So, it's all in your mind what proportion of my thinking is Finkelstein or not.Your neurons in your brain don't appear to be connected properly. You also don't seem to have any sense of humor. Annie is right--it will be quite unusual for a person to have read everything about the Lawfare Project, Goldstone Report, and sat on boards of human rights organizations and Middle East Study institutions, who has never heard of Finkelstein. I don't get your "obsession" with Finkelstein. He is currently enjoying the beautiful weather in the Bekaa Valley, in case you really want to know what he is up to.
No one is forcing anything. It's quite simple. Zionists wants to take it all. There is a thing called Right of Self-Determination. When all the refugees return to Israel proper or even earlier, there will be more Palestinians than Jews. Aside from this silly aliyah business of 2000+ years God-given right of return of Jews which is by very definition, outright racism that has produced the current Jewish population in Israel, indigenous people will simply re-assert their basic rights that is part of the UN Charter.
As for the fate of Jews currently living in the region, I assume that secular ones and non-racist/Zionist ones will probably stay. The militant settlement types of Zionists, after their eventual defeat would have a harder time adjusting to the new truly democratic secular state. They probably don't belong anywhere in any co-existence modern society like any other extremist/racist groups. Perhaps they might want to migrate to mountainous regions of Idaho where there are lots of white supremacists or somewhere in Siberia which the terrible Stalin once tried. Perhaps in the tundras, their chances of harming the world will be minimized though not eliminated. (before some of you get all upset about calling me an anti-Semite or supporting ethnic cleansing), please contemplate how the Hebron settlers can possibly co-exist in secular Palestine--I don't think they can nor would they want to. Same goes for Danny Ayalon, Mark Regev, Avigdor Lieberman etc. etc. They will go to Russia, New Zealand, South Africa or somewhere like that.
Oh, also Norman Finkelstein. I was just responding to Witty's ad hominem attack.
Let's see, on Palestine/Israel, I've read most books on this topic written by:
It's very simple. Take the case of Gilad Shalit. For one poor Israeli soldier, there are at least 7,900 Palestinian political prisoners in Israel. We hear more about Shalit in the US than 7,900 all combined. As Roger Cohen wrote a few days ago in the NYT op-ed recently, victims religion, race, and ethnic origin is what determines how much a human life is worth, at least in the US media. Obama has uttered not a single word about Furkan Dogan, the Turkish-American victim on Mavi Marmara, executed by Israeli military in international waters.
So, we agree to disagree. That is OK with me. I think there is a huge difference between inheriting a constitutional monarchy is quite different from instituting one with one religion as special. Yes, of course, there are many countries that have this model right now. However, given the atrocious history of Israeli abuse towards the indigenous people and the fact that pretty soon, the Muslims will outnumber the Jews, it's a non-starter. Remember that most, if not all, Zionists are not indigenous people. In the context of 2,000 years of historical span, the concept of indigenous is impossible to define as MASSIVE migrations of people have happened long before the concept of nationalism was even contemplated. My thesis is very concrete: Jewish Israel has absolutely no long-term future, and the transition will be quick and relatively non-violent.
So, isn't there anyone around here who can defend J Street's position cogently? So far, other than ad hominem attacks on me and some Lawfare Project-sounding criticisms of international laws, there hasn't been much to defend J Street. Seems to me that those advocating Two State solution (Israel, US, EU, Palestinian Authority) are increasingly on the losing side of history. When Edward Said and Ali Abuminah started mentioning the One State solution, I barely heard open discussions in the US. Pretty soon, only Zionists and Zionists-dependent or heavily-influenced governments will support the Two State solution. By the way, anyone really believe that Yahweh spoke personally to Abraham and Moses? Of the billions of stars among billions of galaxies, did a personal and anthropomorphic God paid attention to shepherds and tribal chieftains in the Fertile Crescent? Oh, by the way, it wasn't even recorded for another 500-1000 years in Babylonian prisons. Somehow, I find it pretty flimsy as basis for Chosen People and Jewish Right of Return.
Who is Finkelstein?
Do you work for the Lawfare Project?
How about having Islam instead of Judaism for Israel since pretty soon there will be more Muslims? Why Judaism when it's not the religion of the indigenous people? In the long run, Jewishness as being somehow "special" in the context of Israel/Palestine will have to disappear because too much abuses have been done in the name of Jewishness/Zionism. As a purely religious/cultural notion, I don't think people care, but as a nationalism concept, it would have to go. There is too much association with war crimes, cruelty to Palestinians that are in the public domain. Just like Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany, Zionist Israel is an anachronism. It's nineteen century political philosophy, realized in the twentieth century, and dead in the 21st century. Like Colonialism, Nazism, and Totalitarian Communism, its days are numbered as the non-Western world becomes more and more influential.
