Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 13 (since 2009-12-10 16:09:07)

Mark Braverman

Showing comments 13 - 1
Page:

  • Beinart's chaperone doesn't argue with him
  • '92d St Y' cancels appearance by Palestinian doctor whose 3 daughters were killed after Jewish co-panelist drops out
    • Mark Braverman February 17, 2011 at 8:40 pm with 15 replies

      Thanks for this, Phil. Just when I think I can shrug this kind of thing off as typical for the discourse, something like this happens -- this one really got me.
      I think that this should not end here. You really nailed it in your conversation with her -- but it should not end there. The Y really should have their feet held to the fire about this. It's really sickening and outrageous.
      Letters to the head person there that just plays back your conversation with Greenfield would do just fine.

  • Hostages to Zionism
    • Mark Braverman February 17, 2011 at 8:22 pm

      Which is why we need to be on this, now, and with a focused, intelligent discourse. I too am afraid of anti-Semitism, and am not naive about it. And the longer this orgy of Jewish ethnic nationalism goes on and is supported, the greater the risk. But the Christians that I encounter in the churches, denominational organizations, and ecumenical bodies are not anti-Semitic and are not susceptible to this, and anti-Semites are not steering the ship of American mainstream Christianity, or, for that matter, the evangelical center and left. These are the heads that must prevail.

    • Mark Braverman February 16, 2011 at 5:28 pm

      Many Palestinians I know are not big on Palestinian nationalism. They see it as a response to occupation and ethnic cleansing. They are not wild about the idea of a state. It's just what they see as the solution that's on the table (or was, sort of, not really, but that's another topic).

    • Mark Braverman February 16, 2011 at 5:25 pm

      I agree with your argument, Phil. Here's how I covered that in my book:
      "I am a Jew born at the midpoint of the twentieth century. I don’t need to be lectured about anti-Semitism. Psychically, as a Jew, I have a packed suitcase under my bed and an eye ever watchful for the anti-Semitism present in Western civilization that, under the right conditions, can turn from latent to virulent. But I am unwilling, on the chance that I might someday need a refuge from discrimination or outright physical danger, to support the continued building of a militarized, expansionist state that is doing more today to fuel anti-Semitism than to construct a solution to it.
      But let us grant that anti-Semitism is on the rise on a global basis. Let us even set out that it is deep-seated anti-Jewishness, and not sixty years of dispossession and ethnic cleansing, that is the cause of outbreaks of violence against Israelis by Palestinians. Even if this were all true, is the solution to build a hideous wall that steals land, blocks commerce and agriculture, and cuts families and communities in half? Is the solution to train your sons and daughters to hate and fear an entire people and to order them to invade their cities, villages, and homes, to humiliate and debase them in front of their children, and to terrify those same children and rob them of a future in their own land? Can anyone believe that this is an answer to anti-Semitism?"

    • Mark Braverman February 16, 2011 at 5:14 pm

      Thanks PG, looking forward to meeting you.
      "It was OK" means that it was OK to have crossed that Rubicon, to have committed the sin of comparing the Jews to the Nazis, to have made the "obscene comparison," etc. I had crossed what was, for me, having been reared as I was, that psychological barrier. It turned things around for me. So I meant it was OK for me to have done that, crossed that line. Not that the manipulation was OK. It was not OK. It is not OK.
      So if that was not clear, then I guess I am guilty of having used a rhetorical flourish.

    • Mark Braverman February 16, 2011 at 5:09 pm with 1 replies

      What is wrong with turning our backs on nationalism? Or, better question, what do you mean by that? If by “turning my back” on “nationalism,” you mean rejecting a particular political ideology as catastrophically flawed, then yes, that’s right. It does not mean that I am turning my back on the people who are being disadvantaged by their government’s (and it’s nongovernmental allies, e.g. the Israel Lobby). On the contrary, I am looking out for them, wanting something better for them.

    • Mark Braverman February 16, 2011 at 5:07 pm with 2 replies

      What is wrong with turning our backs on nationalism? Or, better question, what do you mean by that? If by "turning my back" on "nationalism," you mean rejecting a particular political ideology as catastrophically flawed, then yes, that's right. It does not mean that I am turning my back on the people who are being disadvantaged by their government's (and it's nongovernmental allies, e.g. the Israel Lobby). On the contrary, I am looking out for them, wanting something better for them.

    • Mark Braverman February 16, 2011 at 5:02 pm

      Thanks Nima, good to meet you and I will check it out.

      Mark

    • Mark Braverman February 16, 2011 at 5:01 pm with 3 replies

      Chu,

      All it takes is for Israel to continue to do what it's doing, and for our government to continue to support that. It becomes more and more obvious to more and more people how wrong it is, how destructive to Israel itself (if you want to argue that way), and how detrimental to US interests (if you want to argue that way, and I think we have to argue all those ways). I see people changing all the time. It will take a lot more people, however, and an organized effort at the grassroots to bring this into the political process. I am focussing increasingly on the American church -- ecumenically, that means evangelicals as well, and they are not a monolith and powerful pastors, important academics, and lay leaders are on board, and that will be a tipping point -- to provide the spiritual and human energy to power this movement to scale the monumental political barriers to changing US policy on Israel. It's a big job -- but it's happening. As Christians get over their reluctance to (or terror of) saying anything that could be perceived as anti-Israel (which thanks to the State of Israel and its institutional partners here is almost universally seen as anti-Semitic), this movement will continue to pick up momentum.

      Mark

  • Arizona State University students protest IDF speaker
    • Mark Braverman November 16, 2010 at 5:28 pm

      These protests need to happen whenever and wherever these Israeli PR events occur. And they are powerful. But I have some questions about method, chief among them: do they provide enough context for the audience, which is, presumably not only the youtube watcher but the onlookers on campus? From this video, it seems to me that there is not much context. For example the signs on the t-shirts: if I am your average undergraduate, I don't know what this means -- who are these children? And the tape over the mouths -- who is being silenced? How? By whom?

      And how about a flyer on occupation 101, history of the conflict, facts on Gaza, Israeli Apartheid, etc. A link to a website or two! Give people somewhere to go with this!

      The video could do a better job also. Photos of bombing of cities and mutilated and dead kids, shown without context, can backfire. Without context there is no credibility. Who is being bombed? Who are these children? Who are these civilians being brutalized by soldiers, and where is this taking place?

  • Presbyterian engagement on Israel/Palestine creates 'new rules' for relationship with the Jewish community
    • Mark Braverman July 22, 2010 at 3:31 pm with 2 replies

      Thanks Mooser and Kylebisme, point taken and I agree completely. I often make the point, and apparently it continues to keep needing to be made, that the "Jewish community" is not a monolith, and continue to call the ADL, Wiesenthal Center and the other "advocacy" groups (not to mention the academics, Jewish as well as Christian, called into service to serve up the intellectual backing for this agenda) on claiming to represent this non-existent consensus. I'll be more careful.

    • Mark Braverman July 22, 2010 at 10:01 am

      I agree, the branding was first rate -- for sure they had some good communications people working for them -- presentation at the GA and before was well done. Re your reference to CMEP, however, I don't think that CMEP took a position on the Presbyterian report but I'm not sure the organization would have been solidly with it, but that's another story. To your other other point, yes, there were quite a few names on the list, including some very prominent pastors and, very prominently represented and leading the charge, Auburn Seminary, which certainly should know better, given its legacy of Walter Wink, a giant in Liberation Theology, who I believe would considered the report having not gone far enough in condemning injustice and demanding resistance!

Showing comments 13 - 1
Page:

Comments are closed.