Your suggestion sounds like George Orwell's Animal Farm:
"All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others"
I think there is zero chance that the Palestinians who already outnumber Jews in the land between Jordan and the Sea would accept anything like you propose. I think at this point in history, anything less than one-person/one vote, complete right of return, and separation of religion and state (for all religions) is acceptable in the long run.
Among the many absurdities regarding Israel, two stand out as relatively unique. First, the concept that the diaspora Jews are eligible to become Israeli citizens in contrast to how it treats people of Palestinian descent everywhere in the world. Second, most Zionists (in America) I know and Jewish Americans I come across are not in any sense fervent believers. It is one of the most striking difference I observe between Muslims and Jews here. It is really a contrast of religious versus secular populations. Yes, of course, there are religious Zionists--most cling to the Land, more than God (much more of kingdom on earth than of heaven, not really powerful as a religious theme).
It 's not weird at all. There is a spectrum of American Zionists as well as Jewish pro-Palestinian viewpoints. It ranges from one-person/one vote and full right-of -return (end of Jewish Israel) to those who will ONLY be against outright occupation of West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza. Many in the latter group still cling to the idea that somehow the Jewish Israel can sustain itself by giving full citizenship to Israeli Arabs but have the refugees return to "West Bank". Bottom line is that being against the Occupation is easier to swallow for many liberal Jewish Americans but when it comes to the complete disappearance of the Jewishness of Israel, either they feel uncomfortable (to say it in public) or have really never cogitated on the implication. Almost all non-activists liberal Jews I have talked to, belong in this latter group.
I agree with Phil. This is important. When a lot of my fellow pro-Palestinian activists were all excited about J Street, I studied most of the information J Street has published. Glaring in absence was any reference to international laws and resolutions/judgments from international organization. Basically, to me, J Street, was to keep everything Israel has stolen so far with a token gesture of good will to appease the Palestinians. It's too little, too late. Only Zionists (including soft-Zionists) will support them.
It's actually taken from a book called:
"Perfectly Reasonable Deviations (from the beaten track)" by Richard P. Feynman, edited by his daughter, Michelle Feynman, 2005. pp235-6. Published in 2005. The whole book is based on the letters by Feynman that are kept in the Caltech Archives.
There are so many unbelievably well-written letters in this book. It's worth reading the whole thing.
My Physics Teacher at Caltech, Richard P. Feynman (Nobel Laureate) wrote on February 7, 1967:
Dear Miss Levitan (author of Jewish Winners of the Nobel Prize):
In your letter you express the theory that people of Jewish origin have inherited their valuable hereditary elements from their people. It is quite certain that many things are inherited but it is evil and dangerous to maintain, in these days of little knowledge of these matters, that there is a true Jewish race or specific Jewish hereditary character. Many races as well as cultural influences of men of all kinds have mixed into any man. To select, for approbation the peculiar elements that come from some supposedly Jewish heredity is to open the door to all kinds of nonsense on racial theory.
Such theoretical views were used by Hitler. Surely you cannot maintain on the one hand that certain valuable elements can be inherited from the "Jewish people," and deny that other elements which other people may find annoying or worse are NOT inherited by these same "people". Nor could you then deny that elements that others would consider valuable could be the main virtue of an "Aryan" inheritance.
It is the lesson of the last war not to think of people as having special inherited attributes simply because they are born from particular parents, but to try to teach these "valuable" elements to all men because all men can learn, no matter what their race.
It is the combination of characteristics of the culture of any father and his father plus the learning and ideas and influences of people of all races and backgrounds which make me what I am, good or bad. I appreciate the valuable (and the negative) elements of my background but I feel it to be bad taste and an INSULT to other peoples to call attention in any direct way to that one element in my composition.
At almost thirteen I dropped out of Sunday school just before confirmation because of differences in religious views but mainly because I suddenly saw that the picture of Jewish history that we were learning, of a marvelous and talented people surrounded by dull and evil strangers was far from the truth. The error of anti-Semitism is not that the Jews are not really bad after all, but that evil, stupidity and grossness is not a monopoly of the Jewish people but a universal characteristic of mankind in general. Most non-Jewish people in America today have understood that. The error of pro-Semitism is not that the Jewish people or Jewish heritage is not really good, but rather the error is that intelligence, good will, and kindness is not thank God, a monopoly of the Jewish people but a universal characteristic of mankind in general.
Therefore you see at thirteen I was not only converted to other religious views but I also stopped believing that the Jewish people are in any way "the chosen people." This is my other reason for requesting not to be included in your work. I am expecting that you will respect my wishes. Richard P. Feynmann. Caltech, 1967.
(NOTE: This is why RPF remains my scientific and personal hero, Dennis Y. Loh, BS -Caltech-1973)
Scary thing is: Dean of Columbia Law School is on her side!!! He chaired a session at the previous Lawfare conference which I think Phil attended.
I think the main difference was that Massad probably had better lawyers AND some very powerful allies, including some very wealthy people, wealthy enough that Pres. Lee Bollinger would visit his/her offices instead of the other way around!!!
What are you talking about? I thought we were discussing Hertz's behavior and what the University did or did not do. Or, are you simply suggesting or insinuating about Joseph Massad. The charges you make like prejudicially grading students are serious accusations. Please provide evidence and result of any abjudication. Otherwise, stop smearing people.
I plan to ask Hertz directly on Monday at the Campus Media Watch conference. Phil, do you want to join me?
Here is an event that CAMPUS MEDIA WATCH itself is sponsoring. I am going with some friends to "participate". If you are free Monday night, come and join us at Columbia. (Dennis Y. Loh, MD)
Campus Media Watch presents: ?Relativism and Reporting on the Arab-Israeli
Conflict?, a conference and panel discussion featuring perspectives from the
media, academia and activism, with:
- Dr. Joshua Teitelbaum, PhD, from Stanford University and a Senior Research
Fellow at the Moshe Dayan Center for Middle Eastern Studies at Tel Aviv
- Dexter Van Zile, the Christian Media Analyst for the Committee for
Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America
- Gershom Gorenberg, Israeli historian journalist and blogger, specializing
in Middle Eastern politics and the intersection of religion and politics
- Charney Bromberg, activist who worked for the Congress of Racial Equality
for three years and today is executive director of the non-profit Meretz USA
for Israeli Civil Rights and Peace
Moderated by: Irwin Mansdorf, PhD, a Diplomat of the American Board of
Forensic Examiners, a licensed psychologist in Israel and the USA, and
coordinator of the Israel Citizens Information Council in Raanana, Israel
In addition to having these four speakers offering their perspectives on the
topic for about twenty minutes each, we will have a question-answer period,
followed by a presentation put on by our executive board. There will also
be free dinner provided for all who attend!
Monday, May 3rd, 2010 from 6:30 - 9:00 pm in Earl Hall
What do you mean by "universal democracy (though only selectively)" ?
I think the only viable long-term solution is one person/one vote, respect for human rights and international laws, and separation of religion and state for Israel/Palestine.
In the multipolar world, it will look like EU and US. Turkey is slowly starting to move in that direction with Lebanon and Syria.
Hamas was democratically elected in an election that most consider was fair. Israel is not a state of its citizens, it's a state of Jews. Oh, by the way, most of the world doesn't consider Hamas a terrorist organization, just US, EU, Canada, Australia, Japan and maybe a few others. No, it's not nationalism like Slovakia or the Czech Republic where one person=one vote, even the Romas. Israel is more like the Afrikaner's South Africa. Of course, one has to realize that unfortunately, Europe's relative ethnic homogeneity within countries like Poland, Slovakia, and the Czech Republic owes its origins to Hitler and Stalin. Unfortunately for the Zionists, their ethnic cleansing in 1948 wasn't "complete" enough and missed the "chance". Too late now.
It's quite simple. In 2010, there exist human rights, international laws, and one person/one vote principles. Modern political Zionism is a creation of nineteenth century, enacted in the twentieth century, and dying in the twenty-first century. It's like its counterpart Totalitarian Communist governments. Zionism would have been no worse than most other nineteenth or even twentieth century movements like extreme Nationalism, Colonialism, and even Fascism. But now, it's out of date. It may take a long time to disappear, but it can't secure a stable victory. As the world shifts from US/West dominated to multipolar world, no chance of long-term survival--absolutely zero. And like Apartheid South Africa and Totalitarian Soviet Union, the end will be swifter than any of us can imagine. From an Asian-American nonviolent revolutionary, in training.
Finally, another earthquake from Mearsheimer. He has finally made public what many have realized for a while, discussed in private, but almost never in print. Mearsheimer merely made the general public aware why some Israeli supporters like J Street and the US Government have been pushing so hard for the Two-State Solution. Just like his book "Israel Lobby" allowed the discussion to take place what was once a taboo topic, it is a matter of time that this article will become the new benchmark. Remember that his Israel Lobby book was denied publication in US and had to be first published in the London Review of Books. It is only subsequently that it was published as a full book, in the US. The pattern here will probably be the same. He'll probably publish a full-length, referenced article in something like Foreign Affairs then move on to a full book. The label he used here "The New Afrikaners" will now become part of the vocabulary just as Israel Lobby became a household word. I would have added Elie Wiesel, William Kristol, Marvin Hier, Charles Schumer, Michael Bloomberg, Alan Dershowitz, Martin Kramer, Eric Cantor, to the list of the New Afrikaners.
Comments are closed.